Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300

How to access HomePage?; and a Main Page history-merge query

• This request was put in Wikipedia:Requests for history merge: "Merge the revisions in the history of HomePage from 2001 into Main Page using Special:MergeHistory. This method is the only one available for this special case because the Main Page cannot be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)". But, although I am an ordinary administrator, I can't do this, because any attempt by me to access HomePage displays Main Page instead, not by ordinary redirecting, but by some automatic process. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HomePage&redirect=no works as normal for me, and I got there from the usual "(Redirected from HomePage)" message after going to HomePage. Maybe something skin-specific is hiding the redirected-from message? —Cryptic 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#HomePage before performing the merge. Pinging User:Graham87 as a courtesy. —Cryptic 04:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @GeoffreyT2000, Anthony Appleyard, and Cryptic: Thanks for the ping. I don't think the history merge should be done because there'd be over a month's gap in the history. Alas, the history that would fill that gap is permanently gone. I wouldn't have even made the import of thathistory from the Nostalgia Wikipedia if it were up to me, but ... what's done is done. Graham87 05:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Cryptic, Graham87, GeoffreyT2000, and PrimeHunter: See discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests and Talk:Main Page#History information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Discussion moved to here from Talk:Main Page#History information :

The 34 oldect edits in page HomePage (the newest is 09:45, 20 December 2001 by Malcolm Farmer), are part of an editing history which is continued as the oldest edit of page Main Page (at 15:28, 26 January 2002 by TwoOneTwo); but there is likeliest an irrecoverable gap of missing edits between them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to do a partial history merge? From Special:Diff/331652331 and below?  Nixinova  T  C  21:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possible in theory but I don't want to try my luck on a crucial page like this. Page revisions from 2001 were imported from earlier software much later and don't always behave as expected. And it wouldn't add much anyway since HomePage history starts 22 November 2001‎ where the page already had most of the final content. The total changes we might be able to merge is only [1]. I'm not risking a place in Wikipedia:Village stocks for destroying the Main Page over that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Nixinova and PrimeHunter: See also discussion in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to access HomePage?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Continued discussion

Anthony Appleyard, I think the first problem you're reporting is merely that the Main Page doesn't display the ordinary ^{Redirected from HomePage} notice. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Nixinova, PrimeHunter, Cryptic, Graham87, GeoffreyT2000, and Nyttend: And the history-merge query described here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Non-registered user closing RfC

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

---

An unregistered user's close of a discussion has been contested. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Non-registered user closing RfC about whether unregistered users' closes of RfCs is permissible. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:NACIP, IPs may not close a formal discussion, so I have undone the close. An univolved registered user can restore the IPs close if they agree with it, indicating that they are doing so with a signed note, and by doing so taking responsibility for the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Then, would an admin please check the close ([last amended], after discussion) and rule if it was improper? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean check it to see if the reasoning of the close was appropriate or not, because policy clearly says that the close was not "proper", being forbidden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clearer, the close wasn't "improper", it was a straight-forward violation of black-letter policy, which is why I simply reverted it instead of using the normal processes for challenging an improper close. In fact, had the same close been made by a registered user, I wouldn't have touched it, as I have no opinion on the subject, not having examined the dispute and the arguments involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Two things: 1. I wasn't aware of that "rule", 2. WP:IAR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

IAR is only good as long as people agree with it. I can't call you rude names and cite IAR to get around a block. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do any of those. Logically, the edit should be judged on it's merits alone, not on some so-called "rule", because, since WP isn't a bureaucracy, the rules are only principles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 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.

Rangeblock feasible?

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.

---

• User:Shashi4747
• User:Education4444
• User:Jaiho55
• User:Jaiho5555
• User:Mihir4747
• User:Jss4444
• User:Rahulsingh54545454
• User:Jss2552
• User:Jaiho5588

There's this guy running some sort of university admission hustle in India (apparently this) whose sole interest in WP for the last 18 months has been spamming their cell phone numbers in university articles (rapidly changing numbers, more's the pity). At first it was all IPs and MelanieN in particular did a sterling job of semi-protecting as needed [2], but as of a month ago they have graduated to supplementing with throw-away accounts - current batch listed above.

MelanieN did a range block check a year ago and decided it wasn't feasible at that time. I'm wondering if maybe these recent accounts may allow a second go at it? Could someone run a check? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are using several of the largest and busiest networks on the planet, so whatever MelanieN said last year probably still stands. If you can collect a list of numbers, this looks like a job for Special:AbuseFilter/793. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I'll scrape some numbers together and see whether there's any repeats at all. Had the impression that they used a new one almost every time, but needs checking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The nuclear option is a few months of extended confirmed protection on the articles he's targeting, but there's a lot of universities in India, so a lot of articles. Fish Karate 13:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, what do you know - the majority of these actually used the same phone number. Count across the names listed above is 9871364815 six times, 9910418001 once, 9135340070 once, 7079252525 once. Any chance of incorporating at least the first one into the filter? Then see if they start concentrating on another number... how many occurrences are needed to make it one good filter candidate? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added the first number to the filter (with no objection if someone else wants to add the others). My personal threshold in a case like this would probably be more than one example. Further additions can be made at WP:EFR, or drop me a ping. Spammers like this do tend to change numbers a bit, but we can usually frustrate them enough for them to get the message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the filter is working. I've now had the justification to add four more numbers including those above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Elmidae, long time no see! So they're back, are they? Admission Bazaar was the same outfit I identified last year; it now has a new website. The name and the website don't help because that's not what they spam. Last year the key to identifying them, the one constant in the spamming, was the phone number. Here’s an interesting observation: all of the spamming I whacked last year occurred from May through July; did it then stop? Maybe it has to do with the academic year. That would suggest that at their first appearance at any article we should protect it for two months. I'll take this on again if you like; I've got my whack-a-mole paddle handy. BTW it isn't just Wikipedia they hit; if you take one of the phone numbers and Google it, you'll find it tucked into many websites. Luckily Wikipedia is the only one we have to worry about. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Extended confirmed wouldn't be necessary; semi-protection would probably be enough. Looks like they don't bother (or don't know how) establishing these new accounts as autoconfirmed, they just create them and start spamming.--MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Cheers - I'll be happy to start shopping those to you again :) If the filter can be implemented, it would certainly take the edge off though. - I think there has been a smattering throughout the year, but definitely a heavy uptick around May, as you say. That's a hopeful metric, at any rate... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 18 June 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

This user SheriffIsInTown is trying to distort facts and vandalize articles based on his personal believes. Initially, he deleted the word "Islamist" from this article Fazlullah (militant leader), in which he said (check the article's revision history): "We [wait .. what?] do not recognize him as a Muslim, people like him have no religion", then he added: "his actions have no grounds in Shariah practiced by many Muslims, if someone distorts the religion, you cannot associate their action with the religion, the term is offensive to majority Muslims plus Wikipedia is not Trump mouth piece that we must call them Islamist". I wonder if such actions are acceptable here. I do not want to waste my time to argue with such user for the obvious reasons; therefore, I kindly ask you to deal properly with this issue. 27.95.195.40 (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI is not a forum to discuss content disputes and it was not vandalism to preserve neutral point of view, we should not be using offensive terms on Wikipedia only because certain sections of society promote them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I expect you'll be PRODing the images of Muhammad article now? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What is this off-topic comment supposed to mean here? A personal attack on my belief? We are discussing something else here and you are talking about something else! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, nothing generally happens with a single bad edit, but let me be clear: keep up this kind of activity, and you'll be seeing this page pretty quickly. It's neither a personal attack nor a comment on your belief: it's a comment on your disruption of articles and the patterns of editing typically demonstrated by others who disrupt articles in this manner. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Keep up with what kind of activity? And how do you describe it as a bad edit or disruption? I left a note on the talk page of the article, how about you respond to it if you think it was not right to remove that term. I consider above comment from IP as a comment on my belief, it's my belief I am talking about, you would not understand it because you are not in my position. Why issue such an off-topic comment while the discussion is about a totally different article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There are far more reliable sources referring to Fazlullah as Islamist beyond the ones cited in the article, and it's not hard to find them. But the reason your edit was a bad edit is that it was based on your personal convictions. But the neutral point of view doesn't care what you think, it doesn't care what you feel, it doesn't care what you find offensive, and it definitely doesn't care who you think counts as a Muslim. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2018 (Ufar

@Someguy1221: Can you cite some of those references as I have not seen any so far and it would be better if you can reply to my arguments at article talk page. It is not my personal conviction at all as I have already described on article talk page with argument as to why I think the term is irrelevant, misplaced and undue. According to a reliable source posted on the talk page, fifty religious scholars decreed actions of Taliban unislamic, of which Fazlullah was a member/head and there are only two out of forty seven sources which use that term and that too indirectly. Don't we base our article on reliable sources?

Moreover, this thread should have been closed a long time ago as no discussion took place and they just took a minor content dispute straight to ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SherriffIsInTown, you already have one ARBIPA restriction on your editing; please do not invite another. I can understand that the large number of non-violent practicing Muslims find the categorization of a militant as "Islamist" offensive, but that does not matter to Wikipedia, as you ought to be aware by now. As two other admins have already told you, if you continue to base your edits on your personal views rather than on reliable sources, you are likely to be banned from the entire ARBIPA area in short order. Vanamonde (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff, whether or not Islamism ought to be considered truly Islam is irrelevant. Is this person "advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles" or seeking "full implementation of sharia", to quote the Islamism article? Is he doing things in the name of Islam, regardless of whether it's orthodox or heretical? The passage in question doesn't even say that he was a Muslim (are you seriously suggesting that he never proclaimed the shahadah before witnesses?), but rather that he was part of a group holding this philosophy. It's like a Christian deleting "he was part of a Christian Identity group" from a biography because the subject isn't truly a Christian: whether or not the person truly is a Christian is irrelevant, because only the group membership and its adherence to "Christian Identity" principles are being stated. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I will accept the consensus, whatever it is. I left the note on the talk and have no intention to remove that term unless there is a clear consensus for removing it. It was a bold edit, discussion should have followed through instead of a direct report to ANI under a Vandalism heading as it was a content dispute not vandalism. When reasons are given for change, the edits should not be categorized as vandalism, it was an overstatement and exaggeration. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: Sheriff's edit was inappropriate but branding POV editors as "vandals" is equally bad. 27.95.195.40 should keep this firmly in mind. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I take an exception to you calling me a POV editor and consider it a personal attack as for that specific edit I already explained at the talk page that I based my judgment on lack of sources using that term and that still stands true that there are not many sources using that term. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism in general

Now that the RAN case is settled, ought any editor with a substantial CCI problem showing major examples of plagiarism (i.e. more than single sentences) be noted in a list, so that their future edits may be readily examined? And, possibly, that editors with substantial CCI pages be asked to clear as many of their entries as possible on their own? In short, that RAN is not the only serial plagiarist remaining on Wikipedia, and that this is an ongoing problem? I do not accept "accidental clear plagiarism" is unavoidable due to quotation marks being difficult to use. Collect (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, that list is here (and is transcluded here). I see one problem with it (apart from its length and low activity level, that is): for courtesy reasons, editors who edit under a real name get that replaced with a date in the list, and that makes them really hard to find (not impossible, of course, just hard). Would there be any support for abandoning this practice, and listing all CCIs under the actual username, whether or not that seems to be a real name? The gain in utility might arguably outweigh the loss in courtesy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers The new EU copyright rules would seem to indicate that "courtesy" is not going to be an actual "excuse" for ignoring plagiarism. My point, moreover, is that the list ought to be used, not just exist. I fear telling the EU "we have a list, but never actually do anything with it" does not meet the new requirements. Collect (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar

Without comment on the actual proposal, I would remind everyone that the WMF's servers are all in the US, and EU copyright rules -- if they haven't been agreed to by the US, either bilaterally or as part of a copyright convention -- have no force on Wikipedia. They may, however, have ramifications for editing done by people subject to EU law. While the idea appears to be a good one, doing it for the EU is not the right reason, I don't think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC) the WMF's servers are all in the US Are they? According to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Clusters there are servers in Amsterdam as well. Vexations (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for that information. I stand corrected, and I will strike my comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Those are the servers that know why it's called a Quarter-Pounder with cheese... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The server farm in Amsterdam is a cache.[3] The primary servers are in the US. If the EU shut down the Netherlands facility, it would not shut down Wikipedia (and the other projects), but it would slow down access in Europe and world-wide. I have no idea whether things would get that far, or how the Foundation would deal with the issue. - Donald Albury 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) If the EU is going to continue doing stuff like that, perhaps the WMF might want to consider looking for a non-EU location to host their offshore servers, such as Switzerland or Sweden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Just because Sweden doesn't use the Euro doesn't mean it's not a member of the Union. --Izno (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, my error, I meant to say Norway, Norway and Switzerland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Switzerland participates in most of the bureaucracy of the EU. Perhaps the UK would serve, if they carry brexit far enough. In any case, we can't solve this here. - Donald Albury I thought of the UK -- it was my first thought, in fact -- but it has a habit of passing legislation itself which could be considered to be restrictive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly INVOLVED close of an MfD.

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.

---

Earlier today i closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace as a SNOW keep. Now, at User talk:DESiegel#Bad close Legacypac contends that I was WP:INVOLVED and should not have made the close. I never edited the MfD, nor the essay, nor its talk page, nor have I ever so much as linked to the essay in question that I can recall. I have recently advocated ideas similar to some, but not all, of the ideas in the essay. For background, I also point to the recent interchange between myself ad Legacypac at User talk:DESiegel#Being an Admin does not make you special. We have also disagreed on a good number of MfD discussions and at WT:CSD, both recently and over a longer term, but have not by any means always disagreed. I ask for the opinions of other admins as to whether this close was too INVOLVED and should be reverted. I will abide by any consensus. I do still support Process is Important. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think your views in general are on the far fringe of the inclusionist spectrum, and I think it’s probably a bad idea to close an MfD on an essay where you generally share the views held (basically advocating for gaming policy), but I wouldn’t call it involved, and I doubt the outcome would have changed. I don’t think it should be reopened, though. I just think it’d be roughly equivalent to me closing an MfD on an essay advocating for stronger action against commericial editing. When an admin has views that are known on a topic, it’s usually better to !vote than close.TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

DES has been busy undermining the recent RFC result on WP:NMFD which this closely relates to. At the same time as they shut down discussion on the problematic essay they posted what could be described as misleading keep rational on another of my MfDs Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft:Rajesh_Verma which as a way to undermine the RFC result. Taken with the other recent MfDs where they have criticised my nominations as out of process, they may be classed as in a dispute with me, punctuated by the discussion to bring me to ANi as a preemptive strike before I can assemble a case to have their activity examined under WP:ADMINACCT Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not aware that DES has every expressed an opinion along the lines of the central thrust of the essay, which is that draftspace is one big net failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • His view here is certainly in line with the essay: encouraging new editors not to use AFC for fear of deletion. Like this essay, he’s basically encouraging gaming of the tightening up of draft space that we’ve seen recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tony linked the post I was looking for - read both parts of the post. I'm not sure Admins are supposed to be advocating ways for new users to skirt community decided procedures and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AfC has always been optional, nor has any recent RfC changed that that I know of. I don't see that accurately and honestly informing new users of the potential consequences of placing the AfC template on a draft, or of clicking submit, is in any way against policy, nor that if an inexperienced editor, seeing one of my comments, chooses not to use AfC that such action constitutes "gaming the system" in any way. Now if we made AfC required for users below some edit threshold that would be different, but I doubt that would gain consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m a huge fan of AFC being optional, but I think there’s a difference between pointing out that AFC is optional and saying you are going to actively encourage people not to use it because you disagree with a recent policy change. The later is a system gaming mentality in my view. Anyway, while I think it was dumb for you to close it, I still don’t think it was technically involved, and I think other admins may have done the same thing. The only argument I see for reopening is that now that it has more attention because of this thread, others with legitimate viewpoints in favour of deletion may want to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, editors are allowed, even encouraged, to argue openly and in good faith for changes in policy, or that particular policies are ill-advised. Legacypac surely argued many times, including at MfD discussions, that the previous version of WP:NMFD was poor policy, or "stupid". Was that "undermining [an] RfC result" If not, why are my comments any different? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• As to being an "extreme inclusionist", do please note that my views on drafts are quite different from my views on articles. I do think that the speedy deletion criteria should be read strictly, and that if one does not clearly apply, it should not be used. But deletions by AfD are judgement calls, and so i have said on various occasions. Oddly, way back when i went through RFA, most of those who opposed did so on the ground that I was too deletionist to eb trusted with the delete button, and specifically too quick with speedy deletion. I do think that ther are few valid grounds for deleting drafts beyond celar speedy cases, and ZI can defend that view at length. But this isn't that discussion, nor is the essay that was up for MfD on that topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 23 June 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.

Cameron11598 appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cameron11598 appointed trainee clerk

ANI needs protecting?

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, but it looks like ANI needs protecting from dirty socks? Thought this might get eyes on quicker than RFPP ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  07:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I protected it for 8 hours about an hour ago. Fish Karate 08:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  09:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They're now posting it here instead, so AN also protected for 8 hours now. Fish Karate 11:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Would a block or edit filter adjustment have been more appropriate? I have adjusted the filter; per WP:BEANS I will say no more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:round robin screw-up

Can some undue my screw-up on moving John W. McCormack, not sure how I messed up. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can you help ? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done what I think you asked for - can you check? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can you delete John W. McCormack so I can move John William McCormack to that location ? Then I think we'll be good. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tank ya :) - FlightTime (open channel) 17:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect. Deleting the redirect broke links. All of those links need to be switched to the correct article. If they aren't and a new article is created there they will all point to the wrong article. ~ GB fan 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime, maybe I misread what is happening here. What article do you want to move to John W. McCormack? ~ GB fan 17:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I just explained on your talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith and Talk:Communist Party of China

Status quo stonewalling (with Marshalls)

This editor has been status quo stonewalling and displaying signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on this talk page and main page. They do not appear willing to allow any changes to the article that go against their own views. Furthermore the editor has been attempting to shut down recent conversation because they believe there was at one point a unanimous consensus in support of their own views and as such further conversation or objection to the way the infobox currently stands should be ignored or disregarded. In line with this the editor removed an RFC for further input into the dispute, effectively trying to silence any changes. Along with this the editor has not appeared willing to follow Wikipedia:The Rules of Polite Discourse or Wikipedia:Civility and has not shown to be willing to compromise towards any changes suggested by other editors. Any input into this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Prospective contributors/admins will note that I have already addressed the allegations above here and here. Wingwraith (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, though, Wingwraith, referring to the OP's comments as a "complete fucking joke" indeed seriously violates WP:CIVIL. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pipple32 and Competence

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.

---

Pipple32 is a relatively new editor, but it is clear they they have a serious problem with not citing sources, especially when it comes to adding or changing genres on anime and manga related articles. Their talk page is also riddled with speedy deletion and MfD notifications and their latest draft article is based entirely on a Wikia page of their own making. Honestly, I don't know if this editor is just that incompetent or simply being a vandal by creating hoaxes. Either way, Pipple32 is behaving in a very disruptive manner. —Farix (t | c) 03:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like WP:IDHT with a sprinkling of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef blocked for adding bad content and refusing to communicate. You can’t do this if you refuse to speak to others when there are issues with your editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I started drafting an essay about this exact sort of behavior just the other day, just took it live at WP:RADAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the latest draft for speedy deletion as the links clearly demonstrate that the article is an advertisement for a self-published comic and Draft:All Star Extreme(anime) as a blatant hoax. —Farix (t | c) 01:26, 28 June 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.

Igor Janev spammer again?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#Igor Janev spammer

I am asking here because I am a bit unsure exactly where to go with this.

Unless I am mistaken, we have an edit filter targeting the Igor Janev spammer. See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_11#Igor Janev (I got an email saying that it had been implemented, but don't know how to confirm this)

I just deleted a section at Jimbo talk because it looks like the Igor Janev spammer.[4] I was about to write "feel free to revert if you think I was wrong" but the IP reverted me.[5].

Игор Јанев is Russian for Igor Janev. Should it be added to the edit filter?

[6] appears to be an image of Igor Janev. I have my doubts about the "own work" copyright claim, seeing as how [7] claims to be from Medija centar Beograd.

It looks like the Igor Janev spammer has hit a bunch of other language Wikipedia, but I am not sure because I can't read the language. Is there someone we should notify about this?

Related:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#Igor Janev spammer
• Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-08#Igor Janev
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Igor the facetious xmas bunny/Archive (search for "Igor Janev")
• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Operahome]
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 127#Igor Janev
• Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_11#Igor Janev
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Can't move incorrectly created page
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 September 11#cross wiki spam cleanup?

Possibly related:

• User talk:Vanjagenije#Pitanje
• User talk:Panyd#I just undid your revision 751002453
• User talk:Chris troutman/Archive 10#Draft:Igor Janev and Official Gov, site
• User talk:NeilN/Archive 42#Prof. dr. Igor Janev is a very notable person

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI closure citing abuse as not recent

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.

---

• NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli

Bbb23 closed an SPI that documents evasion of siteban, topic ban, one account restriction, by stating "We are not going to evaluate alleged topic bans that occured 1-4 years ago."[8] I disagree with this rational and don't see any mention of such a regulation anywhere on policy pages that would support it. Have already talked about this issue with Bbb23[9] but due to lack of strong reasons supporting such closure, I am unconvinced if such closure is justified also given that the abuse was large and sock puppetry can be reported anytime whether it occured today or year/s ago.

Seeking input from other users for clarification. My Lord (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your SPI was reporting three IPs who have not edited since 2017. NadirAli is currently editing, and while they have lots of blocks in the past, they have not been blocked or reported for socking in 2018. The data in your report didn't seem to show any risk of ongoing misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, CheckUsers can't draw account --> IP connections publicly; see the m:Access to nonpublic information policy on Meta. If he hadn't closed it with a stale rationale, he would have closed it with a "no comment" rationale. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 29 June 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.

Backlog at WP:AIV, again

Could one or more admins please handle it? WP:AIV is a noticeboard that needs much more, and much faster, attention from admins than it has been getting lately... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: nearly clear now - by the way, RfA is that way - TNT ^💖 17:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already been there a few years ago, but withdrew my application after a couple of days, after being critized by the PC-crowd for not being nice enough to vandals, socks and spammers, with them obviously feeling we should be nice and assume good faith even in cases of utterly blatant vandalism... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that's daft - give it another go some time? - TNT ^💖 17:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 article

Resolved

 – Histmerged by User:Vanjagenije.

Moved from WP:ANI § Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 article

There is a leftover "Draft:Branko Mladenović" (of 3 authors, 2016-2018) pasted into 2009-2017 stub "Branko Mladenović" (stub edits in 2017 are Bot-fixes). Can histories be merged and then draft-comments be removed? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:jonesrmj

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 everyone,

OK, we have received a request from this user at UTRS to consider unblocking them.

They were blocked by Huon in December for sockpuppetry. The other account involved is User:Minecrafter789 and that account was blocked for creating joke pages.

They've admitted in their unblock request on UTRS that they were an idiot for doing this and they've said if unblocked they will edit List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware to make it more accurate and re-do the layout.

Ponyo has checked and from the limited information UTRS has, Ponyo cannot see any signs of recent sockpuppetry.

The user is asking for another chance under the standard offer. As per that offer, I am bringing the discussion to the community to see if they would be prepared to offer a second chance.--5 albert square (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Their unblock request is rather extensive; it should probably be posted here or on their talk page in order to allow others to fully assess whether they meet the standard offer. (Just a thought).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The unblock request in full:

Before I begin, I am using the Standard offer as I was offered it when blocked back in December 2017. I was blocked for using other accounts in an inappropriate way (Wikipedia calls this sock puppetry). I will admit, that I was a complete idiot because Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites known and its not like a joke would've gone unnoticed. I admittedly was using another account to mess around and be funny, and I didn't think it would be so bad, but the more I've learned and have been blocked from editing lists I was interested in making better, It hurt me and made me feel bad and angry at myself, all for a stupid joke. If I do get unblocked, I will not let myself make this dumb mistake again, because it really wasn't worth it to be blocked for six months, doing what I love

If I get unblocked, I would make a huge improvement to "List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware" to make it a lot more accurate and maybe redo the layout to make it look more attractive. I also would look at more "List of tallest buildings in ..." lists to correct information, add building pictures that are not copyright, and more. And who knows, maybe I'll create my own lists on tallest buildings or something else.--5 albert square (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not yet - the user says "I would make a huge improvement to "List of tallest buildings in Wilmington, Delaware"" - OK, please post some well sourced additions that you would make if unblocked. Also, they say "I also would look at more "List of tallest buildings in ..." lists to correct information, add building pictures that are not copyright, and more." Which information is incorrect? Do you have the pictures that you would like to add on a website somewhere? What I am looking for is evidence that the user would be a net benefit to the Project if unblocked. Just Chilling (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Just Chilling This is the response they gave when I asked them what you said above:

• • "Hi. So the edits that I would make to List of Tallest Buildings in Wilmington, Delaware are that some heights of the buildings are wrong and as I have researched more, I have found accurate heights for these buildings, mainly on skyscraperpage.com/diagrams, enporis.com, and skyscraper center.com. I also may reorganize the list to make it look more clean and easier to read and I would add more facts to each building. Same would go for other Tallest Buildings lists. I would check to make sure the heights are correct with my other sources, I would add images that are not copyright to make the list look prettier and add facts and bigger descriptions to lists that have little to no information."--5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the standard offer seems sincere and I don't see why they have to state explicitly how they're going to edit. They already said they are going to take a look and edit if appropriate. There's always the block button if they do socking again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The editor appears to "get it" now, so I think it's worth taking the minimal risk of unblocking. Needless to say, the first sign of socking or screwing around should result in the door being slammed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The user seems penitent and explained clearly what they did wrong. They should be given another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the above and WP:ROPE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support It sounds—hypothetically atm maybe—that we have a potential FL on our hands here  :) also, certainly, per WP:ROPE. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above and ROPE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I am going to give the benefit of the doubt in the light of the user's response to my question. However, if there is any future disruption then I would be prepared to immediately reblock. Just Chilling (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support mainly per Lugnuts--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:22, 30 June 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.

Standard offer unblock appeal from MX

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.

---

Copied on MX's behalf from their talk page:

• I'm posting on my talkpage to request a Standard Offer. I was blocked from Wikipedia on November 2017, and have not edited English Wikipedia ever since. I emailed User:Berean Hunter a few days ago asking to move this discussion to a noticeboard for the community to weigh in on a decision. When I was initially blocked, I contributed briefly to Commons and tried to get into photography, but I quickly noticed that it wasn't my passion so I stopped altogether.

Over the past few months, I reflected a lot about the importance of building consensus (especially for topics I'm not familiar with) and keeping my cool when discussions don't go my way. In addition, I will keep all Wikipedia edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account.

Most of my work on Wikipedia was related to Mexico; since 2011, I completed 12 GAs, 38 GARs, and 58 DYKs (no FAs, as my English is nowhere near perfect, but I was thinking of working with other editors to get one in the near future). I want to continue helping build this encyclopedia, and will gladly accept any measures deemed appropriate by the community in my possible reinstatement. diff

There is no apparent socking activity currently seen. Please indicate your support or opposition to unblocking MX per the standard offer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Not a fan of saying "time served", but I think it's fitting for this case. The contributions from the Austin-geo account certainly has the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing, so I wish MX could have elaborated more about that incident in their request, but I'd like to assume good faith on MX's previous explanation ([10]) even though I think it's rather inadequate. Alex Shih (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the incident.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• No support without the blocking admins agreement. User:Berean Hunter - he blocked him without any community support so he should unblock him also without discussion if he thinks it's ok - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: I might be thinking along the same lines as G. here; but what say ye, as B.A.? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the discussion at the time of the block. Socking for COI purposes by an established editor who should have known better is in my mind something that leads to a block that doesn’t get lifted. Your actions actively undermined the credibility of the encyclopedia. That’s worse than most LTAs in my view. No amount of good content changes that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support six months for one incident is enough, no other problems at all Atlantic306 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock. User evaded WP:SCRUTINY by creating a new account to edit an article for which they had a clear conflict of interest. However, given their contributions to the encyclopedia, no socking after being blocked, promise of not repeating past behavior, and their attempt to contribute to other wiki projects shows an effort of good faith on their part. We can always reblock if necessary, but I'd like this user to get back to work building the encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:ROPE is generally a myth. It is REALLY HARD to reblock after a SO unblock. In most cases it makes the situation worse. No, a user who actively tries to harm the encyclopedia has no place here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Uhm. There comes a time when every watchful Wikipedian knows the system is at best a sieve (no need to go further into that) thus re-blocks are often cheaper because, known-quantity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - but mostly thinking out loud at the moment, subject to change and I don't claim to have thoroughly thought this through. Support with an absolute topic ban on Austin TX, and a topic ban on residential developments broadly construed., and a one-way interaction ban with Smallbones. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC) modified per comment below. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember this very well and have been somewhat surprised by looking through his record of contributions. What I do remember is that I felt thoroughly insulted by what looked like a very straightforward case of paid editing, with a complete lack of recognition that he had done anything wrong. I felt that he was insulting my intelligence by just saying "that's my story and I'm sticking to it." 1st I'd like to ask him to make a complete statement of his paid editing (if any), including his employers and clients and all other relevant parties. 2nd I think he needs to stay away from any commercial type article. His other work, just judging from article titles looks very interesting. I don't think a one-way interaction ban would be useful. If I see him do anything that looks like upe I'd like to tell him about it very directly, and I'd like him to be able to respond very directly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Smallbones, I'm also asking for a specific statement from MX about their paid editing before I !vote on their request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Covert advertising and sockpuppetry are both fundamentally dishonest behaviors that, when combined, are incompatible with building the encyclopedia and being a Wikipedian. MER-C 12:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that they're topicbanned from Austin TX and residential areas - They screwed up sure but doesn't everyone?, Give 'em a second chance and if they fack that up then indef. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Question - I didn't follow the original, but have seen MX around over the years so this thread caught my eye. Looking at his talk page threads around the time of the block, am I missing where it was determined paid editing was involved? Or that it was not a legit sock? (He said it was for privacy reasons, which means linking would defeat the point, so if he wasn't votestacking or otherwise using them in an inappropriate way, that would be legit in my book... if it was used for undisclosed paid editing then that, of course, is just as problematic as if he did it with his main account). I see that there were a lot of issues while editing those pages under that account, and that they were the only edits by his alternate account made a bad situation worse, but with such a long history of positive contributions I'm not seeing anything that would justify blocking forever. As such, unless I'm radically misunderstanding the situation, Support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: There's erosion of trust here which is almost impossible to be regained and I basically agree with TonyBallioni and MER-C. However, I believe, giving them a second chance with one account and other restrictions deemed necessary may be better than de facto banning them owing to their positive contributions before they engaged in this sort of thing and the fact that they followed the SO procedure with no trace of infraction. To paraphrase Davey, give them the last chance; when they screwed up again, give them the last block. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I've been undecided here for a couple of days, but I've come down on the support side. On the one hand, I seriously dislike the abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. But MX, while admitting to COI violations and socking, maintains that it wasn't paid, and I can't really see any convincing evidence to make that claim implausible. I'm also seeing a long career of apparently valuable contributions, which suggests there's potentially a lot more of the same to come, and I really think that long-standing record of work here here should lend significance to this appeal. I would also almost never subscribe to a "banned/blocked for ever with no chance of reprieve" approach. In this case, I think offering a second chance is reasonable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(Copied from MX's talk page to reply to concerns here)

• In response to this discussion, I want to clarify again that I was never involved in paid editing. I wrote about Austin-related articles on my own interest. Any efforts that were promotional in nature were a result of my close connection with the topic (the neighborhood I live in). I understand I should have disclosed this publicly, or refrained from editing about the neighborhood altogether per WP:COI, so I take full responsibility for this. The reason why I created a separate account was to protect my real-life identity from being narrowed down to a neighborhood. Most of my new content on Wikipedia is about organized crime, so I figured it was better to be extra-extra careful on this. I emailed CheckUser Alison to let her know it was me using Austin-geo, though looking back I should have been clearer to her and myself about my COI.
• Please do not take this response as an "extraordinary" reason to object a return. I made several mistakes before my block and want to come clean on every one of them. But paid editing was never something I was involved in. If this helps, I do have an email chain with the neighborhood association where I emailed them inquiring about the neighborhood boundaries. I introduced myself as a volunteer editor. I can provide this offline if need be. Thank you. MX diff

• Editors are encouraged to ask questions on MX's talk page. Govindaharihari and Serial Number 54129, I was hoping to use the community response as a gauge and didn't want to influence the outcome. Many of the issues on both sides of the scales have been brought up here. Please don't take my neutrality as a withholding of support.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support unblock I see no evidence of paid editing, and the alternate account was apparently created without bad intent. The COI/promotional editing was wrong, of course, but It seems unlikely to be repeated, and blocks are suppossed nto be preventive, njot punitive. Those above suggesting that this indef block be treated as duration forever are, it seems to me, advocating a punitive block. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and a comment re the comment on the talk page that the COI is that he lives in the neighborhood. Does that really make a COI?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: extrapolating from what I think is your point, in my opinion it'd be absurd to declare editing on local topics, without clear evidence of promotion or puffery, to be COI editing. So many strong editors here edit on topics close to them in various ways: city or neighborhood landmarks, geographical features, topics within their academic discipline, etc. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Though to be fair, I found the case that got MX blocked, and in that context the block does appear justified (at that time). -Darouet (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, no further restriction at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not quite sure what's holding me back from supporting this. Maybe it's the deceptive way MX tried to excuse their use of a sock, maybe it just feels too soon. I can't point to anything concrete, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this at this time. It probably doesn't matter, as it appears that MX is heading for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support mainly per ROPE, of which I have not yet been convinced of the unefficaciousness :p :) but with the sensible caveat that there is some form of restriction on the areas of previous concern; a kind of probation, perhaps. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:30, 30 June 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.

"Very" disruptive editing

Is there anything that can be done about a particular series of disruptive edits by Algeria based IPs that have repeatedly inserted the terms "very pretty," "very beautiful", "very handsome", and other forms of "very" into anime and manga related articles? The IPs keep changing from edit to edit making it impossible to communicate with the editor about their edits, but here are a few examples:

• 105.101.194.39 (talk) [11]
• 105.101.218.94 (talk) [12]
• 105.99.133.126 (talk) [13]
• 105.101.202.98 (talk) [14]
• 105.101.116.204 (talk) [15]
• 105.99.136.132 (talk) [16]
• 105.99.140.153 (talk) [17]
• ‎105.99.23.80 (talk) [18]
• ‎105.99.6.215 (talk) [19]
• ‎105.101.21.33 (talk) [20]
• ‎105.101.141.190 (talk) [21]
• ‎105.101.0.33 (talk) [22]
• ‎105.101.251.26 (talk) [23]

@Juhachi, Moon 218, and Shellwood: who have also reverted a few of these. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheFarix:

Sorted 5 IPv4 addresses:

105.99.133.126

105.101.116.204

105.101.194.39

105.101.202.98

105.101.218.94

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
64K	1	1	105.99.133.126	contribs
	65536	4	105.101.0.0/16	contribs
8194	1	1	105.99.133.126	contribs
	1	1	105.101.116.204	contribs
	8192	3	105.101.192.0/19	contribs
4099	1	1	105.99.133.126	contribs
	1	1	105.101.116.204	contribs
	4096	2	105.101.192.0/20	contribs
	1	1	105.101.218.94	contribs
5	1	1	105.99.133.126	contribs
	1	1	105.101.116.204	contribs
	1	1	105.101.194.39	contribs
	1	1	105.101.202.98	contribs
	1	1	105.101.218.94	contribs

We could potentially look at rangeblocking 105.101.192.0/20 but it's only recently started having abuse on the range. Using the edit filter sounds more appropriate here - TNT ^💖 13:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How would such an edit filter be configured? Could it target a specific IP range? P.S. I've added some more IPs that are part of the disruptive editing pattern —Farix (t | c) 17:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We can include an ip range as a filter condition (e.g. Special:AbuseFilter/846), combined with an "added words" list that may help - feel free to specify what you are looking for at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP

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.

---

Anyone have a moment to swing by and handle some requests? Numerous pending. Thanks in advance. Home Lander (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• All caught up. Thanks for letting us know! Swarm ♠ 21:27, 1 July 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 creation log is live -- be careful with attack pages

See Special:Log/create. The fun part is that there are two gotchas:

1. Page titles qualifying for revision deletion should be deleted from this log.
2. The edit summary of the revision that creates the page is the log reason. This is particularly problematic if the edit summary would qualify for revision deletion, or it automatically quotes objectionable content in the page itself.

See phab:T176867. In the meantime, please be aware of this when deleting attack pages and vandalism. MER-C 16:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" notices

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

closing a long held discussion about merger of TPP vs PATPP

Discussion and vote was held here [24]

Discussion is since january. currently it is 11 vs 6 in favor of merge. (1 of the 11 is conditional)

I understand that an admin needs to close the discussion and post the decision. Then there is a procedure of merger which I am not familiar with, but might it also be an admin limited thing?

Thanks Jazi Zilber (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Erasing block log

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 erase all older blocks (ie. more than a year old) from my block log. This record is abused too often to justify long blocks. Even blocks from over 10 years ago are used to justify an increase in blocking time. People should be forgiven after some time. I don't see how publishing this log forever and without any erasure after a certain amount of time could possibly be justified. Even the criminal record is more forgiving than that. Also, this inclines users to create "fresh" accounts after some time that don't have any blocks in the list. That certainly can't be the desired state of affairs. --rtc (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand it correctly you were just blocked for a week for edit warring, while your CU-confirmed sock was blocked indefinitely. It seems to me you have bigger fish to fry than worry about your old block log, which isn't all that long anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • See that's entirely the point. false accusations pile up. fishy blocks lead to more fishy blocks and ultimately infinite blocks. I have never used any sock. You're simply making this up. based on false accusations. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I am not making this up, I am trying to figure out what I can glean from your talk page, that's all. So I don't understand it correctly? Thank you for correcting me. But you were blocked for edit warring. Was that fishy? Weren't you edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit-conflict) Be aware, JzG stated, "See above: and as it happens this time it's the 1%." It's unclear from context whether he's saying this is legitimately a case where the checkuser-confirmed sock was a joe-job, or if he's using sarcasm. My point is there may not be sockpuppetry issues at play regarding Rtc, here. Regardless, of course, there's nothing for us to do here. Block logs aren't purged. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How is this gross violation of the GDPR justified? It is my right to have my block log entries erased after some time. The status quo is more draconian than the criminal record. Why are log entries not erased after some time? Why is my block length increased partially because of edits I did 10 years ago? --rtc (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is not allowed under the revision deletion policy. Hut 8.5 17:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It is my right to have my block erased after some time, as per the GDPR. --rtc (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A) block logs cannot be erased and b) it is not a good idea to reopen a closed thread. See WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So you mean its technically impossible to erase a block log? How can that possibly be true? You can erase articles so you can certainly also erase block log entries. The GDPR says I have a right to have my data deleted when there's no strong justification for keeping it. I don't see taht justification for short blocks from years ago. Do I have to open a new account to get a clean block log? Is that the solution you would suggest? --rtc (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

They can certainly be hidden from non-admins but as I've noted we won't do that aside from exceptional cases. If you want to file a GDPR request then contact the Foundation instead of trolling on admin noticeboards. You are of course assuming that (a) your block log constitutes personal data, (b) the Foundation won't choose to interpret your request as a request for the erasure of an account, and (c) the Foundation is subject to GDPR. Frankly someone who is prepared to use legal tools to conceal their editing history should not be here. Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is all an utter time sink. Is it not time to consider an indef block for Rtc, who is evidently WP:NOTHERE? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please discuss my request instead of accusing me again and again of being a timesink? Propose any reasonable solution for my concern. All I get from you and your fellow editors is threats I will be blocked and should leave wikipedia, and only because I insist that a source says "not important" and not "not useful". You go at great lengths to get me banned just because I am a defender of the WP:V policy here. I am a good faith editor and certainly here to build an encyclopedia. The hostility I am seeing from you and others because I disagree with you is not making that a pleasant experience. You always have the right to ignore me, so it's unfair to say I am a timesink. A lengthy discussion requires more than one person. --rtc (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that block logs can't be erased permanently; but they can be hidden from non-admin eyes, and I've sometimes wondered why that kind of option isn't taken more often. I'm just musing though; it would probably count as a serious favour rather than a right, and almost certainly not one to be demanded at AN on a whim and/or a burst of aggression...such as is appears to be the case here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also been curious why blocks aren't hidden when someone blocks the wrong person. It specifically says on that page that it isn't done. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 25 June 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.

This user appears to still be at it. A longer (or possibly indefinite) block, perhaps? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An indef would certainly end his worries that his block log might result in more blocks. EEng 05:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Page creations are now logged

Just wanted to let folks know that all page creations are now logged at Special:Log/create (T12331). This should make tracking the activity of spammers and vandals a bit easier (especially for non-admins). The down side is that these log entries may occasionally need to be suppressed (similar to other page logs) if a page title or first revision text includes private data or harassment. (See T176867.) Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, why does this sound familiar? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Page_creation_log_is_live_--_be_careful_with_attack_pages Natureium (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Looks like MER-C beat me to it :) Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hide Edit

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 hide this edit and the edit summary. There is another one before this as well. Thanks.Gharouni ^Talk 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 4 July 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.

LeBron James involved admin

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.

---

While the reliably sourced sporting news world is discussing LeBron James' signing with the Los Angeles Lakers, [25] Bagumba has come up with some WP:OR about why Wikipedia should not reflect this [26] ... and then full protected the article [27]. Attempts to explain WP:INVOLVED to them [28] have been unsuccessful. NE Ent 18:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NE Ent: Your timeline is misleading in that protection was done a full 20 hours earlier, and it’s a stretch to frame a mere opinion on a talk page as “OR”. You have been invited multiple times in our discussion to form a consensus at Talk:LeBron James, where there are arguments to call an “agreement” the same as an actual “signing”, or to say nothing at all until there is an announcement from the Los Angeles Lakers, his announced preferred destination. You were also told to use WP:RFRPL if you believe the protection level should be decreased. You have also been informed about {{Edit fully protected}}, which you could use to request your preferred edit from an uninvolved admin. Instead, you have done none of these, and your recent edit history suggests you are more interested in WP:VAGUEWAVEs of INVOLVED and now posting on a noticeboard. What do you really want?—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Er anyone can check the article history and see you have made a number of edits on article content regarding his employment - prior to you full protecting the article, which you then (after protecting it citing an edit war) reverted back to the version which included the content you had previously edited. Looks pretty standard by the definition of involved editing. Do not use your admin tools in a content dispute in which you are already engaged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe those prior edits are unrelated to this current dispute. Please provide diffs of earlier edits if you believe they show that I would be biased in this instance per INVOLVED. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We should unprotect immediately. Regardless of the involvement issue, the current state of the article is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There’s probably weak consensus to add in prose only that there is an agreement in principle, something like at Talk:LeBron_James#Lakers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, this diff [29] clearly indicates that you are involved (and INVOLVED) in the discussion over the matter. Use of your admin tools in that instance was inappropriate, and if you do not shortly reverse it, I intend to. Out of courtesy I'll give you the chance to do so yourself first, but this is very clearly inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The comment was 20 hours after I took admin action to protect the page. It was a good faith attempt at moderating discussion after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I see that you anyways went and downgraded protection at 3:32 4 July. I would still appreciate a response further explaining your INVOLVED concern. For your convenience, please also refer to the timeline I presented below (at 05:27, 4 July 2018). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there was similar long periods of full protection for James in July 2010 during James’ famed The Decision announcement and again in July 2014 when he announced his return to Cleveland.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not having any prior involvement with this issue, it does seem utterly absurd that two full days after LeBron's agent announced the intent to sign with the Lakers, the word "Lakers" does not appear anywhere in his entire biography, let alone the lede. We should not let technicalities of free agency regulations get in the way of informing our readers. There is no shortage of reliable sources to be found, and if we have to nuance the wording slightly, that's better than pretending this hasn't even happened at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotect immediately- this is absurd. The article should at least mention the Lakers. I get the point that Bagumba is making that the deal is not official yet. But we can easily reflect this, its just in the way to word it, maybe something like "James has agreed to accept a deal with the Lakers which he is expected to sign on July 6". It really shouldn't be that controversial. I'm not sure if this raises to the level of INVOLVED, but it still was a poor decision by Bagumba to lock the page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that at least some mention of the Lakers and the agreement should be made in the article. This is a clear case of WP:HOSTAGE and poor admin judgement.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record The timeline in question is as follows:

• 16:10, 29 June 2018‎ I revert that he is not a free agent. Edit summary: "unsourced that it’s official"
• 1 July: NBA free agency period begins[30]
• 08:14, 1 July 2018‎ I make minor edit that he is not a "potential" free agent anymore
• 00:51, 2 July 2018‎ I apply full protection
• 01:00, 2 July 2018 I revert to last stable version. Edit summary: "WP:PREFER: last stable version before dispute"
• 21:19, 2 July 2018‎ I make a talk page comment to provide understanding and facilitate consensus
• 6 July "Free-agent moratorium ends, allowing players to officially sign contracts and trades to be completed"[31]

Also given the precedent of previous full protections in July 2010 and July 2014 (by other admins) during similar James' free agent announcements, it's disappointing this is not seen as good faith. Such is life.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The broader point here is that the apparently-accepted practice by some NBA-focused editors of removing well-sourced information about players' free-agency decisions on the flimsy grounds that there is a .000001% chance that the decision changes, is absurd, hostile to readers and fails to serve our purpose. When Britannica beats us to have a more-updated biography of LeBron than we do, merely because some Wikipedian thinks it's not "official" yet, it's time to take a step back and rethink what we're doing. Sometimes a flood of outside editors and IPs is right and we're wrong. This is one of those cases. There are no reasonable grounds for excluding this well-sourced information from James' biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem with the community having that conversation, but AN is not the best forum for content discussion. Talk pages are. I commend you for having just started that at Talk:LeBron James. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversions resume In the 2 hours since protection was downgraded, reversions have resumed (and this is with most of North America already asleep). While, the good intentions above was that mention of an agreement (not signing) is suitable, disagreements continue on whether James should be shown as actually being a member of the Lakers or as a free agent. The most recent reversions are here:

• 04:11, 4 July 2018‎
• 04:17, 4 July 2018
• 05:55, 4 July 2018‎
• 06:10, 4 July 2018‎

At a minimum, extended confirmed protection is probably needed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that Bagumba apologize and step aside from this BLP for several weeks. Pedantic arguments to avoid any mention of this development in the LeBron James article border on the disruptive. Bagumba could have helped craft accurate language but instead chose to obstruct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct, User:Bagumba, which is why, at AN, the community isn't discussing content, but your mis/use of tools on an article in which you have a consistent and persistent involvement which stretches back years, whereby not only did you protect an article you were / have been engaged in, but then fully-protected in favour of the version you advocated, citing WP:PREFER. By this, are we to assume that you saw mention mention of the subject's free-agency (or otherwise) as either "defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people"? Because nothing else in that piece of policy supports your protection; and the fact that it does so so weakly makes relying on it potentially questionable judgement. As, in fact, does calling your actions "all good". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Actual policy WP:INVOLVED: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Yes, I've edited the article before. Nobody has shown diffs of where the bias is. If you still believe it's bad faith, so be it. Ping me if my involvement is needed back here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is all well and good, Bagumba. But you are not addressing your own behavior which is widely perceived to be obstructionist, and the fact that you used your administrator's tools in the midst a content dispute that you were involved with. Are you incapable of seeing how bad that looks to uninvolved editors? Your history with that article is far from "minor". Evidence of bias is not required to conclude that an administrator is involved in a content dispute, and should not use the tools in that dispute. Please show some self-reflection here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You specifically edited the article about his employment prior to upping the protection to full and then reverted to your preferred version. And not years before. About this very same change of employer. Now you have frankly made the article a laughingstock to sports fans because of your involved actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, as per your comment above, you have not been involved in just an administrative role. You have participated in the article's content development. That's entirely fine; admins are still most certainly editors and can choose to take the "editor" role on an article they're interested in. What we're not allowed to do is to act as both referee and player in the same game. If you choose to interact with an article's content as an editor, leave any needed adminning on it to someone uninvolved. You could have easily posted a request at WP:RFPP if you thought protection needed to be changed, and it would've been perfectly fine for you to do that, but you shouldn't have made the call yourself. (And for the record, if an uninvolved admin decides full protection is warranted, I do not object and would not consider that wheel warring.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the general issue of "reported sports transactions". It's not as absurd as it sounds to be patient before updating these articles. The Lakers' own website does not mention LeBron James! Their "latest news" is about their Summer League team and rookie Moe Wagner. The problem I always saw with people updating the articles early is that the wrong signing date would be entered into the article, and never corrected later. The dates that will be recorded in NBA history are not the dates when a contract was "agreed to," but when it was signed. (Lately, many teams have even made a point of photographing the moment when a player completes the paperwork.)

I sympathize with Bagumba in this case. Most people don't understand the subtleties involved, and aren't patient enough to wait a few days. It wouldn't hurt to have a line about the Lakers in the body of the article, but it's absolutely correct to wait a few days before updating the first sentence and infobox and such. It's unlikely that the deal will be scuttled, but if we're patient, there will be a point when we KNOW that the deal is official. Zagalejo^^^ 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here, it seems, is beyond the article content. Actions were taken by someone trusted with admin tools, and those actions are being deemed inappropriate due to admin involvement in the article. Instead of apologizing or at the very least affirming that the lesson was learned, Bagumba reassures he correctly used admin tools, digging into a bigger hole in the process.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR applies. Sports articles are a huge pain in the neck to maintain. Bagumba has surely seen this same situation hundreds of times, and knew what had to be done for the sake of other editors' sanity. This isn't like other content disputes; in a few days, the situation with LeBron's contract will be resolved, unequivocally. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where the player (especially a high-profile one) has publicly, undisputedly announced that he will sign with a given team as soon as he can, the existence of that announcement is a statement of fact—a very important fact for someone looking at the article about the player. There is no argument against including that fact in the player's article, and in fact it is misleading not to include it. I agree that is different from claiming in the article that the player has already signed with the team, but full-protecting while keeping any mention of the announcement out of the article was an overreaction. This is not like situations in which fans are trying to update the article based merely on unconfirmed rumors or wishful thinking. So I conclude that this article should not have been full-protected and certainly not for as long as it was, purely as a matter of judgment, without reaching the question of involvement. Since the full-protection has been lifted and I don't see anyone seeking to reinstate it, that should resolve the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section title made me think it had come out that LeBron is secretly a Wikipedia admin. I’m very disappointed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 4 July 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.

Closed RM

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 closed this Requested Move unaware that the page was Move Protected. Can anyone help to implement the workflow. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted citing Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The result will require action by an administrator: ... Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor WP:BADNAC. Requesting that an administrator who does have authority to address the Move Protect close the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to call attention of Administrators and interested editors to at least 2 other cases where Mahveotm's actions around moves have been quesitonable judgement: Moving Module:AfC (which reportedly broke many AfC project workings), regarding a "technical request" move (for which there was not accuracy). I present these as additional touchstones that may be worth looking at. CC: (AlexTheWhovian—Oshwah) as editors who raised the concerns. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed them all... there were articles and AFC modules and templates that were left completely broken because of these moves..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of past issues or mistakes regarding module or template moves - whatever is decided here, just know that we need to be absolutely careful when proposing and making these kinds of technical changes. The moves were very small and simple in nature (only 2 modules were moved not including talk, doc, etc) and it broke many articles and other modules and (see the module pages that were moved here, including a module to formulate map images for geographical articles based in the UK). Regardless, we can at least breathe easy... the damage is undone. We need to take what happened here and use it as an opportunity to formulate how this should be planned and executed and with disaster avoided in the future..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was also concerned by those careless actions, and I have asked for the granting admin TonyBallioni to consider revocation of the page mover right, per criterion #2 of WP:PMRR. See User talk:Mahveotm#Module:AfC. Many thanks to Oshwah for clearing the damage. — JFG ^talk 23:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 4 July 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.

Removal of NPR permission

Please remove new page reviewer right. I do not now see myself using it any time soon. If I need it in the future, I will request again at that time. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox

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 T198156

I just nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant NOTWEBHOST violation, but discovered that it has some 40,000 edits in it (user has made four mainspace edits since 2014). This requires a steward, no? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep - try m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous, I've got these requests processed there before. Hut 8.5 17:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Hut 8.5, thanks. You think it'd be a good idea to get another admin from over here to endorse? Would you? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect they'd be happy with one admin but yes I'm happy to endorse it. Hut 8.5 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Fun fact, User:Hut 8.5, they (well, one of the stewards) won't sign off on it just like that...would you mind having a look? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's too large to be deleted from the front-end. Please request server-side deletion at phabricator.wikimedia.org. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Requested at phab:T198156 — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Holy moly--thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

LorenzoMilano (talk · contribs) is still actively editing, more than 500 edits a month. If he's doing nothing useful but violating WP:WEBHOST, should some action be taken? I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wow! Xtools ([33]) says the user has 40,266 edits on a total of four pages. There were two edits in September 2017 to Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography and two edits in October 2016 to Fedez and Laura Xmas, so the other 40,262 edits must have been to User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to see if the user responds to Ed's comment. If the user does not respond and resumes their sandbox editing, then they should be blocked until they do respond. Fish Karate 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  Users abusing Wikipedia as a host for fantasy reality TV shows is a known and recurring problem. The page uses O instead of 0 to evade detection. This user is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. I'm blocking. MER-C 09:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely tell you that stewards cannot delete this page because of a timeout - but it's better than breaking the whole Wikipedia, isn't it? — regards, Revi 08:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be good if we were to get a database query for (non-talk?) non-mainspace pages with more than N revisions. 40k edits in 4 years should have popped a red flag somewhere.... --Izno (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages with the most revisions but it includes all the namespeces. I had a quick look though it and while there are a few other user sandboxes with a large number of revisions, there isn't anything that looks concerning. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:East London Line is an interesting one. No mainspace edits since 2013, carried on making 22000 edits to User:East London Line/Sandbox for a further three years until 2016. Blank now though, as per this MFD back in 2016. Couldn't see anything weird webhosty stuff in the other user space pages with lots of edits. Fish Karate 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I run into these things all the time, but my previous record was one with 8,000 edits. That this can't be deleted without breaking the Wiki is deeply ironic. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update from the technical side: The page has too many revisions to be safely deleted from the back-end at this point. I recommend that it be blanked for now (like the previously-referenced other webhost sandbox) and deleted once a suitable technical solution is available. At any rate, leaving this history intact shouldn't provide any harm here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blanked it. Perhaps it should also be fully protected so it doesn't accumulate any more edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected it in the blanked state as a workaround. Hut 8.5 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks both. Looks like a solution is in the works, I'll ping back on AN to confirm when it is deleted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can't a dev just waive the three second transaction limit temporarily to allow the page to be deleted? Or is there a reason it can't be waived? Fish Karate 08:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• It may bring the site to it's knees. MER-C 20:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, it's still going on. phab:T198156 Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 July 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.

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."

The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

Revision delete

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.

---

Request revision deletion in List of programs broadcast by BET, this version in the edit summary, via WP:CRD #2. --B dash (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit summary doesn't rise to the level of needing revdel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 5 July 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.

Special:Contributions/Whiteleaf30

I was fortunate to nip this one in the bud. Some sort of random mass page moving. It begs the question, that if it has happened once, then it can happen again. Maybe some sort of edit filter / page move throttle? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that editing pattern, or edit summary, before... GiantSnowman 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Whiteleaf30 and other accounts are operated by a cross-wiki vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/68 is tailor-made for this situation, except for the comically-low conditions to bypass it. —Cryptic 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. he makes the right number of edits and cracks on... Maybe time to increase the conditions? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Started a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_increase_trigger_of_Special:AbuseFilter/68 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Login help needed, please

Howdy guys, 12-year wikiveteran and daily editor here, old man now and apparently have gotten really stupid with age or else somebody has screwed up my account. Yesterday or the day before I was logged out automatically (I thought) and the system asked me to make a new password, which I did by a small variation on the one I've used all these years. Well now the new password does not work, nor will the system send a reset email to any of my 3 email accounts (I forget which one I started with on Wikipedia).

I've already read the info at Help:Logging in and Help:Reset password, neither of which were very helpful. I would really rather not create a brand new account and lose continuity with my 12 years of edits. Can anyone help me out here? Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password? -

"Otherwise you will have to create a new account under a different username. After doing this, if a user page and user talk page were created for the old account, it is advisable to make them redirect to the equivalent pages for the new account. (To carry the content and history of these pages over to the new location, you can use the "move" function—contact an administrator if assistance is needed.)"

so basically unless you used WP:Committed identity then your only option is to create another account,

You could be anyone and as such we can't really help - The account hasn't made any edits after the 4th so it's not been compromised - You'll either need to try & remember the account details or create a new account. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. Yes, I read the Help article, and I just hoped somebody might know an easier way to get around this problem. What I really don't understand is why Wikipedia apparently does not recognize any of my email addresses, all of which I believe I've had since before I joined the project here - that is very strange. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you don't have an email set. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:EmailUser&target=Textorus says: "This user has not specified a valid email address.". SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Well crap, maybe I never entered my email address. That bites. Well after dinner tonight guess I'll be creating a new account, and probably will be back here for help moving the old content & history over, as the Help page says. Thanks SQL. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we ought to change our registration process. We permit new registrants to register without specifying an email address and I'm not proposing to change that. There may well be legitimate reasons for someone to wish to register without specifying an email address. However, I think such a decision should be accompanied by a warning in big red letters with exclamation points, explaining that while they are permitted to register without specifying an email address, they will absolutely unequivocally not be able to update their password should they forget it, and many, many editors have learned this the hard way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Textorus, you might be able to get help from the tech staff on this one. Even though you don't have a committed identity (hardly a requirement to resolve a problem like this), they could take other steps to confirm that you are the account owner, like checking the most recent IP used by the account against the IP used to make the request. They can be reached by filing a ticket at phabricator.wikimedia.org (you may need to make a new account to do that). Good luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An aside to this: I've never heard of MediaWiki forcing someone to do a password reset - does anyone know anything about that? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I never remember it happening before on WP - I just figured it was the New Normal. But I may try the phabricator thing, though looks like they are pretty slow to respond to queries over there. Thanks Ajraddatz. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajraddatz - Apologies my reply could've been clearer but you're correct it isn't a requirement - I only mentioned it as it could've helped that was all. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reedy: any insight in to this, such as any updates to badpasswords that may have gone out? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it could have been phishing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Some recent attempts at phishing have been made using malicious js, but the user doesn't appear to have any local js files, so it's probably unconnected to what I'm thinking of. But it may be a different sort of attempt. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajr: Sysadmins can force people to reset their passwords via command line command, but last incident that happening (IIRC) was in 2013 with wiki replica problems. — regards, Revi 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is Textorous. I was under the impression that it is not possible in these circumstances for the new account to have the history of the old as it would in a normal rename.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Soooo... Poking around a bit. It does seem that Textorus had an email address confirmed all the way back in 2006. But the field in the DB is blank, and no way to easily find out what it was... Or when it was changed.

On the 3rd May, there was a login to enwiki, and very shortly after a password change. On the 4th July, a successful login was made to enwikiquote. I see one revert shortly after... [34] - Do you remember logging into the English Wikiquote? Are you still logged in if you visit it?

The other option is with the web of trust... Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life? Anyone that can vouch that you are who you say they are? And as such, any that I, or other people I trust, can use their authority to verify you.

Reedy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the checkuser confirmation, why do we need any further proof? At this point, either we should be saying "sorry, you can't get back into your account" and preparing to grant Textorus' user rights to a new account, or we should be focusing on ways to get him back into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited

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

---

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would clarify that editors are not permitted to use automated tools or bot accounts to issue discretionary sanctions alerts. The community is encouraged to review and comment on the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions

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.

Need help tidying edit history on prominent article

(Please see here for background -- it's a long and varied discussion, but for this topic, look for the comments from me and from Czar.)

A week or so ago, I restored the previously-deleted version of this article. The article was getting covered in the news, and I felt it would be helpful for the news-reading public to have access to the earliest versions of the article, which were deleted. However, there was an unfortunate side effect, pointed out by Czar: the new edit history tended to lead to the erroneous conclusion that they (Czar) had deleted the article, when in fact it was another Wikipedian. Czar described to me how to restore the condition I had found it in, and last night at about 3am New York time, I tried to do so: re-delete the entire article, and then click through 815 checkboxes to restore only the revisions that came after the initial deletion.

However, when I clicked "restore," I got an error message: "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem..." I believe restoring so many revisions in one click is what lead to a problem, as the site seemed to work fine other than that.

Could a more technically-minded admin please advise if there is another way to accomplish the same goal? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your restore went through properly, as you can see at Special:Undelete/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. —Cryptic 17:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct...sorry for the false alarm. There are two restore buttons, and I thought the one I clicked to make that happen was a full restore of all revisions. Using the other button is what lead to the error described above. Still confused by how the software is supposed to work, but glad to see the article is now as it should be. Thanks Cryptic. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

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

---

Good day (or whatever it is for you),

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. Now, 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 just myself. 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. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossible, sorry. You were originally indefintely topic banned in July 2017. In October you were blocked for 24 hours for violating that ban. After what can only be called either selective deafness or pushing the boundaries, Boing! said Zebedee extended your block six months. You also had your talk-page aces revoked. So, in fact, the only reason, for all intents and purposes that you have been able to adhere to your topic ban is because you were blocked? I think this is one of those cases, where, although officially you could (as you are doing) appeal within six months of it being issued, in fact, I think we would want to see six months of editing in uncontroversial areas. In other words, demonstrate that you can edit outside of the problem areas without a block enforcing it. Let's say: the next appeal no less than six months from today? I propose that, but, no problem—the community may say otherwise. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too soon. You were blocked for topic-ban violations on 2017-10-09. That block was for six months. There was a subsequent block, on 2018-05-01, but that was by your own request and definitely not something that should be held against you. My concern here, though, is that since 2017-10-09, you've made no edits to articles at all. As such, I don't think we have any significant evidence of you editing constructively. I want to be clear, I am saying "too soon" rather than "oppose". I'm glad to see your comments here, they indicate that you are a good candidate for having the topic ban lifted at some point. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with Yamla. I'd like to see a few months of positive contributions to articles. I think they are knowledgeable, and have potential to be a solid contributor, but I'd like to see some evidence before lifting the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defence: Virtually every article here contains units of measurement. Therefore, I feel like I cannot edit Wikipedia without violating the topic ban. This means that I have adhered to the topic ban by not editing Wikipedia at all. Just a quick reminder: The block in October was imposed because I had asked user:1292simon to refrain from adding Original Research to the article Flathead engine which was then considered automobile-related. I had not expected the ban to be this strict. Since I really do not want to violate the topic ban once again, I have stopped contributing. I do not want to risk another block and I cannot see where the boundaries are. To give you an example: I am working on engine articles a lot and the original Diesel engine was not designed as an automobile engine. In fact, due to it's technical limitations, it was impossible to use the Diesel engine as an automobile engine. (To make it easier to imagine, I am talking about something like this). So, initially, the Diesel engine was not related to "automobile". However, since working on the article flathead engine led to a block, I expect that editing the article Diesel engine would also lead to a block. To be fair, I am exaggerating this by using this example, since starting in the late 1920's, Diesel engines became popular as engines for lorries which are definitely automobiles. But what if there is something else? Just a tiny little something somewhere in an article that I might not even see? Would you consider that a topic ban violation? I mean, there are just too many things that are somehow related to the topics that I am currently banned from. Accidently editing something that has some unit of measurement somewhere or is somehow related to automobiles would be a reason for another block. No matter whether it is an accident or not. (And consider that people would hardly believe me when I say that it was an accident.) At least, that's what I think is the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I don't think that it would be a reasonable idea to start editing Wikipedia at this point with the ban still in place. Maybe you have not seen this and I admit, it's hard to believe something that is in German (I suppose that most of you do not understand German), but in the German language Wikipedia, I am contributing almost every day and other editors mostly consider me a good author. I am known for high-quality articles and properly cited sources. In fact, I am even a Mentor for new users. I mean, why would I be a Mentor if I was a "problem user"? I admit that I have made a mistake by completely ignoring consensus. I thought that the rule "sources > opinions" would apply here. But it turned out that I caused actual harm and I regret that. Actually, I have learned that those people who I thought were hostile, are reasonable editors. I even found myself working together with Andy Dingley on Commons; he helped me categorising my photographs properly. Yamla, you have said that I am appealing too soon – I think that almost 12 months later is not too soon. During the time period in which I was blocked, I have learned a lot and while I have not contributed to the English language Wikipedia, I have created several high-quality articles in the German language Wikipedia, two of them being featured articles. Yes, it might seem like nothing was going on in the past few months, but my mindset has changed. Definitely. I think it would be nothing but appropriate and fair if I stayed away from automobile articles for a while voluntarily in case of an unban. I neither want to harm nor annoy anybody, I would definitely re-start Wikipedia slowly with editing occasionally. Maybe I find some minor mistakes here and there which I would correct, maybe there are new things I am interested in. I'd also like Alex Shih to comment since he was involved in the process back then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly. Look at WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Yes, tons of articles have measurements in them, but parts of those articles not dealing with measurements aren't covered by your ban. For a random example, Van Wert County Courthouse has measurements of area (infobox) and the height of a statue, but as long as you don't touch those parts or add something measurement-related or automobile-related, you have no more restrictions on this article than anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The appealing too soon refers to appealing too soon after the previous declined appeal, particularly when this new appeal doesn't really address the points raised in the previous appeal. Like I mentioned before, if you cannot write in a more concise manner, you are still going to frustrate everyone here. For the record, I would support suspending instead of lifting the topic ban on the condition that it may be re-imposed by any uninvolved administrator with good reason at any time. The slow edit war over not redirecting User:Jojhnjoy to your new username however is really bizarre, but I suppose it's not explicitly against policy; although it can reasonably interpreted as evading scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: There are many unconstructive edits that are not against any specific policy but fall under various rubrics like disruption, incompetence, and NOTHERE. At a minimum his wanting to say that he's retired on that page instead of the redirect causes problems for other editors if they try to follow a link from his former username. I've warned the editor to leave the page alone, and I'll enforce my warning if necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too Soon You caused a lot of unnecessary drama that was only ended with a long term block. I am glad you recognize this and your opening statement accepting responsibility is encouraging. However, I have to agree with those who think this is too soon. Come back next summer (2019). For the record you are not prohibited from editing articles that contain units of measurement in them. The TBan only applies to articles where units of measurement constitute a substantial aspect of the article or attempts to edit actual UM in an article. If you want to improve RMS Titanic, which does contain UM, i.e. her gross tonnage length beam etc., no one is going to ding you as long as you stay off those statistics and don't start counting rivets or port holes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think some of the comments here are understandably confusing Johannes Maximilian and will come back to haunt everyone. If the topic ban is to be interpreted as all edits related to automobiles and all edites related to units of measurement, both broadly construed, then Johannes should not be able to edit the UM in the Titanic article. If one administrator says he can but another doesn't know that and blocks him for violating his ban, how is this Johannes's fault? Unless we want to change the ban, it should mean what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, the ban says „broadly construed“; what is that supposed to mean in the first place? How broad is it? You are saying I am interpreting it too broadly. In the past, I had interpreted it the opposite of "too broadly" – and I was blocked. I really want to be more careful, but thank you for your reply. Alex, well, you are right that I am not really being concise, but trust me, you are not the only one who has told me. I appreciate your suggestion of suspending the topic ban instead of lifting it at this point and I think that this is a good idea. My old username was horrible and I prefer to abandon it. My "old" edits are still visible under Special:Contribs/Johannes_Maximilian so I cannot evade scrutiny, even if I wanted to. But I understand that one could reasonably interpret it as evading. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, in my comment above I pointed to the Titanic article, I am stating that JM may not edit any units of measurement. As long as he stays off that, he is free to edit or discuss the rest of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Ad Orientem, I misread it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is premature and that the best way forward would be to edit in areas not covered by the topic ban, which is almost all the encyclopedia. The OP was blocked in October for violations of the topic ban, that block expired in April. The OP has only made a handful of edits to Wikipedia since, apart from topic ban appeals these were all in user or user talk space. The topic ban doesn't cover all articles containing units of measurement, it only covers articles which are about units of measurement or edits which add/change units of measurement in other types of article. "Broadly construed" just means that the OP isn't likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous cases and can't use hair splitting to justify making edits which arguably fall under the topic ban. If someone can show through constructive editing that a topic ban is not needed then the topic ban is likely to be lifted. Hut 8.5 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't forget that the ban also covers "automobile"; automobile means something like "moving under own power" and that covers any kind of vehicle as well as things that are related to that. There are so many things that can be found in a vehicle that could be related to "automobile". I could start contributing again – but who guarantees me that editing articles like Diesel engine for instance would not get me blocked? What if some editor who has no idea sees me editing and asks an administrator who has also no idea to get me blocked? Laymen would most likely associate Diesel engines with "automobile" because they don't know that the Diesel engine was never designed for automobile use (which is something I cannot even blame them for). In fact, the section of that particular article that describes the air-blast injection is quite poor and I have got plenty of books lying around covering that topic. I could contribute a lot there. But I believe, that, even if I cite a source that clearly says that air-blast injection cannot be used for automobiles, some people would still say that it is a topic ban violation and I am very sure that someone would block me. So I'd rather not edit at all. Anyways, any support for Alex Shih's proposal of suspending the topic ban? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering this into the ground. Automobile has a common meaning. You shouldn't make any edits related to automobiles. The edit you hypothesize about diesel engines would be included. Really, what difference does it make that diesel engines were supposedly never designed to be used in cars? The point is they are. There are huge areas of the encyclopedia that are not even remotely related to automobiles that you can edit. I get the sense that the only articles that interest you are those covered by your ban. I don't favor a suspension of the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• That is exactly what I mean. Air-blast injection has nothing to do with automobile. And yet you are saying it is covered by the ban. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

But well, this doesn't lead anywhere, to make this clear, I am not going to make an edit related to air-blast injection. As you have said, it was a hypothetical thought I have brought up to explain my point. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your topic ban covers any edits "relating to automobiles". I'm struggling to understand how anybody would think that a type of engine widely used in automobiles does not relate to automobiles. Hut 8.5 16:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Air-blast injected engines cannot be used in automobiles. Just take a look at the edit I made at 16:36. If you happen to know German and still have questions regarding this, feel free to ask them here. But I think we should stop this here since the example I have made doesn't seem to make it easier for you to understand what I want to express. We would end up wasting too much time. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TBAN - The Wikilawyering is strong with this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per this (removed) diff; I'm not sure whether this is incompetence or wiki-lawyering. Either way, it doesn't demonstrate the competence or temperament for me to support lifting restrictions. This editor also appealed their sanction in April (before a rename) and should be prohibited from appealing for at least 6 months, with a note that if they do not make constructive edits, their appeal will be declined again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, since, to me it feels like nobody understands what I want to express. Hereby, I withdraw my appeal. Please, leave the ban as it is. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wall of text you don't necessarily need to read:

Extended content

Instead of removing my post I suppose that removing the opinions of uninvolved non-administrators makes more sense, doesn't it? I have explained why I consider contributing constructively is impossible with a topic ban in place that prohibits me from adding any kind of units. I consider edits constructive that cannot be done by a well programmed bot. I edit Wikipedia since I want to add content, I am not here for fixing typos and reverting vandalism only. „But Johannes, you have not edited since the expiry of your block! And you have less than 1000 edits.“ → See here. I know several editors who have accumulated thousands of edits by just reverting IP-vandalism and splitting up one edit into 20 tiny edits. I have created more than 140 articles, most of them being non-stub-articles. And I wonder why I have not been blocked yet for using time units in my signature. So I have two options: Option 1: Strictly adhering to the topic ban which means that I am banned from contributing to virtually any article → Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly Okay? Then here is Option 2: I don't edit in a manner that contradicts the purpose of my topic ban (to express it using the words of User:Bbb23: I mean editing in a way that is 100 % appropriate) but I violate the topic ban here and there (for instance by adding time units to my signature) (!)only for preventing myself from being forced into editing in a way that other editors would legitimately interpret as trolling. → Maybe someone finds a mistake I make and I get blocked indefinitely. I do understand what people try to explain to me. I am not stupid and I am not stubborn either. I know that at this point the appeal was declined. However, I feel like there is only very little understanding for my point of view, and, in addition to that, almost no understanding for the way I express things. „Your text is too long!“ Well, what else am I supposed to do? Just write "appealing my ban"? That would most likely get ignored. „You must contribute!“ I cannot do that because everything contains units. „You interpret the ban too broadly!“ *Asks another editor to refrain from adding original research and gets blocked for six months* Upps – too broadly, you say? Well, maybe someone might even consider it an attack that I have expressed my thoughts and feelings above. People have even considered it an attack that I have explained that my opinion is different from theirs. I have made the experience that people interpret things just wrong. Above, I say to me it feels like – that is just what I feel, it does not mean that this is actual reality. I am an open and honest person, I express a lot of my thoughts but I am not saying that any of these things are fact or right. I cannot determine the value of my own words. In a prior post I had explained why it is impossible to edit Wikipedia when being banned from editing units. That was just my opinion. Instead of telling me why my point of view had flaws or explaining when editing units was fine, my post got deleted for being too long. From my point of view it just seems like nobody really wants to deal with the problem I am facing. Not unbanning me but instead choking my words creates the least amount of work. Also, nobody wants to be responsible for potential damage I could cause. I see this every day in the German language Wikipedia. People are having issues and the administrators don't want to deal with it. Maybe I am just incompatible with this whole system? My mentality might be considerably different from other editors's? Or I am just not used to English language Wikipedia. Who knows. I will see if putting effort into finding useful edits I can make without getting blocked is any fun. But I seriously doubt that. Wenn du diesen Satz liest und verstehst, dann sprichst du Deutsch; Trollen beendet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 05:01, 9 July 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.

Apparent hoax and vandalism by User:Defensecontributor

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.

---

Apologies if this isn't the right or best place to address this; feel free to move this or let me know of a better venue!

It appears that User:Defensecontributor is attempting to create a hoax article. A cursory search of the subject shows no hits and the "company's" "executives" are undergraduate students. This editor logged out and made similar edits, including adding one of those same people to the article of a real company. Unless I've missed something or made a mistake, this editor has clearly earned a block and a summary deletion of their hoax article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks for spotting this. The company seems real but based on the two editing histories, we can't trust anything the creator has written. Draft G3'd and editor indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the company exists but thanks for taking care of this anyway! ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 7 July 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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

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.

---

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

I am requesting admin attention at this MFD (and MFD is as contentious as AFD) for three reasons:

1. Off-topic personal attacks between author User:James500 and User:Hijiri88 who appear to have bad blood.

2. Personal attacks by User:James500.

3. The silly claim by James500 that at 30 Centigrade it is too hot to coMpose a reply. Go to the library. He may be trying to confuse Americans who use Fahrenheit, but that’s 86F. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing that MfD again and have not edited it for some time. I have no wish to interact with the other user again. If you want me to provide diffs to support any claim I made, I can do so, but I think it would just re-escalate something that is already over, as far as I can see. I cannot "go to the library" as I am housebound due to illness and that temperature is more than I can bear. James500 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this seems like a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument. James500 is very inclusionist, though for some reason he doesn't use the standard bolded keep-delete !votes at AfD, preferring non-bolded "Oppose" or "Notable" votes when he supports keeping articles. Overall he is possibly the most quixotic AFD participant since Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oppose" does not mean "keep", it means "anything but deletion". It just means that a target for redirection or merger exists, but I haven't checked for notability. The closest thing that I could write would be "redirect or merge or keep" with no preference expressed. I am not quixotic. As a general rule, I am the one finding the sources when others do not seem to know how to use a search engine properly, I am the one checking the academics' GScholar h-indexes for WP:PROF when no one else looked, and so forth. I do a valuable job at AfD and you are lucky to have me. James500 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @James500: You'll want to read WP:FLOUNCE a few times. Keep that ego in check. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have to say "It's warm outside" is one of the weirdest rationales for opposing an MfD I've ever seen. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It was crushingly unbearably hot inside as well. It was the longest hottest heatwave for some time. The Metreological Office has been issuing health warnings because of this: [35]. It has been that bad. James500 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't consider it to be an off-topic personal attack to point out that the essay under discussion is representative of a battleground mentality that its author has demonstrated in other recent, closely related, discussions. I specifically cited diffs claiming a grand deletionist conspiracy to destroy the encyclopedia, a claim that was until yesterday repeated on the page in question. If other editors consider it a personal attack, I will bow to consensus, apologize, and not repeat those kinds of comments.

I do not consider this a "deletionist vs. inclusionist" debate, because I do not consider myself a deletionist: if a page written by a self-identified deletionist that made similar polemical attacks against other users, I would have !voted the exact same way.

I do consider James500's remarks about me to be personal attacks, but not ones that rise to the level of AN yet, and I think it should be my prerogative to report such things when they involve me. I've seen enough drahma come out of this MFD already, and I don't want to spend any more time thinking about it (it was bad enough that I was reminded about literally the worst thing that ever happened to me in nine years editing Wikipedia).

Can someone just close this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(On what should be an entirely unrelated note, I grew up in Dublin, Ireland, where the maximum forecast temperature today is 21℃, which is I understand quite hot for my hometown, so I have almost no natural tolerance for heat, and currently live in Osaka where the minimum temperature tonight will be 26℃ and tomorrow at around noon it will climb to 33℃. So I have probably more reason than almost any other editor of English Wikipedia to complain about the heat -- the only others with more would be people used to an Irish-style temperate climate who currently live in the desert -- and I agree it makes no sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )

I once had to defend myself against a completely frivolous edit warring allegation in the middle of Australian summer, where temperatures can often exceed 42 degrees, and the only things I had to complain about were the wikilawyering and malice of the litigant, not the ambient air temperature. So I'm not super impressed with "I object! It's 30 degrees outside!" Reyk _YO! 08:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I ran a brief Google check and found that the difference between Dublin and Osaka is rougly the same as the difference between Osaka and Riyadh (I was a little surprised to see that Riyadh is apparently hotter than Cairo...). That's what I was referring to with "the desert". I assume that "often exceed 42 degrees" refers to the inland areas that could reasonably be compared to Riyadh in terms of climate, but I'm barely capable of Googling the current weather where I am, let alone looking up average temperatures in multiple regions where "how's the weather now in X" won't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if you're in a country that is used to hot summers, with everywhere having AC and whatnot, you're probably far better equipped to deal with 42℃ then us poor Brits are with 30℃. It's not easy. Fish Karate 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the MfD as consensus to userfy. It's about 12 hours early, but I think the debate has run its course and all that's going to happen now is more yelling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 9 July 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.

Taiwan-related vandalism

Just a note for all, I spotted a bunch of this while clearing the backlog at WP:RFPP, there seems to be a wave of unconnected (I think) IP addresses making fluffery edits about how awesome Taiwan is. Examples: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. The common factor seems to be amending articles to describe Taiwan as "democratic industrialized developed country of Republic of China (Taiwan)", then a bunch of other peacockery. I guess all we can do is semiprotect, but just so people are aware if you come across it, that it's not an isolated incident. Cheers. Fish Karate 12:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar IP-hopping peacockery about Taiwan was noted here. Kanguole 12:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar to the point of being identical, good spot - [41]. Fish Karate 12:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Yaser Abdel Said.png

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 this image be replaced by File:Yaser-said.jpeg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:3512:1C14:CC50:2CF2:8817 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest it on the talk page of the article, Talk:Yaser Abdel Said. I suspect given the image is a computer-amended aged version of this wanted criminal, then it shouldn't replace the other image (which is an actual image) but it could be added somewhere to the article, if licensing allows. Fish Karate 12:31, 10 July 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.

Enforcement requests for General Sanctions

With cryptocurrency and professional wrestling added to the areas under community-authorized general sanctions, is there any enthusiasm setting up a board similar to WP:AE that would handle enforcement requests? WP:ANEW can handle violations of revert restrictions but is unsuited to discuss behavior and WP:AN does not have the organized structure WP:AE has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally the Arbcom system is better organized than the community system. The simplest would be to run a combined board, dealing with both arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. But that would be like crossing the streams and most likely Arbcom wouldn't go for it. You could also combine Arbcom alerts and community alerts just by issuing new two-letter codes for each kind of community sanction. (You would still say subst:alert topic=xx for new values of xx). Since the Arbcom alert system set up in 2014 is much easier to use than the former one this saves work for admins and others who want to give the alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a structured board would be an improvement over free-form ANI discussions, but combining community sanctions into AE would limit sanction discussions to admins, and limit non-admins to stand-alone statements with no threading. That works for AE because the admins in the bottom section, who are deciding on sanctions/no sanctions can thread, and the statements from non-admins are just informational, but a community sanction needs to be able to be discussed by all parts of the community, not just admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Kind of confused here. "Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case... Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions." It's still admins deciding on an editor's sanctions, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, Neil. I was thinking of community-imposed General Sanctions as being along the same lines as a community imposed block, which shouldn't be lifted by an admin without community approval, but it does appear that General Sanctions are defined in pretty much the same manner as Discretionary Sanctions. I've struck that part of my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have argued the same before - two similar yet (confusingly) different systems is needless bureaucracy Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining the alert systems into Template:Alert, provided the documentation of the template makes clear these systems are distinct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with setting up WP:AN/GS, which could also handle appeals in a more structured way if those ever happen. Right now there doesn't seem to be a clear way to request GS enforcement besides ANI, which of course defeats the point of community authorized discretionary sanctions in a way: its not as streamlined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with a new board, but it should be structured in some way (though it may need 2-3 different templates for enforcement/appeals/complaints); unstructured complaints are handled as well as possible at AN/ANI and I don't think a new forum will help with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with moderate enthusiasm. I think a parallel system would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would prefer lumping in with AE to reduce bureaucracy, but would accept a new board begrudgingly. I've been reminding various patrollers that summary deletions of pages where the creator has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest and tendentiously resubmitted drafts at AFC are available under the blockchain sanctions if they ask me. There should be a centralised venue to report these -- ANI doesn't seem to be the best fit. MER-C 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• If it could be merged with AE, but with it's own non-Arbcom-dictated process, that would be idea. However, Arbcom is usually not receptive to having their creations messed with. Assuming that's the case here, I would support a similar enforcement venue (WP:GSE?) to provide structure and a wee bit of decorum.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should minimize the confusion and send these reports to WP:AE. Most people probably can't tell the difference between AN and ANI; how will they tell the difference between AE and a GS-specific noticeboard? We should organize Wikipedia's bureaucracy in a way that simplifies work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, and Newyorkbrad: Pinging a few Arbcom members to see if we can discuss expanding the scope of WP:AE or if that's a total non-starter. I agree that having one board to handle requests for all discretionary sanctions enforcement would be a lot easier for editors. They don't care (or know) if the discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom or the community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The first, best, choice should be to centralize discussions at AE. There also needs to be a rationalization of notice requirements and procedures between DS and GS that implement DS. I would suggest expanding the DS/alert infrastructure to support GS/DS; not because it is the best option but because it is the simplest way to get things integrated. Alternately the community can come up with a simpler procedure and convince ArbCom to change DS to fit. This would, in my opinion, be the better option since the DS notification system is, frankly, an over-engineered nightmare of cognitive dissonance. Regardless, handling GS at AN it ANI would be counter-productive to say the least. Jbh ^Talk 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm going to talk to the Committee/clerks about allowing community sanction discussions at AE. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I responded to Kevin's email, but I also want to give some thoughts here. I think sending these to AE would get quite confusing. All of our instructions surrounding AE include notes that decisions can be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, something which is not true for general sanctions. Also, arbitration clerks can theoretically clerk AE and sanction editors there as a clerk action. While they generally do not, in favor of allowing administrators to clerk AE, they could. I suspect the community wouldn't want arbitration clerks having jurisdiction over general sanctions discussions, which is what would happen if we allowed general sanctions discussions at AE. The best thing about general sanctions is that they are community-imposed and managed, which is the ideal way to resolve any dispute, as far as I'm concerned. We're moving away from that if we send reports to AE, which is a noticeboard under the control of the Arbitration Committee. I want the Committee to be doing less when it comes to dispute resolution, not more. We're better-suited for things the community genuinely cannot handle, such as review of administrative conduct (until/unless a community-based desysopping policy emerges), privacy-related issues, managing the functionary team, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • How many arb clerks are not administrators? Wouldn't they need tools to sanction anyway? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Natureium: Five clerks (including myself) are not administrators. Most sanctions (like topic bans/etc.) don't strictly require the tools to impose, but I think what Rob is referring to is the authority of the arbitration clerks to maintain order on arbitration pages. Non-admin clerks can't impose discretionary sanctions, but if someone gets disruptive on the AE page itself (or any page that begins with WP:Arbitration), the clerks have some reserve authority to ban that person from editing the AE page under the procedures and ArbCom decisions. I don't think this is something that really comes up; in my nearly-three-and-a-half years, we have never exercised our authority on the WP:AE page. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I also responded to Kevin's email and I'll echo those thoughts here. General sanctions and arbitration sanctions are definitely not the same thing. General sanctions are enacted and enforced by the community using community processes, and discretionary sanctions are enacted and enforced by the Arbitration Committee when community processes have failed. If GS enforcement is sent to AE, that enforcement discussion is effectively being taken out of the community's hands. I think it's kind of a lazy way out if community decides to formulate sanctions and then community decides to have the Arbitration Committee deal with them. I believe AN is pretty well equipped to handle GS enforcement; it's (usually) less vitriolic than ANI and it's widely watched. Set up another noticeboard if that's desired, and let's have some ideas for DS alert rewording or revamping if desired, but leave the Committee out of community sanctions enforcement as much as humanly possible. Katie^talk 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support doing at GS and DS at AE. All of these "sanctions" exist for the same reason; to quell/prevent disruption and to deal swiftly with it, when it happens. We already have the infrastructure for the latter at AE. We may need to tweak the name of AE to something like "sanction enforcement" or the like. We probably need an RfC to do all this; I understand that the OP was just about starting the discussion and I am grateful for it being opened. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think I can speak for the Committee when saying it’s a hard no to doing arbitration enforcement on a non-arbitration page. We need jurisdiction over the enforcement of our past cases. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Rob, I think you may have expressed that backwards, the question was not about doing Arbitration enforcement on a non-ArbCom-controlled page, it was about doing non-ArbCom enforcement (i.e enforcement of community-imposed General Sanctions) on an ArbCom-controlled page (i.e. AE). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Jytdog talked about renaming AE as something different ("sanction enforcement"). I'm saying that will not happen, since it must be under WP:Arbitration to be within ArbCom jurisdiction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I see, I thought you were addressing the more general question. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie: There's no room for assuming admins and clerks will exercise a little bit of common sense here? An editor adds a request, an admin or arbcom clerk can mark it as falling under arbcom sanctions or community sanctions. Admins are going to go through the exact same process anyways. Arbcom sanctions are enacted by arbcom and requests for enforcement are dealt with by admins. Community sanctions are enacted by community and requests for enforcement are again dealt with by admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in weakening the clerks' ability to act on arbitration-related pages by bringing in non-arbitration activities and setting up some kind of rules about when they can/can't act as a clerk at AE. If we're going to be setting up such a divide, why not have an alternative noticeboard to minimize the confusion, bureaucracy, and jurisdiction issues? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: See Kevin's comment above regarding never having to exercise clerk authority on the AE page. Obviously Arbcom has final say but realize that this position is increasing confusion and bureaucracy for editors because you think somehow we're going to argue over jurisdiction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neil: I can certainly see the argument for reducing bureaucracy by having a single page deal with both types of sanctions, but I think there's also a good argument that the differing sources of authority -- ArbCom for arbitration-based Discretionary Sanctions, and the community for General Sanctions -- outweighs the convenience of having them take place on the same page, as combining them is very likely to cause confusion about who's ultimately in charge. The best solution I've seen in the discussion above is for a new administrators' noticeboard -- WP:AN/GS was the suggestion -- modeled on AE, with whatever adjustments are needed to eliminate the arbitration-specific aspects and language of AE. Folks seem to feel comfortable with the existing administrators' boards (AN, AN/I, and ANEW), and I'm sure they'd get used to AN/GS quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I originally proposed having a new noticeboard because I believed Arbcom wouldn't go for adapting AE. However I thought there'd be better arguments against the idea than "we need to show who's in charge". I realize denoting who has jurisdiction could be important for a small amount of requests but really, it's not that complicated or controversial. But I guess two boards is the way we're going. I just hope clerks and admins are courteous enough to move misplaced requests instead of just removing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's plainly not what I said. I said that having general sanctions discussions at a page that directs people to WP:ARCA for appeal will confuse everyone and that community-issued general sanctions should be reported on a page under the jurisdiction of the community and only the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of your comments were about clerking, jurisdiction, and control. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest moving to VPR before this thread gets too big Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Korny O'Near

Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be having trouble dropping the stick at Talk:Imran Awan. He hasn't been able to convince a single person, yet he keeps going on and on, with a major case of WP:IDHT. I propose a six month topic ban from the Imran Awan page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have diffs of what disruption is being caused, as I can't see on that talk page what would justify an immediate, full-on topic ban. Particularly as he's not disrupting the article, he is discussing it on the talk page. Fish Karate 12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I could give you a list of diffs, but it would simply be all of his statements on the talk page, interleaved with diffs where everyone else disagreed with him and posted multiple requests that he drop the stick. I don't see that as being more useful than just reading the talk page, but I will compile the list of diffs if you want me to.

I agree that he has not been disruptive on the article. The problem is him not dropping the stick on the article talk page. Should I wait until he hits 1000 comments without convincing anyone? He clearly is not going to stop without administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I see 17 comments over four days by Korny O'Near. That is 983 comments less than 1000. That being said, I ask Korny O'Near to recognize that they have failed to gain consensus among the editors on that talk page that their concerns are legitimate. No one agrees. At a certain point, each editor must recognize that consensus is in the other direction, and move on. This appears to be that time, Korny O'Near. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter

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.

---

Per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#EEng and canvassing and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request, did Ymblanter resign under a cloud? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at BN, which is the proper place to determine this. ansh666 23:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Concurring with Ansh666, this is a matter for the bureaucrats to deliberate. They can even do this by disregarding all or any of the non bureaucrat comments at WP:BN if they wish - it's their page, their mandate, whatever a discussion here at ANI may conclude. By the same token, Guy, unless there is egregious cross-Wiki behaviour of the kind that requires a global block, what gets discussed on another Foundation project about this issue has no relevance here and we're not obliged to go over there and take a look. Genuinely sorry to disagree with you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 11 July 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.

Regarding my Account

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

---

Dear administrators,

I am here in response to an SPI Filled against me for being a sockpuppet of multiple accounts. As you can see the on-going discussion and my comments there as well, I want to say something here and to ask some help as well. As much as I regret that those accounts were mine, when I joined Wikipedia in 2013, and all accounts were created in same year using Proxy. As I was in China where Google and other search engines can not be used unless you are using VPN. So my first three accounts were blocked, and I admit it was my mistake because I didn't know any better regarding policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. And recently it came to my attention that before creating a new account for a user who have been blocked previously, must have administrator(s) permission to edit further on Wikipeida and this was the fact I was unaware of. I want to explain little on that, that my this account was also created using proxy when I was proxy exemption back in 2013. I continued because I didn't face any warning, until two days ago, when I filled a SPI for a user who instead filled for me. Now this was certainly a set back for me, because all of the accounts were in 2013, and they were blocked immediately in same year, except the last one. It has been more than four years I am editing Wikipedia, and never been accused of misconduct and warned for. Yes initially I upload copyrighted images and they were deleted as per regular policies and I was not warned, because I stopped and became more focused on who to edit, and with time I have learned to edit safely and I have contributed over ten thousands edits so far, and created over 200 pages, and recently promoted an major article to FLC solely, well all of my edits are not up-to best but they allowed me to continue my work.

Having said this, I accept it was on me, that I should have find out, and report here for using this account, but i cannot go back in time and correct things. And it may sound off, that I am here when SPI was filled, why I didn't acknowledged this earlier, the only truth is that I didn't know back then, otherwise I would have asked for permission, and I do't know how to prove that. I have been on this platform for over four years, working and giving my time, like everybody else, and this account and my work here is very dear, I have always edit in good faith, was never in dispute, and reported where I thought was necessary but never indulge in edit warring or abuse. So here I am asking for your clemency, and pardon. I should have known better and should have learned better regarding policies and rules more. But as I was never warned or given any notice after that, I didn't give any thought for this. You can look into my history, my edits and my accounts you will know.

And the SPI that is filled against me is out of personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors, who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring in India-Pakistan issues, as they constantly try to remove contents from Pakistani related pages. I haven't lie before, I won't lie now. I am here only when I get to know this. If this SPI weren't filled, I would not have know otherwise. So as soon as I know I am here, I know it is hard to believe that I am here for four years and how come I didn't know, but thats the eap of faith and trust I ask from you all, looking into the history of my edits in past four years. Thank you! Nauriya, Let's talk 03:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Without replying any further to this forum shopping, I would point the above blatant personal attacks and violations of WP:ASPERSIONS such as "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring". This statement alone justifies an indefinite block. Not to mention your mass copyright violations and breach of multiple accounts. To others, read my comments and from well established editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize for writing that, I didnt mean to attack or meant anything derogatory. I already explained my defence. And this also proves me that you are here commenting and watching me all the time. Its like tracking. Nauriya, Let's talk 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• What are your actual intentions behind these personal attacks? I have this very general noticeboard added to my watchlist for years and I have edited it before.[42] Why you didn't even bothered to notify the editors that you are attacking here? Your false grief in this section extends beyond deception. Launching another attack after making false apology for the minutes earlier attack confirms your unreformable problematic conduct. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sdmarathe, your comments here and at SPI are so extremely combative that they approach disruption. I really suggest that you back off and let uninvolved editors and administrators handle this matter. This editor has admitted that they socked five years ago and has apologized. Your bubbling anger makes it difficult to assess the validity of your other complaints. Cool it, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Admitting sock puppetry after being caught as sock makes no difference. It is supposed to be done earlier. Falsely alleging others of sock puppetry is outrageous. What are your comments about them filing baseless SPIs against editors they have never interacted nor investigated themselves? As well as the attacks on ethnicity by making a range of false accusations. Now that's something we need not to ignore. Also, in reference to "5 years ago" - The editor is still violating WP:SOCK as his not only one but 3 accounts are still blocked indefinitely and one of that account was blocked for sock puppetry.[43] thank you Sdmarathe (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you did not take the friendly advice that I offered, Sdmarathe. That is duly noted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 11 July 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.

Captain Occam unblock 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.

---

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked Captain Occam in April as a normal admin action based on this AE request. While it was an normal admin block, I think it should be reviewed by the community since it took place with the consensus of uninvolved administrators. I am neutral on the outcome of this unblock request. The unblock request is as follows:

As I've said in a few other places, I accept that my block itself was valid, and if it had been a standard one-month AE block I'd have waited it out rather than trying to appeal. However, considering this was my first topic ban violation, I think that a one-month block (or three months, which is now how long it's been) would have been a more appropriate result than an indefinite one.

Blocking me for a month had been the initial consensus in the results section of the AE report about me, until MastCell presented his argument that I should be indeffed based on what he thought my motives were, which shifted the direction of the discussion to make the outcome an indefinite block instead. This matters because MastCell probably is an involved admin with respect to the R&I arbitration case, and shouldn't have commented in that section. Shortly before my block I discussed this matter via e-mail with a member of ArbCom, Euryalus, and Euryalus offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to refrain from further participation in that section of the report. I don't have the space here to present the evidence for why he's an involved admin (and my interaction ban prevents me from discussing some of it in public), but I've shown this evidence privately to Penwhale and I invite his comment.

Since the decision to block me indefinitely instead of for a month was based largely on an assumption about my motives for helping to set up the psychometrics task force, I think it's important to point out that this assumption was incorrect. I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about proving something about their thoughts, but there's one piece of evidence that seems to have been overlooked: Everymorning, who created the task force and did most of the work setting it up, has a perspective about intelligence and behavioral genetics that's very close to the opposite of mine. If my goal had in fact been to advance my point of view on those topics, it would have made no sense for me to help set up a task force with him in charge.

At the time, it didn't occur to me that my involvement in this task force would be viewed as a topic ban violation, because I assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions. (That is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed"; the edits for which I was blocked involved human abilities and behavior but did not involve race or ethnicity.) As I said in the request for clarification that I made shortly before being blocked, now that I more accurately understand how the scope of my topic ban is interpreted, I intend to avoid all content at Wikipedia related to psychometrics or intelligence for as long as my topic ban is in effect. I didn't understand this about my topic ban in March, but now that I do, there isn't a danger of me repeating this particular mistake. I'm also open to the idea of disabling my Wikipedia e-mail feature, if the community feels that this should be an unblock condition.

My interests at Wikipedia are pretty eclectic, but other people can get an idea of what I'd edit if unblocked based on my editing history from January 2017 until I became involved in the psychometrics task force this past March. I edited articles related to religion, video games and books, and my editing history going forward will be similar to that. If I can muster the time and energy for it, I also hope to eventually raise William Beebe to FA status, having previously turned this article from start-class into a GA. (See the article's edit history from April 2010 to June 2011.) In the past I've also been one of the main people maintaining that article, so even if I never manage to get it up to FA status, I would like to at least continue making Wikignome formatting edits as I did here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this up for the community to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Captain Occam has pinged Penwhale and Everymorning, but not @MastCell and Euryalus: I've done that now, as I think they may well want to comment. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I changed it to no pings here (they were pinged in his talk though) and notified MastCell. Thanks for pinging Euryalus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unblock after having read the April discussion that led to the block and the associated evidence. Bishonen's observations back then were especially persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting CO's response here per his request, see this diff: [44]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I am utterly unimpressed with that "explanation". Captain Occam observes while defending his ally: "However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references." We do not need trolls posing as Nazis editing Wikipedia, and we do not need editors who defend those who engage in such reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - CO has been a perennial problem each time he's been given some ROPE, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that his behavior will be different this time around if he were unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not need another warrior using the project to push a favored point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on an unblock, for largely the same reasons given by the oppose votes so far. If an unblock happens, the TBAN should be on subjects related to race or intelligence, which is far broader than the DS area of race and intelligence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting CO's response to power~enwiki: [45] - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm still neutral. While the email-harassment issue that originated the complaint is sufficiently dealt with by the block so far, and there are less than 250 edits since 2011 (and nothing too problematic in them), the other defenses presented are so awful I can't support an unblock. Complaining that an admin is biased in your unblock request is a great way to get it denied (if there is private evidence, ARBCOM will have to deal with it), and claiming that a person isn't a neo-Nazi but is simply an online provocateur is not a reason for that person to edit Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that I consider myself involved in the current request because CO contacted me via a RL friend of mine. There are... a few things I'd like to point out: There are two things that CO wants dealt with by the the current unblock request: (1) an actual unblock appeal, and (2) consideration of MastCell's involvement with regards to the topic area. With regards to the unblock appeal: I'm neutral (because I consider myself involved). With regards to MastCell: After seeing what CO has shown me, I think MastCell should refrain from performing admin actions in the topic area. My observation of the whole situation is that while CO probably wouldn't mind being unblocked (perhaps with more restrictions as per power~enwiki's suggestion), he wants to have the latter dealt with as a higher priority. I would ask that this request is not closed so early so that both can be discussed at length. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why are we allowing an editor who was blocked precisely for hounding and lawyering and using offwiki communication to pressure users he disagree with away from the one topic that he is interested to use his talkpage request to hound and lawyer against an admin that has opposed him and his agenda in several instances with the decided effect of pressuring that admin away from the topic? His block was not based on Mastcell's argument but on his own behavior. Which he now continues.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing about his unblock. I guess I didn't say that I would still have been neutral w/r to the unblock even if I weren't involved. That being said, what he has shown me does lead me to believe that MC should refrain from using admin powers in the area. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• CO knows full well that a variety of off-wiki sites are available for harassing editors and there is no need for WP:AN to be used for that purpose. If an editor in good standing has an issue with another editor, the first step would be to discuss it on the the talk page of the person in question. If warranted, an editor in good standing could then post a new report here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm lead to believe, from what I was shown, that CO had a rough time determining how to do it w/o violating his IBAN w/ MathSci, namely because CO believes that MC is using admin powers in support of MathSci while being involved. Again, I feel the issue is complicated by the fact that CO believes MC's involvement changed the consensus of his block. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not proxy for a topic and interaction banned user. If you believe MastCell should be sanctioned, start a new section and present your evidence. Otherwise, do not smear editors in good standing with someone believes bad stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care about his block. (Frankly, I'm also not very happy that I'm constantly messaged, but that's a different thing.) The argument for MastCell's involvement is really weak, but it'd go like Trev makes this edit → Trev blocked within 30 minutes of NE Ent making an AE request with no other comments by MastCell → MastCell was privately contacted by Mathsci for dealing with editors under IBAN/TBAN in the area → ... I disagree with CO's sentiment that MastCell is always on Mathschi's side (this is such an example).
• That being said, MastCell doesn't have to (and I don't feel that strongly about MastCell's involvement), but if MastCell would voluntarily not use admin tools in the area just so that CO doesn't have a bone to pick, we'd be done here (this would also bypass any WP:INVOLVED argument). As is, one of the (weak) reasons for the appeal is exactly of that; removing that as a possible reason allows any sanction against CO to be on a more solid ground. Also, when is calling someone involved in a topic area smear editors in good standing? In my opinion, it's like how {{DS/alert}} is a notification that doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If MastCell were to do that then we would in effect have allowed a banned user to exact vengeance on one of his opponents after being banned *and* to continue to exert control over who edits in the topic area that got them banned in the first place. That is a very very bad idea. His very unblock request is a violation of the conditions of his topic ban - he should have no influence on the topic area what soever, includding in determining who is "involved". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock per NOTBURO and ROPE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• How does NOTBURO apply? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not taking a stance on this either way, but I'd like to point out that this is hardly the case where ROPE would apply either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: the review of the AE report that led to the block, along with the unblock request, suggests that unblocking would not benefit the community at large in this case. Additionally, the request fails WP:NOTTHEM and is suggestive of a desire to carry on a grudge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 July 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.

Update on YouTube feature linking to English Wikipedia articles

Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.

The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.

You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): thanks for looking into this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was convinced on IRC to compile the (currently little) information available on this here, despite having never made a project space page before. Feel free to add to it or laugh at my attempt. Natureium (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by blocked editor

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.

---

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) was subjected to a community block about two months back, and has since been intermittently adding comments about me to his talk page, since he blames me for his being blocked (despite it being a community decision). Most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with him or his block,[46] and is just the result of him digging up dirt on me. The edit summary listing the many ways my accuser(s) uses Wiki as a 'Battle Ground', is within the scope of reasonable use research for appeal of my Block[47] seems really questionable -- has anyone ever been unblocked for saying "The guy I blame for my block is a bad dude, so you should unblock me"?

I initially tried removing some of the worst of it, but was reverted.[48] Since I'm the target of these comments I'm obviously biased, so I'll leave it to the community what to do with this. I don't personally believe it rises to the level of revoking talk page access, but removing the offending content and issuing a strong warning about what he can and can't do with his talk page while blocked is in order.

I messaged User:TonyBallioni about this yesterday, but I emailed him about an unrelated issue at around the same time, and I'd really rather not be more of a burden on him than I already have been (the header on his talk page, his recent edit history, and some other stuff all imply he probably doesn't want this on his plate at the moment). Tony: you can just ignore my most recent message on your talk page and I don't expect you to respond here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this because of real life commitments that have limited my ability to do more than basic things on-wiki recently, so sorry I can't comment further. I'm pinging Cyberpower678 as the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note that when I gave him the obligatory notification that he was being discussed on AN, he responded by writing a bunch more comments directly addressing me and pinging me to tell me to stay off his talk page.[49] This request to stay off his talk page was redundant since the whole reason I came to AN was that I heard him the first time, and given that he knows I was obliged to notify him of this thread it comes across as deliberate abuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I requested that he stop (See User talk:C. W. Gilmore#Please stop) and he agreed. I have placed a similar request on your talk page which you probably have not seen yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I assume by "yet" you meant as of your writing the above, and not as of me reading the above. If the latter, then no, of course I saw the message on my talk page first. :P

Anyway, thanks for dealing with that. I think we're probably done here, so if anyone wants to close this...?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

After promising me that he would stop talking about Hijiri 88, C. W. Gilmore continued talking about Hijiri 88 and as a result had his talk page access revoked. Good call. He then sent me a Wikipedia email talking about Hijiri 88, which I of course ignored. I just put in a request to the blocking admin suggesting revoking his email access as well. I usually keep AN and ANI unwatched, so if he comes up with a completely original idea that has never been tried before involving cloth foot coverings, please drop me a line on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that I 100% expected the email result, given that his first interaction with me was to email me and tell me how awesome I was for "getting" his first "rival" site-banned (even though, there as here, it was a community decision -- the whole affair was described in detail in my OP comment on the linked ANI thread). I also have very little faith in the "editors who were blocked partly for harassing Hijiri in May 2018" group not engaging in off-site and email harassment of me, given some of the other stuff that coincidentally came to my attention at within the last few hours. Email access should probably be revoked from CWG, as he's not going to stop this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 12 July 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.

Cristiano Ronaldo

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

---

Could an Admin please give Cristiano Ronaldo full protection, so much disruption at the moment due to media reports about his future. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Fully protected, two days. Just too much reverting going on on that page. Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 10 July 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.

move initiated 3 weeks ago, time for admins to decide.

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.

---

Hey there. Please assign someone to make decision on this move

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaporizhia#Requested_move_22_June_2018

thank you 46.200.143.183 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone here is a volunteer, including the admins. No one gets "assigned" anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 10 July 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.

Need help with speedy deletion

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

---

I just screwed up. I tried to nominate Etymology of Szczecin for deletion, but while I was filling on the Twinkle form someone else reverted the article back to the redirect, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Szczecin had a wrong target (Szczecin) from the very beginning. I decided to let it go, added the CSD template, and removed it from the AfD queue. But the problem is that the bot sees a AfD nomination which is not in the queue and adds it to the queue (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 12) automatically. Could somebody please speedy delete the page and then remove the empty template from the AfD queue (or let me know so that I can do it myself). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 12 July 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.

Userpage and talk page protection 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.

---

A recent CU has determined that I have been recently IP editing in breach of WP:IPSOCK but some other accusations have come up. As such, I am currently not to edit Wikipedia and am requesting a protection of my userpage and talk page closure until I am officially permitted to edit by the arbcom or checkuser. If my account gets blocked, please leave the user email feature on as I am currently in contact with checkuser and may need it to contact them later on. But until then I am not to interact or receive message on Wiki of any kind and so would appreciate my talkpage be closed as well. Nothing else is needed. Thank you for your assistance.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not in a position to dictate that. Talk page and userpage is not protected with this kind of request unless there is proof that it has been misused by other editors by carrying out prohibited activities such as vandalism. Although email and talk page access is revoked once the editor is sitebanned. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: You are not blocked and checkusers don't tie IPs to named accounts so I don't know what you're referring to there. I have removed the "indefinitely blocked" templates you placed on your user and talk pages as they're misleading. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli. Lorstaking (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli, please read the SPI and comment in the appropriate section as requested. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:35, 10 July 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.

This is a neo-version of playing WP:FLOUNCE. Even if he gets indeffed in that linked SPI, another editor who was not editing India-Pakistan articles, will suddenly show interest in India-Pakistan conflict articles, where other topic-banned editors can't edit. And meatpuppetry can't be easily proved. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Mountain Enterprise

Your attention is called to a recent string of edits to the above article. I have a WP:Conflict of interest, so I can't keep a watch over these changes. I'd appreciate somebody volunteering to check them. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. I reviewed that series of edits but see nothing terribly wrong about them requiring administrator attention. Are there factual errors that I am not seeing? The biggest problem that I see is inclusion of external links in the body of the article. Obviously, the awards should be cited to a reliable independent source, instead of a link to each article that won an award. Such links do not verify the award. Why don't you explain your concerns in detail on the article's talk page, and then ping me? I have the article on my watch list now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver standard offer 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.

---

 Administrator note The following was sent to me via email from BuickCenturyDriver '16, an old blocked sock of BuickCenturyDriver, which has email access revoked. It is not procedurally correct to reobtain email access in this way, and should have gone through UTRS, but I'm letting it slide per WP:NOTBUREAU, as it seems like an innocuous request for a community-granted standard offer. Please judge this request based on its merits. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Hello, perhaps you don't know me. Perhaps you do. I'm writing to you because I am looking to get unblocked (username:BuickCenturyDriver). I am using a "sock" account because the original is unable to send any emails and it's been 5 years (and counting) since. Before I go further can you please post this to WP:ARBCOM or WP:AN (whichever suits you better) so that other editors can voice their opinion. I've waited over a year and a half -- far more than the WP:OFFER page dictates -- so I think it's only fair that I should get heard. Over the course of those years, I've learned the following:

• That getting this resolved hinges on finding someone who is genuinely interested. Two years ago someone did come foreword, but talks broke down when someone argued about me being disruptive and they instigated locking my talk page. Even the mediator had to admit that "nobody seems to care" and that I got a "raw deal". There is no point in bargaining with people who will read this and reply that I wait longer. I really want nothing to do with people that tell me they want to see me edit and turn around and lock my talk page. That deed is more then enough to call your bluff. Had that person been truly interested then we would have had this resolved right then and there.
• The people who I've dealt with positively have a history of contributing to the site's main content and not only ensuring it is informative and correct.
• The block occurred over a debacle involving a hoax article that was deleted and and editor that was capable of querying IP addresses. The person claimed I was editing from a "home IP address". When I explained that it might be a shared IP the person insisted it was not shared. There is absolutely no way to tell whether or not an IP is public or private as WHOIS does not disclose whether an IP is shared or not.
• That person and other people I've dealt with negatively have little or no history of contributing to the site's main content but are obsessed with policies -- especially pertaining the blocking and multiple accounts -- to an extent they will do anything to make sure people like myself stay blocked regardless of any previous and future edit histories. Yet we all know that policies are not etched in stone and provide exceptions for the sake of one of wikipedia's most basic foundations -- building consensus.
• That most of the "disruption" I've been accused of were efforts to fend off harassment by the latter people described above or the creation of an article (see the deletion log of Power Rangers Ninja Steel). Those of you who have access can see the deleted revisions have no vandalism and cite sources.
• That society believes that people make mistakes and people can change. I've always felt committed to resolve this so I can edit without "socking" (that's what everyone wants, right?) but then again, if you consider the purpose of wikipedia as a whole, who cares how many accounts you have anyway? I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time and resources but unfortunately I'm not in position to change the status quo.

These are the issues I am raising. I don't know what this will bring, but I really have nothing to lose at this point. Thanks for understanding. --BCD

• Nope anyone with that SPI archive who also says I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time and resources but unfortunately I'm not in position to change the status quo. has no place getting unblocked from socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Of course not. BTW, the last block of the master was a CU block by BU Rob13 on January 27, 2018. That's without even getting into the many CU blocks I and others have done, e.g., Cloud9shopper (talk · contribs · count). Also, per Tony above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• no It seems clear that they take no responsibility for their own actions and prefer to blame others for everything, and reject the entire concept of WP:SOCK. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not given the history. Just to note this is a CU block, so CheckUser consent would be needed to lift this. The editor probably should have been referred to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, not here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be foolish to disagree with the CUs and admins who have commented here, especially when the prima facie evidence of the request itself screams "NO". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nope I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time: There is no "one account policy", AFAIK. It's been five years, and the user still didn't read WP:SOCK? Talk about hipwaisting time. Also, what others have said above. byteflush _Talk 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• No way under the sun We do not need sock puppetmasters who defend socking so that they can return to editing topics like "Power Rangers Ninja Steel". No way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and with regret. In general if someone gets indeffed and actually adheres to their block for a long period of time and then comes back asking to be unblocked, I usually try to find a reason to say yes. But that is not going to be possible here. I am not sure I have ever read an unblock request, that I presume was intended to be taken seriously, and that practically screams "I have learned nothing" as loudly as this one. My guess is that this is on course for a snow close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per AO who sums this up well. Sockmasters are a particular concern for this project. I also would like to request a snow close. Jusdafax (talk) 06:11, 14 July 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.

Year link removal with Twinkle

G'day all, I was trying to remove just a couple of links to 1914 from the Military of Australia portal and accidentally removed many I shouldn't have. Please accept my apologies for this. Is there any way to mass revert my changes so others don't have to do this singly? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I've reverted all my edits now. Once again, apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For info/future reference, I think Wikipedia:Rollback would do this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day, thanks, yes I used that but it required a click for each page. I had been hoping for something that would allow a mass rollback of my error (a couple of editors have posted some suggestions on my talk now, which I will follow up as professional development. Although I hope to not make this error again - the self inflicted uppercut hurt...). Anyway, it took about three hours to fix and hopefully it didn't disrupt too much. Once again, sorry, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: there's a mass rollback script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js that might have helped with this task. I've never used it and don't have it installed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Diannaa. I've installed this now, but wasn't quite sure how to use it so it only rolls back some of my edits, as opposed to all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, as far as I recall, it will only roll back the current edits listed on the page, so if the default window shows 50 edits, change the limit to something smaller (and/or adjust your timeframe) so that you only see the edits you want to roll back. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What to do about Outing

Hello all, this is not about any editor, just gathering information about what can be done in the case of a severe outing situation, for instance an administrator or other long standing editor contacting an employer or using Wikipedia administrator tools to identify the location from which an editor is operating, and then narrow in on where they live or where they work. The main problem with that scenario is that posting to ANI, or attempting to bring it up anywhere on Wikipedia, would simply result in the suspect denying the action and then possibly blocking the poster. Indeed, the outing activity itself may be as an effort to get the victim to post to Wikipedia, thus claiming they are slandering a senior editor and justifying a block or ban. Like i said, no accusations here, just getting opinions. -O.R.^Comms 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, I suspect if it is truly a cut and dried case of outing, this noticeboard would recognize it and take care of it. That said, the first thing you should do is contact an uninvolved administrator and/or an WP:Oversighter to remove the material from Wikipedia. An email to the WP:Arbitration Committee might be appropriate as well. Admins are not able to determine an editors location any more accurately than a normal editor - only WP:Checkusers have tools that would help with that. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• It should be kept out of the public eye as much as possible, so absolutely do not report it at ANI or AN, which are two of the most public pages here. I agree with Tazerdadog that you should contact the Oversight team via instructions at WP:Oversight to get the outing removed such that even admins can not see it. Then email the Arbitration Committee to deal with the outing abuser. Do not do anything that would expose the outing to a wider audience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keeping it to oversight is good advice, and especially so when the outing is being done by admins, or involves the collusion of admins. Although outing just isn't something that WP takes seriously. If it's "serious", that often means it's off-wiki. At which point WP tends to throw its hands up and say "we're not involved", even when the people doing it and the reason they started are WP-related. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's very true. Its hard to sometimes remember there are real people behind these accounts out there in the real world. When situations develop where someone is actually seeking harm to another or to gain information about them, there is really little Wikipedia can do. Good answers all around, thank you -O.R.^Comms 15:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking as an oversighter, yes, contact us, do not make any posts on a noticeboard or anywhere else pointing to outing. You should revert the outing, but do not confirm or deny its accuracy, just say “attempted outing” in your summary, that will make it easy for oversighters to find when you report it. Suppression is the tool of first resort when dealing with attempted outing. Contacting arbcom at the same time is usually not necessary, if the violation is bad enough or repeated after being removed any member of our team can issue an {{oversight block}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that just like with anything else, information about people can be obtained by correlating otherwise unrelated data. For example, if I edit whem logged in (as I am now), you can't tell where I'm located. If somebody is not logged in, their IP address is visible, and it's trivial to map that back to an approximate physical location and/or company/school name. If I were to post something when not logged in, then login and follow up my previous comment with, "Oh, that was me, I just forgot to login before", I've now created a way to connect my logged in and "anonymous" activities. If somebody in my household were to do something similar, we would both map to the same static IP, and thus be connected to each other. This seems like a lot of work to generate those correlations, but I'm sure there are people out there harvesting public wikipedia logs and doing those things on a massive scale. You would be naive to think it's not happening. It gets worse when you start to cross-correlate that with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc, etc, etc. And you can be sure people are doing that. My point is that even though outing is disallowed, one should always assume it's happening, or is going to happen, and be careful about what they post on line. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd emphasise what Tazerdog has already said, Administrators don't really have any tools which would significantly help them identify someone's location. The only thing they have which are likely to be relevant is access to deleted contribs. If someone accidentally edited with an IP or revealed details of themselves either without properly realising the implications or by accident, this should normally be suppressed but occasional it may only be deleted. (It may sometimes be deleted in the interim depending on who comes across it and how it's handled.) Otherwise though, administrative tools shouldn't generally enable someone to be identified any more than an ordinary editor may. This would require checkuser access. (Or alternatively suppression/oversight if it's suppressed info.) Misuse of these is quite a serious thing and it's likely to be worth contacting Meta:Ombudsman commission if you have evidence they have been misused. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle Afd

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 someone please cleanup this apparently botched Afd submission; can't tell what exactly has happened here. Looks like an automated tool might have gone awry. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:18, 15 July 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.

Apologies

Hi all,

I have been working up some suggestions for the policy and associated advice on apologies in dispute resolution. I am not an Admin, so I am wondering how in practice you handle the issue. Would any of you be able to reply to the two specific questions below?

• WP:CIVIL states that an apology can not be demanded. Are there any occasions in practice when such a demand does get made and have to be met? For example if an editor is required to withdraw a direct legal or personal threat, can – or should – their retraction ever be required to include a sincere apology?
• There must surely be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand"? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• By definition, there is no such thing as a forced sincere apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen many many instances where people were told "you should apologize". I am always a little wary of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when people are told to apologize. A forced (or requested) apology shows only that someone is intelligent enough to realize an empty apology will serve their goals better than egotistical stubbornness. I may be more cynical than the typical admin, but you can at least count on the fact that I won't harass you to get an insincere apology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for dealing with my first question. May I repeat the second one, which does not yet seem to have been answered:

• There must be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand" or just a harmless suggestion? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• It depends in part on who is asking for or suggesting an apology. Coming from an un-involved admin, a request or suggestion for an apology will always be in the shadow of sanctions that can be applied by an admin. An involved admin should never resort to, or threaten to invoke admin powers, overtly or by implication. A non-admin cannot impose sanctions (although the community can), so a non-admin requesting or suggesting an apology should not normally imply the threat of sanctions. - Donald Albury 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a demand, backed up with a threat (the worse sanctions). I think that an apology forced with a threat isn't really a sincere apology and thus my wary comment from before would apply here as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In some situations reminding someone that an apology is an option can lead to a deescalation. Some people think apologies are a sign of weakness (those people are, to me, idiots); while others may be so involved in the conflict that they do not realize that a simple acknowledgement they acted improperly can pretty much end a problem; others have never learned appropriate behavior. 'Reminding' them that an apology is valued in our community can sometimes lead them to genuinely considering the option for the first time in a particular conflict.
  A 'reminder' an apology is appropriate is also a socialization/teaching strategy — just like when the 'aunts' remind one of proper etiquette should one slip up at a gathering. Norms are enculturated in polite society through gentle reminders of what one has temporarily forgotten. A regrettable aspect of the hugely diverse population we have is not only did many not have the benefit of 'aunts', a cultural analogue or some other indoctrination into what we generaly consider 'proper' behavior, some are just jerks. Often the response to a gentle reminder can provide some insight into which is the case. Some may even learn better conflict management skills who otherwise would not have. This helps the project because an associated issue is that those who do not know to make apologies very often do not know how to genuinely accept apologies.
  To address your question more directly, I suggest reminders should generally come from someone either uninvolved or at least not in opposition to the one being reminded. A neutral interlocutor may also do so as part of their role facilitating resolution, although that role does not often exist (but it should) in Wikipedia disputes. The reminder should be couched politely but the appropriateness/expectation of an apology in the situation should be expressed in definite terms. As far as its effect on sanctions, that is up to the sanctioning administrator or community consensus. Just like in any other circumstance the underlying offence, mitigation and perceived sincerity will weigh in the final outcome. A reminder is not a request and should never be expressly linked with a future outcome – in fact, the reminder should not be coming from someone who has any particular control over the outcome.
  There … That's my pontification for the day … Whew … . Jbh ^Talk 20:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat

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 seen Wikipedia:Help desk#Incorrect information from a spam bot source regarding fantasies about the blackhill transmitter in scotland which looks like a clear legal threat. So I blocked Gaz Young. If anyone thinks they should be unblocked feel free to do so. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah a link to the edit might help eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That block looks entirely proper to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Second that — no ambiguity, clear and specific threat. Some other issues (COI, etc.) as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:05, 16 July 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Chintu6 WP:3X

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.

---

Chintu6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has evaded his block at least 3 times[50][51][52] since he was indeffed for socking as Abu_Harb_al-Wuhayshi. It seems he has passed WP:3X and thus an admin should place the ban notice on the userpage, though I assume he will end up becoming an LTA since he is showing traits of those LTAs that were doing exactly same thing that he is doing. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is premature.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: 4th block evasion, see 2405:205:b:ec39:6c6c:4375:ee57:181a (talk · contribs · 2405:205:b:ec39:6c6c:4375:ee57:181a WHOIS). Though what is the policy for implementing ban per 3X? It is 2 times block evasion that involves "checkuser block"? ML ^talk 17:57, 17 July 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.

Otomat and

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.

---

User talk:Adamgerber80 is disruptive denying a very valid article supporting what i wrote.Outliner73 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: No, you just need to read WP:Assume good faith, WP:Edit warring, and WP:BRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't realize all these things.i just know what i write is true and he denies evidence.Stop him to revert.He acts as a vandal.Outliner73 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: Read WP:NOTVAND. Adamgerber80's edits are not vandalism. I've left a summary of some site policies on your talk page that you should review. Just because you know something is true is not enough -- you have to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither my refence is vandalism.So one of two is wrong.Outliner73 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: No, this is not a matter of "winning" or "losing". Vandalism is specifically a deliberate attempt to damage the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism according to guidelies i read.I'll edit these articles then i'll give up.I'm bored.Outliner73 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: What guideline is that? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I set clear and evident reference that he denied.Deleting this is vandalism.It seems you are with him,not with Wikipedia lines.Why don't you warn or block him ? As people did on my talk page?Incredible.Outliner73 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: You said Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism according to guidelies i read. What guideline did you read that said that Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism. Again, this is not "winning" or "losing" or "sides" -- this is about cooperation and collaboration.

Also, is the source you cited a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You press me to collaborate warning me to block and he has 0 warnings. Strange way to be balanced.I published a specialistic ref. Italian defence.Outliner73 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The warning is not some sort of negative point, it is just a notice of our site's policies. Adamgerber80 has been around long enough that if he can be expected to know about our policy on edit warring. If he violates our policy on edit warring, he can be blocked.

Now, I can tell that you're frustrated, but that's not going to help anything. Calm down and realize that both Adamgerber80 and I are trying to help the site, just as you are trying to help the site. The problems here are miscommunication and distrust. WP:Assume good faith is one of this site's foundational policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, i turst good feith in Adamgerber80 mistake.Now he knows.I trust your one too.Outliner73 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:ScrapIronIV arrived to revert in a non sense way with a strange timing.does he agree with Adamgerber80 or is he the same person?Adamgerber80 never wrote to defend himself.Strange.Outliner73 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:ScrapIronIV is lasting in vandalism.Outliner73 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to be blunt. You need to stop with the vandalism claims immediately. The edit you are making needs to be discussed on the talk page, as it's been requested now by 3 different editors. You are now edit warring and further revisions to the page will result in a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

None warned them about the risk to be blocked.Can i trust you?)They never wrote here to defend themselves, like the administrators cover them.My source is more tha reliable.No time for puppets.Outliner73 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any body to defend valid references as Wikipedia suggest to set?Outliner73 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Outliner73 does not appear to have sufficient command of the English language to be editing content on English Wikipedia. His communications here are comprehensible but very ungrammatically written. A person whose command of English is at this level should not be editing content here, although there are other tasks which do not rely as much on English language abilities. Certainly, they appear to be only barely capable of carrying on a normal discussion in English: eg. "Ok, i turst good feith in Adamgerber80 mistake.Now he knows.I trust your one too."
  I suggest that a WP:CIR block should be considered, both for their lack of English capability and for their apparent inability to understand basic policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 July 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.

Backlog at WP:SPI

There's a backlog now at WP:SPI - I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this, before some of the reports become stale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Still a fair-few open cases, with no actions/edits made to them for >2 weeks or more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion

I deleted this a while back when the WP:GS/Crypto were new under it as academic spam (particularly of links and ideas). I'd seen that other articles had been deleted, and asssumed it was good practice, and reviewing the page, felt it fell within the any other reasonable sanctions bit.

Given that there has been contention over this above and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9, with some (myself included) feeling that AN was the correct venue for a review of general sanctions, I'll go ahead and offer this up for review here: it's a valid review of my actions under the GS (which were undertaken in good faith, but could be a mistake), and will hopefully clarify what the community thinks of this as a whole. For full disclosure, I also am posting this because I believe a review of existing actions will help solve the question better than an abstract RfC would, and think it is best to get clear community opinion on existing actions (see my comments at VPI), but given the controversy surrounding the recent DRV, I also would like review of the one action I took in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• AN is not well suited for reviewing content questions. A thorough review of whether that page should have been deleted requires an XfD. XfD better sorts and tabulates these things.

AN is much better for reviewing administration problems. Was TonyBallioni INVOLVED when deleting this page? Was he excesively rude, or bullying or harassing editors? No, none of that is even an remotely an issue.

DRV is good for reviewing whether the deletion process was followed. It is very difficult to do a DRV-type review on this because there are no concrete criteria for WP:GS/CRYPTO speedy deletion.

Similar to what I said at the end of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol, I am sympathetic to a G11 deletion of the page. Only sympathetic because the unsolved problem of WP:Reference bombing of a heavy first version makes it very difficult to call it "obvious" that nothing in it is reasonably re-usable. As I pueruse the sources, I find that none are good at attesting notability. Non-independent sources, usually quickly indicated by them advertising the product they sell, or mere mentions. I'm guessing that TonyBallioni considers himself experienced in assessing cryptocoin spam, and I suppose that if that were to be an explicit thing for him to be doing the speedy deletion, I support that.

The RfC would largely cover the scope of ArbCom and Discretionary Sanctions, because the narrow question cryptospam is much easier. Call it CSD#G11.

I advocate that for WP:Reference bombed commercial topics, any deletion assessment, CSD#G11 or XfD, need only consider the first three references, that the onus is on the author to show two notability-demonstrating sources in the first three. It is not practical to expect Wikipedians to carefully assess dozens of unsuitable sources for every spam submission. If this were accepted, the page would easily be G11-eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• While my experience at NPP suggests we need CSD criteria around Crypto, I do not believe that the community endorsed/authorized that when enacting the GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#G11a? G11 with extended generosity for WP:GS/Crypto new pages by newcomers? This would help apply it. There is broad support for these deletions, the issue is documentation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe and Tazerdadog: not sure G11a would be best, but maybe a line like In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have wide latitude in applying the speedy deletion criteria. this would take into account BLPBAN deletions and deletions under ARBIPA (for 500/30 vios), which are basically the only other areas where this would apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Suggest In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have increased leeway in applying the speedy deletion criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Works by me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • FWIW as a non-admin I would also support that wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe the letter of the GS allows deletions. the spirit certainly does not, and deletions were on nobodies radar in the discussion that authorized GS in this topic area. Therefore, TonyBallioni's deletion, while unquestionably in good faith, is procedurally incorrect. After reviewing the article, I think this is a borderline G11. I would agree with a deletion under that CSD criterion, and wholeheartedly support an expansion of G11 along the lines of SmokeyJoe's G11a. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• We've already got a discussion of this topic a couple of sections up, let's not fork it. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a mess because of the DRV. Here’s a clean chance for people to comment on a case that doesn’t have a closure. FWIW, the lack of comment here except by the same small group that got mad at the DRV suggests to me that the community as a whole doesn’t generally care about this. It’s a processwonkery thing where as stated by others above, there is broad support for the actual deletions just moral panic at the way they were done. As the thread at WT:AC is pointing out, standard DS (which these are, the authorization is what matters, not the template copied from when setting up the page), unquestionably allow for deletions. The question is whether or not it was good judgement to do so.
    That said, I’m also personally fine with just calling this G11 with the GS standard of review applying (or even just G11, tbh). Arguing over the wonkery here (on both sides) isn’t useful to the encyclopedia in my view, and when there is a clear uncontroversial path to take with regard to an action (and future actions), it is the best way forward in my view.TonyBallioni (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There was a bit of people getting there backs up (eh. a deletion unreveiwable at DRV). I am personally losing track what the controversial question is. You and MER-C have been excellent leaders in battling cryptospam in particular, clarifying WP:NCORP, and don't deserve the grumpiness. Can I suggest a compromise: Any GS-G11 deletion (or any DS deletion) raised at DRV must be notified at WP:AN? Or GS/Crypto matter discussed at DRV must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies? You call it processwonkery, some some believe there is value in process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I’m fine with that compromise. (MER-C can speak for himself). My use of wonnkery is more in the sense that this discussion appears to be something that is mainly of interest to people who are really involved in the backend process details of WP (including myself on the “it’s fine” end.) My point was that finding a workable solution that doesn’t require a full meta discussion on the nature of the deletion process every time is ideal for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. For the record, I think the pettyfogging about process in this topic area has the potential to be equally as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as keeping the articles live. Wikipedia is in the real world. This topic needs to be held to the same high standard as BLPs -- if in doubt, delete. MER-C 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If keeping the articles live means nominating them for AFD, and it's certain that the articles should be deleted, they will stay around with AFD templates and possibly other tags such as {{notability}}, {{COI}} and {{advert}} for a few days before deletion. BLP deletion is different as there's privacy to consider. Is it better for Wikipedia to be seen as biased in its coverage? Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • If I had to pick between bias and lending legitimacy to under-regulated financial instruments/companies many of which are used for scams I would pick bias. That's why I think the community enacted GS and why I support allowing for admin CSD as part of enforcing those sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • An article with banners at the top saying that it is nominated for deletion as advertising doesn't lend legitimacy to anything. Peter James (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol had a majority for overturning and was closed with no consensus but was not overturned. This is the correct outcome only if WP:GS/Crypto authorises deletion and it looks like there's no consensus that it does. Even if there's consensus to apply it to content, there could be a dispute where there is 60% support for one proposal and 40% for another, and an administrator would be able to use GS in favour of the 40% that the 60% would not be enough to overturn. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Request narrowing of ban

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

---

I would request the narrowing of the ban that was imposed on me, so that it would include only high schools. This is the only place where I fell amiss of the community, on three issues: poverty-related background, religious post-nominals, and spiritual activities. I came into the dispute thinking that policy and guidelines controlled content questions, and that administrators would judge the merits of the arguments in the end. It was only at the end of the dispute that I learned that content issues were settled by a vote. I fully accept this now, and I will be wiser in defending or letting go of my edits in the future.

Failing this request, could I receive permission to merge my deleted material below onto the ten websites listed, with possibly new references. In these cases I was going by the principle that institutes should be moved to a separate article when they take excessive space in the university article. And when reviewers accepted these articles (and many more) I thought that they found the institutes notable in themselves. In the future I have the benefit of what I learned from the 34 proposed deletions of my articles this year.

Here to Regis University; here to Fairfield University; here to Boboto College; here to Creighton University; here to Hekima University College; here to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai; here to Thiruvalluvar University; here to St. Xavier's College, Jaipur; here to Catholic Church in South Africa; here to Immaculate Conception Church (New Orleans). Jzsj (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time due to their stubborn refusal to accept consensus and our well-established guidelines. He mentions a small example above: he persisted with his notion that adminstrators adjudicate content disputes despite being told that is not the case repeatedly, and he continues to confuse consensus with a "vote". The worst disruption was in connection with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School only because he chose to dig in his heels there. I lack confidence that he will not begin disrupting other articles about educational institutions if the topic ban is narrowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than being "told ... repeatedly" that administrators do not interfere in content disputes, this issue was muddled by repeated suggestions that I appeal to administrators, and it was generally the same few people who tried backing up their insistence with general references that were not specific or probative. I thought that this would end up in some form of mediation where an administrator would look at all the evidence and see that the three issues involved were religious issues and there was nothing specific that favored those who opposed me. The focus never seemed to me to be on the issues but on a few who opposed me producing the votes, and that is what I thought an impartial administrator would see after looking over all the evidence. Also, please explain what you mean by "the worst disruption"; that seems misleading to me since it is the three issues at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (which I listed at the top here) that were the topic of the whole discussion. Jzsj (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-Unconvincing.∯WBG^converse 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? What part of what I say do you need me to support from the pages referenced above? Jzsj (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose User is already blocked twice for violating his topic ban regarding education and schools. And he has already got a narrowing for his ban, as he is allowed to enter the discussion when school-articles he created are nominated for deletion. It is clear that Jzsj completely missed the message of the ban. The Banner talk 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... or as he works on dozens of articles he might inadvertently edit one that pertains to the school ban, broadly construed. Jzsj (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Your edit on Margaret Mary Vojtko is in fact another violation of your ban. If in doubt, do not edit. But it starts to look that you just ignore the topic ban and chance your luck. The Banner talk 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) There is more than 200k of discussion directly related to this editor's threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2. It was probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Wikipedia. And even in this relatively short thread requesting loosening of the topic ban I already see traces of some of the same problematic behaviour (walls of text, pointing the finger at others, and requesting that those not agreeing with him explain things repeatedly or in more and more detail). As with Cullen, I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jzsj, per WP:OFFER, the earliest you could have asked this, had your behavior been impeccable, would have been September 7. Due to your blocks, that is now December 3, 2018. You've not been properly informed of the standard offer. Now you have. Suggest you withdraw this as premature. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll let this play itself out. I'm not in this for myself and once I know the rules I try to stay within them. But there was a lot of misdirection in the NDCR dispute, as per my opening statement and followup, with those agreeing with me much less committed than those who opposed me. When I redid the list at the Catholics portal I found only about ten active, most all turning their interest to antiquities, expressing frustration with efforts at more recent issues. I rather do what good I can on more current articles, within the processes that are in effect, and then let my conscience be the judge. Jzsj (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cyberpower678 pinged as blocking administrator. This is amazing. The OP comes here, denying blame in the fiasco that got him blocked, still pointing fingers, deflecting blame for his blocks...this is approaching NOTHERE. When informed if the usual way of handling appeals of indef topic bans, he chooses to continue to ABF, IDHT, and BATTLE, the exact things that got him TB in the first place. All while asking to have his ban restrictions lowered. Again, just amazing chutzpah. Cyberpower (or any uninvolved admin), I'm asking you to close this with a clear explanation of OFFER, and due to what has clearly been exhibited in this thread, a date of January 10, 2019 as first date of appeal. Or should we start an indef block discussion instead (per CIR/NOTHERE)? Jzsj, at some point you are going to have to show you understand that the problem is you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish this topic ban was not needed and I would like to see Jzsj keep contributing to traditionally underrepresented topics. If Jzsj were to show a pattern of making constructive contributions that cite independent and reliable sources, I would support lifting the topic ban. However, as this this AfD shows, Jzsj has not demonstrated such a pattern of constructive contributions, so I'm forced to continue supporting the topic ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:21, 10 July 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.

UK technology articles

There was a short report in The Daily Telegraph business section on Saturday 14 July 2018. It had no byline.

Wikipedia users' "bias" on UK tech
A series of Wikipedia articles about prominent UK technology investors and companies has been deleted since April, erasing pages about some of Britain's major investors. Just three Wikipedia users were responsible for starting the deletion process for 19 UK technology articles in recent months.

The report seems to show an ignorance on Wikipedia deletion procedures and implies a bias against UK tech companies. Is there any basis behind this rather imprecise report? For example, is the reporter stating that just three admins did the deletions, or that just three active new page patrollers nominated the articles for speedy deletion? Were these deletions after due process at AfD, PROD and speedy deletion nominations, or were there three admins with an agenda going round on the sly deleting UK tech-related articles? Just curious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Link is helpful. Pages mentioned: Saul Klein, Rob Kniaz, Tom Blomfield, Passion Capital, Mangrove Capital Partners, Eden Ventures, Hoxton Ventures, Angel CoFund, Scottish Equity Partners, Notion Capital and Episode 1 Ventures (AFAICT). It would appear one of the AFD nominators in question is HighKing, but I'm not sure about the others. BethNaught (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The single and only comment on the Telegraph article pinged K.e.coffman. The tweet thread from Eileen Burbidge pinged me. I've no idea who the "third" editor is meant to be. The entire thing is nonsense. Every article went through AfD. The articles were deleted, for the most part, because they were (essentially) vanity pages that failed the criteria for establishing notability. While sometimes one article leads to another because they're categorised similarly, there's no "UK bias". The entire thing is just a load of fake news on a slow news day. HighKing 09:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A better approach than looking at the AFD nominators -- and therefore playing the game that the source of that obviously planted article wants you to play -- would be to look at who CREATED those articles in the first place. My normal method of figuring that out -- seeing which user talk pages are linked to the deleted article or AFDs -- seems to keep coming up empty, strangely enough. Someone might want to ask User:Mparrault about this comment. --Calton | Talk 10:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I note that Misterpottery (talk · contribs) has created a couple of the articles in question, but, confusingly, has voted to delete some others. Of course, they might be actually confused here. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If I look at this, the way I see it is, editors prefer to delete rather than do the research to improve these articles. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"If"? You mean you haven't?

I have looked at this, and so far I see a bunch of suspiciously single-purpose accounts trying to promote companies and personalities that no amount of research will transform into acceptable articles. I'm going to see if I can untangle some of this. --Calton | Talk 11:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Really @Calton:, Okay, lets take the first name on the list above, Saul Klein, hmm, google results for the name, "Saul Klein" - 38,000 results, I am sure an editor should find enough out of that to construct a decent article regarding his history and investments, especially with articles like this one. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So take it to Deletion Review. That's what it is for after all. Unless you want to turn this discussion into a review of every article listed above? HighKing 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And which "Saul Klein" did you mean? The Canadian business-school dean? The American real estate guy? Really, @Govvy:, you think counting raw Google hits means anything whatsoever? Maybe instead of cherry-picking one example and inflating its importance, you could look at them all as a whole. Research: a good idea. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what was there before, so the deletion review doesn't help me, I am just saying that some editors are obsessed with deletion over creation, saying there is nothing on the web to help when clearly there is, this is just a paradoxical cycle of that these editors need to break. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Making up malign motivations for editors out of thin air isn't your best move here, guy. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have ben kicked off by a tweet from Eileen Burbidge -- oh, look, there's User:Misterpottery in the edit history -- listed as a founding partner of Passion Capital (see above). Nothing suspicious at ALL. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calton:, Firstly, my name isn't "Guy" Secondly, did you not notice the url I added for Saul Klein for you to read? I am effectly trying to say that these articles can be improved if people want to improve them instead of the deletion culture that we have here on wikipedia!! Govvy (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't create any of these articles, and have no connection to any of these companies - I just saw them listed for deletion, and thought they should be saved. What seems to have happened is that HighKing listed a number of British Venture Capital articles for deletion in late May and early June. In frustration, Misterpottery, who had created many of the articles in question, nominated many of their remaining articles for deletion, and also made some delete votes. Misterpottery posted on my talk page: "I voted delete on Notion out of frustration. I'd created and worked on many EU VC posts and they've mostly been AfD'ed despite many of them being significant in the venture capital community. I give up. I'm not able to figure out how to keep motivation to update content when any edits lead to an AfD and usually seconding by K.e.coffman." I don't think HighKing has any malign intentions, or is part of some conspiracy. They just have unreasonably high standards for article notability, even by Wikipedia standards (which are themselves unreasonably high, IMO). As noted here, they have voted 156 times to delete (including for 8 articles with a keep consensus, and 10 with no consensus), and only one time to keep. -Mparrault (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be very accurate. For example, it missed BTCJam changing to Keep, Calix Keep, "Costa Del Mar" Keep, "Fodero Dining Car Company" Keep... HighKing 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the statistics I quoted above were only for the last 200 AfD votes. The stats for the last 500 AfD votes (which seems to be the maximum allowed by the tool) are found here.-Mparrault (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the stats, it seems the bigger problem is that they're far too willing to !vote keep when it should be delete! 53/437 times they !voted delete when the outcome was something else (including merge, redirect and no consensus). That's around 12.6%. 2 our of 14 times they !voted keep when the outcome was delete. That's 14.3% of the time!!!!! Of course in reality these statistics are too tiny to draw any conclusions except that a high percentage of the time HighKing's !vote agrees with the community consensus. How many of these discussions are so limited that a single change in !vote would have changed outcome I don't know, but the point remains, such raw statistics aren't likely to convince anyone of anything other than HighKing appears to be doing the right thing on an encyclopaedia that operates by consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW I do appreciate that in general the proportion of delete !votes is very high. I don't believe the outcome is anywhere near that skewed. There are only 10 other AfDs with participation but no !vote counted. This suggests that they're being selective in which AfDs they're participating in. While some people may not like this, ultimately even if you dislike it it's very difficult to come to a conclusion without more analysis. Whatever people said about anything else, the (reasonable) way no consensus is handled means that someone may reasonably feel there is more imperative to !vote delete if you feel the evidence leans towards delete than if it leans towards keep. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I generally only participate in AfD's relating to companies/organizations from whatever is listed at this page and occasionally an AfD relating to a person connected with the companies involved and I believe the outcomes are generally "that skewed" for those AfDs. The pertinent stat is that, in general, my !voting is in agreement with consensus at 89.2% (excluding "No Consensus" it is 94.3%). This is in stark contrast with the participation of Misterpottery (agreement with consensus 70%/73.7%), Mparrault (agreement with consensus 31.2%/41.7%) and in line with editors who frequently participate at AfD. HighKing 11:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Misterpottery's actions are not constructive. The community gets to decide whether an article should be deleted, not them. If they want to vote keep because they believe the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines, fine, but to vote delete "out of frustration" is WP:POINTy and unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Misterpottery's actions were not constructive.-Mparrault (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do apologize for that. I was extremely frustrated that consistently any article was deleted of note to the UK tech community despite there being 196 US firms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Venture_capital_firms_of_the_United_States) all left untouched and maybe 25% of them being as noteworthy as the ones deleted here. Even the mention of them led K.e.coffman to then AfD them. He and HighKing both repeatedly vote for each others deletions and thus leave these articles under immediate attack. There seems to be no remediation for this and any article they together will purge. Misterpottery (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, the closer of an AfD doesn't just count !votes? And the accusation that K.e.coffman and me always !vote for each other's deletions is crap, we simply don't. Sure, we agree a lot - but that's because most articles in relation to companies/organizations at AfD (pretty much all I do these days) usually fail to meet the criteria for notability. At a guess, that's why they were nominated. It was even pointed out to you in other AfD's that you were consistently creating articles on marginally-notable topics and you did not appear to understand the relevant policies and guidelines. Your subsequent behaviour at AfDs and your accusations of collusion or bias here and in other places are not AGF and extremely unhelpful. HighKing 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem is that AfD is so much harsher to articles than NPP (or AfC). As far as I can tell, all of the articles that were nominated for deletion by HighKing survived NPP (which is not a trivial accomplishment), but almost none survived AfD. The "consensus" at AfD supports this, but this "consensus" doesn't reflect the broader population of Wikipedia editors (who are better represented by those who create the articles in the first place). The result is that only a small percentage (maybe 25%) of existing company articles would survive an AfD (at least without editing), so an editor like HighKing can wreck havoc (unintentionally) by nominating most of the articles in a category for deletion. -Mparrault (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Surviving NPP is noteworthy for some reviewers others not so much and why I think a couple of admin seem to have tightened up granting of the reviewer permission recently. I think your percentage of companies that could survive AfD is too low but the right ballpark (I'd guess 40%). But this isn't an indictment of AfD - it's reflective of the community consensus, reflected by the changing of WP:NCORP earlier this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be pleased to re-create many of the UK tech pages but despite them being no less notable than the US VC pages, I fear they'd quickly all be deleted. Misterpottery (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: before this thread was opened, I had emailed to the reporter; you can see the email here: User:K.e.coffman/Email to The Telegraph; it shows some of my thinking on this matter.

Re: this "consensus" doesn't reflect the broader population of Wikipedia editors (who are better represented by those who create the articles in the first place), I don't believe that this assessment is correct, when it comes to articles on corporation. If you look at my PROD log (i.e. User:K.e.coffman/PROD log#July 2018, most of the company articles were created by SPAs – most likely employees, PR agents, or socks belonging to paid editing rings. I don't believe that such accounts are representative of the volunteer community here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• that doesn't make sense though. I created several of these and improved several others. I'm none of the above yet my work is deleted with malice. I'd be happy to recreate at least half of the deleted ones as I belive they are notable but I'm simply not reinvesting that work because you think I'm a sock puppet and will delete with prejudice? Misterpottery (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is now just getting disrputive. Please don't "recreate" your deleted articles unless you can now overcome the arguments that were used at their AfD for their deletion. As much as you'd like to lay the blame for your deleted work at the feet of "malicious editors" with an "anti-UK agenda" "creating havoc", the simple truth is that you are now trying to get a runaround our community processes. Your request above is a transparent attempt to seek permission here to exclude your articles from any future scrutiny based on your flawed reasoning that there are editors acting with malice that are going around deleting perfectly good articles. You are now throwing two fingers at our AfD process which is based entirely on community consensus with a final decision by the closing admins who weigh each argument against the policies and guidelines that underpin the standards we are aiming for. As you well know, you certainly don't need to ask permission to create an article, but if those articles don't meet the criteria for establishing notability they will probably end up (eventually) at AfD. Its not perfect, but it is what we have. I can understand you feel that your articles were as good as lots of other articles (probably true) and that you feel you were singled out (nope) but the simple truth is that an article appearing at AfD is more akin to a lottery. There is no "process" by which articles are nominated at AfD. It just depends on what people see at a particular point in time. Often times an article that is linked from a nominated article also gets nominated, and in a short time you can end up with a number of articles from a particular domain or category getting nominated. But nobody "picked on" UK Technology articles and "favored" US Technology articles and there's no "malicious editors" going out of their way to pick on your work, that's total BS. If you don't agree with a policy or guidelines, or you don't agree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, the proper course of action is to start a discussion and perhaps the community consensus will agree and make changes. Whining at AN rarely achieves anything. HighKing 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

An interesting new form of abuse

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.

---

Following some pretty mundane anto-vandal activity, the SPA Thanked you for your edit on just started "thanking" me over and over again, as fast as they could. This thus rendered the user-messaging interface useless, with no reasonable encyclopedic purpose. The interesting thing about this is that there is no apparent log trace associated with these "thanks" messages. Blocking the user stopped it. Is this something the edit filter could be used to rate-limit? -- The Anome (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the thanks log is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=thanks&user=Thanked you for your edit on&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1, and you can mute notifications from users through the preferences in the "Notifications" tab. I don't *think* the edit filter could be used for this, though, since it's not an edit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t a new idea either. I’ve had trolls use that feature to let me know they are around for the last several years, although not usually in such an extreme fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be possible to introduce (or increase) a rate limit on the thanks feature, if this is a widespread problem. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Something like this happened to me quite a while ago. I can't remember who it was though. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 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.

An idea to help track ERRORS - dashboard on AN

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

---

On WP:BN, we have a little "Crat tasks" dashboard in the top corner, which helps us Crats track the [few remaining] areas of responsibility we have. I've seen various versions of admin dashboards over the years. Could we have one on this page, below the archives? If so, it would be great if the status of ERRORS was included somehow - it's currently empty, thank you. PS Apologies if this is a PEREN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, nor do I think it will change anything as ERRORS already receive enough coverage as it is being part of Talk:Main Page. Finally, I really don't think we need now three threads about ERRORS, when the issue apparent is not about the lack of awareness, rather than the cultivated culture of toxic atmosphere from the clash over the definition of "errors" when the likely intended original purpose of such noticeboard should have been about unambiguous errors. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If we were to give such priority to a noticeboard, surely it should be one associated with BLP violations? Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Much as I applaud suggestions for getting more people to work on main page errors, I can't help seeing this as missing the core problem. And that's the toxic atmosphere cultivated by a small number of regulars. The illness needs to be addressed, not the symptoms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC) PS: I'll add that I apologize for not having any real idea of how to address the illness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I've led there to be too many threads here. This one's a non-starter, clearly, so can be closed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 20 July 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.

File:Metal Detector.jpg

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 one admin check the original file here on en wp. If there is more information about this file? Other wise it will be deleted.--Sanandros (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sanandros: No, there's no additional information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK thx.--Sanandros (talk) 05:38, 19 July 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.

Request for merge discussion closure

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.

---

Will an uninvolved administrator please determine the consensus at this merger discussion? THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 23:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And it seems to have been undone, so attention is still needed. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done again. Fish Karate 09:16, 24 July 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.

[Withdrawn] Requesting Block Review

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.

---

Usman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hassan Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy/Archive

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hassan Guy

I recently blocked Usman47 as a duck sock of LTA Hassan Guy. See their talk page and the above links. Currently they are appealing their block and denying any connection to HG. While I still think there is a very strong likelihood that they are either a sock, or a meat puppet, out of an abundance of caution I would kindly ask one or more experienced editors to have a second look in case I am missing something or there is a difference of opinion about the level of evidence. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 21 July 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.

Oct13

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 rename User:Oct13/sandbox to User talk:Oct13. Rename this in order to correct my mistake and preserve history of the talk page. I thought that the page was only a sandbox, I was wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. You might want to still copy/paste the "draft" into a sandbox page. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 23 July 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.

WP:WikiProject Biography

This is more a request for a bit more oversight over the project, I undid an edit on WP:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting, not sure what was going on with it, the Deletion sorting page needs a serious update and bugs ironed out. But I really wanted to bring up the project as a whole, I feel it's getting extremely neglected now of late, this seems to be a major side of wikipedia considering all the articles that can be covered, classed as biographical, I was hoping for an admin or two with a few good editors to help shake off the dust over the project, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the project pages are pretty neglected. However, I don't think this is a big deal. Issues related to biographies are typically high priority and take place on dedicated noticeboards or in centralized discussions. I'm semi-active on the WikiProject's talk page, but I don't think I have the project's other pages watchlisted. The issue with the deletion sorting page seems to be that this page is using too much memory when rendered. After hitting the memory limit of 2MB, the templates stop being expanded. That's why someone added the template that you reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, is the memory limit on the page okay then? I was thinking of having a cleanup around it, but wasn't sure, seems a bit daunting! Govvy (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is MediaWiki puts a hard limit on the number of templates that can be used on a single page. Each template included causes your browser to use memory, and using hundreds of templates on a single page can cause the browser's memory use to skyrocket. So, after a certain point, MediWiki ignores templates. WikiProject Biography is so huge that including all the tagged deletion discussions in one place apparently means we go over this hard limit for templates. To avoid this problem, it looks like we'd have to split WP:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting into subpages. Or people could just ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, which is apparently what we've been doing for years now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The limit of 2 MB for post‐expand include size refers to the fact that Wikipedia's server that generates the HTML for the page refuses to expand more templates once the limit is hit. That is one of several limits to protect the server from abuse by people accidentally or purposefully generating complex pages that consume server resources. The issue is not related to your browser which sees only the HTML resulting from the expansion of the templates. For the OP, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting is in the hidden category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. That can be seen by enabling the display of hidden categories in your preferences, or by clicking the "Page information" link in the left panel. Ask at WP:VPT for ideas on how to remedy the situation, however any solution would boil down to ensuring that fewer templates are expanded (more precisely, that the wikitext generated by expansion is smaller). Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It does sound like a good idea to split the deletion sorting between a few pages, might feel easier for users to navigate to the discussions for what they want to take part in. But I feel something needs to be sorted out about it. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone else did more than just skim over the help pages. Sure, go ahead and split the page up if you want. If anyone cares, they'll revert you. Then you can take it to WT:BIOG and get consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Well I had a go at improving the sidebar for ease of access to the AfDs on the project page, but still could do with someone who is better at need coding to review the project. The front page could do with an overhaul, anyway. Hope it helps those users that visit the project. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IP hopping abuse

G'day all, an IP hopper is alternately reverting edits and warning people, changes IP as soon as blocked. A few extra eyes at the vandalism board would help. Not sure what the solution is other than whack-a-mole. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Err—right. Thanks for letting us know :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If the word 'derp' means anything to anyone reading this, this is derp. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly standard note from an admin to their colleagues alerting them to a particularly troublesome editor to me. Jumping on this clown quickly when they cause disruption will help to persuade them to give up. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I do believe that zzuuzz was referring to the perp, not the reporter. Favonian (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a standard response to more colleagues. Yes please keep an eye on recent changes and block the IPs as soon as. We have three edit filters dedicated to the derp vandal: 819, 875, and 876. I'll try and get them activated, but I'm a bit busy. Maybe someone else would? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not understanding your meaning: 'derp' obviously didn't mean the same thing to me! Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Filter 249 catches this stuff pretty well. There could also be another simple filter but beans. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Beans indeed. A reminder to all that they are very likely reading this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, I'm not. Abusive IP hopper (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IPs running Bots?

Is it me or has there been a lot of IPs running some kind of interference automated programs? Govvy (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, see above thread "IP hopping abuse". Home Lander (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I read through that earlier, sounded similar, but wasn't sure, anyway, it feels very automated, I bet someone has written a bot for this so called IP hopping. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Home Lander (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

O well, guess Admins will sort it out, or either stick wiki on extended confirmed user lockdown to stop an IP onslaught!! Govvy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues with vandal bots recently. Several admins are working on it, but the situation is not well-suited for public discussion per WP:BEANS, so there probably won't be a public "resolution". If you see vandalism from a bot or otherwise, report to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP as usual. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock, anyone?

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

---

See the history of Vladimir (name). I’m no expert on the subject but it looks like closely related IPs. They are POV pushing and have been blocked before for the same thing. Is a rangeblock feasible here? (I may not be around for the ext few hours, if a rangeblock is not going to work the page should probably be semi-ed) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

To be going on with, I've blocked the tiny 83.169.216.0/25 range, that a clutch of them come from. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 22 July 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.

Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol

Universa Blockchain Protocol was deleted with the speedy deletion rationale "Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto." The speedy deletion is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol.

This noticeboard implemented general sanctions for blockchain and cryptocurrencies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#General sanctions proposal.

There is disagreement about whether Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue. The speedy deleting admin recommended a speedy close, writing, "wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard". The DRV nominator disagrees, writing, "WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all." I'm posting this here to notify the WP:AN community of the DRV discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at DRV and WT:CSD, with some there asserting that WP:AN (here) is the proper place for the discussion. Discussion here so far has not started. It should, so here goes:

There is no challenge Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies (shortcut WP:GS/Crypto). This is a matter of proper documentation, and there is no criticism of volunteers working to help protect the enclopedia from blockchain and cryptocurrency spam.

There was a misinterpreation of the scope of of sanctions, where interpreted to authorise speedy deletion of new Blockchain and cryptocurrency articles. The general sanction did not, per se, authorise a new deletion process. The speedy deletions as logged and as recorded at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Log of notifications should be read as (additionally) "Per WP:CSD#G11"

In future, deletions of similar spammy blockchain and cryptocurrency are to usually be done as CSD#G11 deletions, where the G11 criterion is met. If not G11 eligible, deletion may proceed per another speedy deletion criterion or via the AfD or PROD processes. On deletion, the summary should cite the policy authorising the deletion, usually "WP:CSD#G11".

Associated points to note:

* WP:AN does not have standing to enact new speedy deletion criteria without notifying WT:CSD and documenting the result with consensus at WP:CSD

* All deletion activities are reviewable at WP:DRV.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni, MER-C, and Primefac:

I’m not further participating in this mess, but I strongly object to the idea that WT:CSD has any special place, and I would actively discourage anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about changes to the CSD criteria from ever raising it there: while I respect many of the regulars there, it is easily the second most inclusionist place on Wikipedia after WP:ARS, and there are much more neutral places to get the community’s view on various policies. Community consensus is best sought at places like AN and VPP. The former being the correct place for authorization and review of general sanctions, and the latter being the best place for any policy proposal. Also, pinging @MER-C and Primefac: as I only saw this because my name was in the edit summary. Finally, I endorse MER-C’s deletion as being within reasonable admin discretion, and maintain that AN is the correct place for a review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Toni, thanks for fixing the pings. You have a funny unexpected view of WT:CSD, I would characterise it differently, as a place where the regulars want things done "properly", sometimes at the expense of getting things done that need doing, it's a place where longer term views predominate. The special thing about CSD is that it is the documentation page for all speedy deletion criteria. A proposal to modify speedy deletion should minimally be advertised at WT:CSD, even if the discussion is held elsewhere. The notion that a deletion review may always be held at DRV does not prevent a simultaneous review at AN. The two location would naturally consider the same matter from different angles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My point on WT:CSD is that it is at best a good place to check understanding of what the most conservative reading of WP:CSD is, but that discussions that aren’t advertised elsewhere there typically aren’t reflective of community practice or consensus, and that for anything but tweaks to existing criteria, there are other places that get much more attention than WT:CSD that are more reflective of how the community as a whole feels, and that it has no special status beyond that of any policy talk: it’s a place where discussions can take place, but other forums also exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. Propose a new CSD anywhere, but post a note at WT:CSD to invite the WT:CSD regulars. You make interesting points that could be used to improve Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The threshold question is really whether WP:GS/Crypto authorizes Speedy Deletion as a sanction subject to General Sanction appeal rules. While there is a catchall provision for misc sanctions of editors, I don't think its reasonable to interpret that as extending to Speedy Deletion. I would suggest we try to limit ourselves to discussing this part of the dispute, and not get into a bigger debate about deletion policy. Monty₈₄₅ 05:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • These were authorized as standard discretionary sanctions equivalent to ARBIPA: that means that WP:AC/DS is the description of what was authorized. Page level sanctions are included in standard discretionary sanctions, and protections are routinely used as a part of them (check WP:AELOG). If someone were to appeal a page protection here separately the consensus would likely be "Primefac was just copying the template from another GS page, which was a bit out of date. That doesn't bind administrators since it isn't actually the policy page that describes what standard discretionary sanctions are."
    That being said, the question of the deletion is unique because we have never had discretionary sanctions authorized to deal with the issue of promotionalism in the past. The community authorized these sanctions precisely because of the issue of promo editing in this area, and I think MER-C's take that the authorization included more latitude on speedy deletion in the area was reasonable given the circumstances. Basically, we now have DS authorized for a field where most of the disruption is coming from accounts that are not long-term users who DS are normally designed to deal with.
    In terms of this particular case, I think the best way forward would be for MER-C to mark deletions as G11, but also mark them as being subject to the special appeal provisions under the GS if he thinks they qualify. That would both satisfy the point of GS of giving admins more discretion (AN would likely be more open to some G11s than DRV), while also rooting his actions in the CSD policy. I think this is an acceptable way of splitting the baby. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:AC/DS does not address deletion of pages as an enforcement action that admins can take. The discussion that authorized GS in this area did not address deletions. As far as I can tell, nothing authorized these deletions beyond the vague phrase "or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." I'm happy to work with you. If the current CSD criteria aren't sufficient to address this topic area, we can expand them. We could alternatively have the discussion on whether deletion is explicitly authorized under GS. But we can't go around having admins delete pages with no apparent community authorization. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • This discussion is about whether it is authorized under DS. I think MER-C was acting in a way he reasonably thought was authorized and in line with the routine use of protections under the section quoted. The solution is simple: mark them as G11 if they qualify and also under the GS appeal procedures. It’s an easy compromise that is in line with the intent of the community in authorizing DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I'd very much prefer to get community consensus behind something like this. The problem with speedy deleting things is that non-admins can't follow what happened. To make that work well, we expect a great deal of consistency with the rules-as-written out of our admins. And CSD is written in a way that most deletions are pretty black-and-white (G11 being one of the most prone to grey). A process that has a single admin deleting an article and then has what comes down to only admins reviewing it is a pretty big change from what has ever been done here (at least in the last 10 years). I think it's a big enough change it needs to be discussed (at an RfC) rather than just "assumed into being". Hobit (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To slightly rehash what I've said over at the DRV:

1. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion details the circumstances in which an administrator may delete a page without discussion. Whilst it is not exhaustive, modifying it requires a consensus.
2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies does not in any event authorise page deletions, so a theoretical claim that the consensus to enact those general sanctions counts as a consensus to add a new virtual CSD would not hold up.
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review is absolutely the place where we review deletions. The clue is in the name.
4. Any attempt to oust DRV as the place where a deletion can be reviewed would require a good consensus at a properly-advertised discussion.
5. WP:AC/DS does not apply to this matter at all, as the general sanctions in this case originate from the community and not from the Arbitration Committee.

Deleting cryptocurrency articles that qualify for G11, using G11, is fine. Declaring that some discussion held open for less than five days with fewer than 20 supporters (a) authorises widespread page deletion and (b) ousts DRV of jurisdiction to review that is not.

I will be reviewing all articles deleted under this clause and DRVing any that do not meet another deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• • A higher level issue is that Arb Com doesn't deal with content matters. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions has no authority over content. Deletion of mainspace page is a content decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • And Deletion Review has no authority over Discretionary Sanctions, either -- they certainly don't have the power to declare ArbCom has no jurisdiction, either. Maybe, I dunno, ArbCom should have a say in what their decisions cover? --Calton | Talk 01:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Asked at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Can_ArbCom_authorise_arbitrary_deletion_of_articles?. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Stifle, at 09:43, 16 July 2018 you said you would review all articles deleted under this clause. What about the userpages and draftspace drafts? It is fair enough to write them all off as valid WP:CSD#G11 deletions?

For reference, the deletions recorded at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Page level sanctions are:

1. Payment21 deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11). MER-C 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
2. NAgriTech International Distributors Ltd. deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirEdimon, Special:Permanentlink/844592403#April 2018). MER-C 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Red Lanterns Service deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirEdimon, Special:Permanentlink/844592403#April 2018). MER-C 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deleted as academic promo. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Airbitz deleted as undisclosed native advertising (created by one of a batch of CU blocked accounts here that included Orangemoody socks). MER-C 11:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Draft:Auxesis Group deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Draft:Cashaa Alternate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Viberate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kickingback77). MER-C 21:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Draft:AvaTrade deleted as native advertising (Special:Permanentlink/845386994#Bernie44). MER-C 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
10. OPSkins deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/826612938). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Axoni deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/828256721). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Wikipedia:Peer review/Axoni/archive1 deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/828256721). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Draft:Giacomo Arcaro deleted as self-promotional autobiographies. MER-C 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
14. User:Giacomoarcaro deleted as self-promotional autobiographies. MER-C 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
15. User:KA0688 deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
16. User:KA0688/sandbox deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
17. User:KA0688/sandbox/SupraScoop deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
18. Draft:SupraToken deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
19. Universa Blockchain Protocol deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
20. Khachatur Gukasyan deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
21. Mobius Network deleted as covert advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kleubay). MER-C 11:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
22. Larson&Holz deleted and salted as deliberate abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing medium ([53]). MER-C 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not currently proposing to look at non-article pages. I have looked at the deleted pages and have a plan of action at User:Stifle/I need to DRV these. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. For reference I bolded the five the needing review. I think this is important, GS/Crypto speedies could be unreasonably excluding notable topics, and chilling experienced Wikipedians from even trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see how these speedies of articles where the initial creation is at odds with GC/Crypto can in any form preclude the re-creation of such an article by neutral, experienced editors when the subject is notable. To me, this initial deletion is similar to nuking the contributions of banned editors. Those articles can also be re-created by others, but I oppose giving any credits to the banned user. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Pretty 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.

---

Further to the section above the section above this, pretty please can some more admins make a habit of frequenting WP:ERRORS. It's not a huge time sink. Processes are not difficult to learn. The improvements we make are really important.

And most of all, you'll have my admiration. That, surely sells it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried that a few years ago, and the first time I didn’t do something exactly right one of the regulars went all guard dog on me and basically chased me off. But perhaps the alluring specter of your admiration is enough of an incentive to give it another go. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Beeble, you are lovely. Pretty please. It'd be lovely to have you. And anyone else reading this. If several people joined and picked a task or two they're happy with, we'd be immensely better off. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I did just stick it on my watchlist and shortly afterwards I got this for the very first thing I did. So I'm taking it off again. Hut 8.5 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What, I dared question your "pretty suredness" and asked why we don't just use the same phrasing as in the article? Ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There is, AFAIK, no requirement that the hook has to have exactly the same wording as the article, and it's fine to rephrase it as something which means the same thing as the article (which is itself usually rephrasing the source to some degree). It's hardly an "error" if the phrases aren't exactly the same. As far as I can see these phrases do mean the same thing, and you haven't offered any evidence, reasoning or argument to the contrary. It looks as though you just wanted to pick a fight with someone. If that's how ERRORS works then I'm not interested in working there. Hut 8.5 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're 100% wrong. "associated with" does not mean the same as "host" where I come from, so it needs addressing. I already offered you a rationale, but I can see that anyone who dares to disagree with you is classed wishing to "pick a fight" and I'm not interested in interacting with you. In the meantime, this dismal and sad personalisation of ERROR reporting does nothing for the encyclopedia or the readers' experiences. And that is shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thirding what Beeblebrox and Hut 8.5 said; I've tried in the past to assist at WP:ERRORS and got a load of abuse from one of its self-appointed owners for not doing things exactly the way he demanded. @Dweller, to be blunt you're going to get the exact same reply from every admin you approach. ‑ Iridescent 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean your answers weren't accepted verbatim and anyone who dared question them were labelled an "abuser"? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean Sca went absolutely batshit crazy. IIRC you were there. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? BATSHIT CRAZY? I have no idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's because we all get together on the secret admin IRC channel and agree not to touch any reports on ERRORS so we can troll you. Jeez..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow that either. Is that related to the Sca mention above? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this edifying discussion. Would one of you gentlemen be so kind as to inform me why my username is cited here, in what context? Sca (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried not to name names, but there’s the problem for all to see. TRM’s guard-dogging of his walled garden is very off-putting to potential contributors there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, TRM does himself no favours droning on and on as self-appointed keeper of the-bits-of-the-main-page-he's-decided-are-important. If only he could be given selective Admin rights over those bits, he could spend all day every day checking the minutest details and correcting them himself. Of course he might then also have to deal with the endless pleas of others to get things exactly right? 86.176.145.104 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I was always happy to address issues, no matter how complex or trivial, when I was able to do so. And since I already check the minutest details, it would be much easier to fix them myself rather than have to debate it out with admins over hours and hours. Thanks for the opportunity to re-affirm that, "IP". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. If someone wants to pop by and accuse me of abuse and guard-dogging and walled gardens and picking a fight, some of them admins, then I'm entitled to respond. Unless of course it's just a case of all editors are equal, just some more equal than others. Just fix the issues with the main page. Stop personalising things. Admins need to resolve the myriad issues that arise on a daily basis, regardless. If not, then close ERRORS down. Or at least make it clear that we minions have to say please and thank you to admins for considering our requests and rejecting any debate. You're all barking up the wrong tree, I don't own ERRORS, nor do I wish to. I would love nothing more than a day without having to post half a dozen issues there. But I actually care about the main page. It seems that I am more isolated in that regard than I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I personally am grateful for the prolific work you put in there, and try and resolve issues as and when I can. But when I see edit summaries like "*tap tap* HELLO ... IS THIS THING WORKING" and "COME ON, ANY ADMINS OUT THERE" I can't help think that a) people are put off helping there and b) the odds of you regaining the bit so you could just fix these errors yourself seems to get further and further away. When you combine that with the general atmosphere of RfA that "good vandal fighter, SPI clerk, lots of Twinkling, 100% AfD score (failing to mention that it's because they vote with the herd)" will get a strong support despite being the sort of character that is just not suited to fixing problems at ERRORS, it seems like the subset of admins who can help is somewhat limited. So it does seem like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

TAP TAP because most errors need to be resolved quickly, indeed most items on the main page are only there for 24 hours, so waiting around for six or nine hours for someone to pop by isn't good enough. Creative edit summaries have been actually very effective at getting attention, so I'm not going to stop doing that. Why does everyone but me keep banging on about getting the admin bit back? Have I ever said anything about that? Too many people don't like me, so regardless of whether I spoke as a saint for the next decade, I'd still never get re-sysopped, that's a red herring. Focus on the issue. ERRORS is not serviced adequately by admins, regardless of the personalisation issues brought in by numerous admins here. And that's a problem. Fix the problems. Admins are here to serve and if they get grumpy phone calls or happy phone calls, they need to still fix issues that are detrimental to the main page. Seeing so many abscond from their duties here because of a personal dislike is very concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have an alternative suggestion, which is kind of based on what the IP said above. Can we drop the protection of the various main page templates (that directly transclude onto it) from full to Template Editor, then give TRM Template Editor rights? Or is that not possible because everything on the Main Page gets cascaded as full, in which case could we seriously consider dropping the Main Page to Template Editor protection (with an added warning that anyone caught doing something stupid to it gets indef blocked)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. It's been discussed before. Cheers though. We have what we have, and ERRORS needs better service, despite the sensitive nature of some of our admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I get tht you are working in an area that needs help, and maybe feel you are the only one holding it together, but given this very discussion you might want to consider that the situation is at least somewhat due to the your own actions and attitude towards others trying to help out in this area. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You missed the point again. It’s got nothing to do with how I “feel”. It’s about fixing the myriad issues on the main page every day. If you all know that issues exist every day yet choose to ignore it, that’s a shameful situation regardless. Anyway, I can see this is pointless with the some of the current group of admins, so I suggest someone closes these threads as a waste of time, and some of us will get back to trying to guarantee the quality of the main page for the 20 million views per day it receives. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Beeblebrox is missing your point at all, I think he's just making an additional and apt point. I get that it's not about what you feel, TRM, and it shouldn't be about any personal likes or dislikes, but that it should be about the simple fact that main page errors need to be fixed quickly. I agree with you completely on that. But how to actually achieve the desired state of affairs is every bit as critical as that first principle. You seem to think you can do it by being shitty with people and making demands about their apparent duty, while I (and certainly at least a few others here) think it would be more effectively achieved by being civil and friendly, and making requests rather than demands. I've observed the ERRORs thing, and a good number of main page discussions, and what I see there is a frequently toxic atmosphere with some regulars appearing to see it as their own domain and treating newcomers who want to help like shit. If admins don't like it and don't want to work there, TRM, it's because of what *you* and other regulars have made it - and you will have little success in attracting newcomers by carrying on with the same shittiness here. I think just about everyone can see that, except for you. And don't forget, you could have still been fixing these things yourself had you not been taken to Arbcom because of your own chronic shittiness. Losing you from the admin ranks was a disappointing blow, but it was 100% your own fault - your shitty approach didn't work then, and it is still not working. But you, apparently, are the only one who can't see it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I have to agree with Boing. And I say this as someone who is themselves sometimes too aggressive although fortunately it's perhaps a bit less of a deal with the stuff I do. While it's fully reasonable to disagree with someone, and reasonable to feel that errors are very important, if you respond in a way that comes across as extremely aggressive and angry, you put people off helping or getting involved point blank. Actually worse than that, even if someone may actually have agreed with you if you had been more friendly, some people may unconsciously reject what you said, even if the core of it was reasonably simply because you annoyed them too much with your unreasonable approach. As they say, being right doesn't mean you have to be an arse about it. Or to put it a different way, is it better errors are fixed most of the time and quickly, probably often in the way you wanted but not always? Or is it better errors are allowed to languish because no one wants to help because it simply isn't worth the grief? The evidence suggests it's currently the latter, and some basic understanding of human behaviour, interactions and emotions suggests it isn't surprising when responders are too aggressive. I see from below TRM has decided to stay away from ERRORS now. I find this unfortunate since it sounds like they generally do good work, if only they were able to modulate the way they respond things would be a lot better for everyone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't abolish ERRORS. I need something like ERRORS so people like JennyOz can tell me about unambiguous errors I missed, despite the major distraction described above. Art LaPella (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we have an admin roster, so there is always one on duty? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:VOLUNTEER. That sums up this whole issue, really. ansh666 08:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Everyone here is a volunteer and that includes the admins; everyone chooses where they want to work, and when there are 61,932,181 alternative places one could be working, you're going to be hard-pressed to persuade people that "come and work on a page that a couple of cranks see as their personal fiefdom and scream insults at anyone else who dares to touch it" is the place to be, let alone persuade them to sign up to a roster and commit themselves to being ranted at for the duration of their appointed timeslot. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Other volunteer organisations have rosters. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. Admins could volunteer to be on a roster, just as they volunteered to be admins. It's not for any of us to say that none would, let alone cite VOLUNTEER as some Wikipedia high principle that precludes such a roster. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I really think we need a clearer definition of what errors are in order for WP:ERRORS to serve its function normally. Others may disagree but I have always understood the main focus to be unambiguous errors, not a place for litigation of potential content dispute. It's nice that there is a notice about existing consensus for WP:ENGVAR; perhaps a consensus is needed to establish what an error report should consist of. Alex Shih (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have spotted errors before. Knowing that I am likely to make a mistake and get screamed at, I avoided correcting it myself and let the report sit for 30 mins before someone had the courage to fix it. Error correction is one of those high-risk, low-to-no reward task that many admins actively avoid. Side note, it's hilarious how we have this topic and the banner is displaying "How would you measure the health of your Wikimedia community?" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• I actively clerked DYK prior to my RfA and had intended to participate at ERRORS, among other DYK-related tasks, after receiving the bit. I too was chased off from anything Main Page related. If I recall correctly, I noted that I saw part of the purpose of DYK as promoting content creation by recognizing solid new articles and had my head bitten off for it. I had assumed the problem of being driven off by a single contributor was not as widespread as this, though. If we have boatloads of high-activity admins being driven out of an area in need of attention by a single contributor, a topic ban sounds like the solution (and may fulfill the initial request for more eyes on the main page). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not required. I will never edit ERRORS again. Keep it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

With please comes thanks

We have some admins who have over the years been very very industrious and helpful at ERRORS. I don't make it into the top ten contributors to the page, (I languish in a humble 13th - and fyi TRM is out there in 1st, by a street) but the following do: Stephen, Howcheng, Floquenbeam, Kevin McE, Art LaPella, Sca, Dank, Bencherlite and Jayron32.

Most of the people I just pinged are admins and most are active, but many of you aren't so active at ERRORS these days. Thank you to all of you for your contributions, and also to those a little further down the list (Crisco 1492, you're just 23 edits outside the glory list!).

Please continue / come back and help more, including those of you who aren't admins - you do a valuable job in copyediting and consensus building. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been helping out on there quite a lot since I came back (only 35th but I'm on the rise!), and I would urge anyone else who is able to ignore TRM's occasional snippyness and focus on fixing the errors he and others point out - because most of what's pointed out there are errors - but also some of this could be fixed at source without having to make it to the main page before being fixed if DYK had a slower turnover rate to enable more quality checking. Fish Karate 08:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Occasional snippyness? You've got to be joking! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am employing understatement in the interests of defusing the issue rather than exacerbating it. Fish Karate 09:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Fish and karate. Really appreciate all help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

How about we all (all - several people on this page have been unnecessarily "snippy" on this) admins and non-admins, take a week of trying to help out from time to time at ERRORS without being "snippy". And see how it goes. That doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with each other. It's a place where we work as fast as possible to fix things and disagreement is part of it. But let's give it a try? I'm in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposal

How about we all more admins keep an eye on WP:ERRORS and start issuing blocks for toxic incivility? And I mean long-term - a week is no use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle, although you know the answer to "why don't we issue blocks for toxic incivility" as well as I do unless you have a blinding urge to have the friends of whoever you block screaming abuse at you for the next month. Personally, I wouldn't be averse to trying the "topic-ban the problem editor(s)" remedy that finally brought order to the Reference Desks; that way it instantly solves the "toxic environment" problem, without losing the positive contributions that the problem editors make elsewhere. (If the errors are really that glaring, someone else will no doubt point them out; if nobody but the WP:OWNers of WP:ERRORS spots them or considers them worth raising, that says to me that the errors weren't that significant to start with.) Invoking such a remedy would mean either a full-blown 30-day RFC or an arb case, since at least one of the problematic editors would never accept such a ban voluntarily, and such a lengthy acrimonious debate may well be more trouble than it's worth. ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, I get what you're saying on all those points. I was thinking about topic bans too, but as you say it would result in lengthy acrimony. But it might be needed some day. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not just start with the known quantity and apply a sanction for the problem? Restrict TRM from making more than one comment about any particular line item; specifically, permit him to make an initial report and no other comments. Four or five admins above have already said he's (one of) the issue(s), while one has said his reports are usually on point. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• What a predictable and sad outcome. You want to avoid solving the actual problem. Well done all of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I tell you what I’ll do, I just keep my own errors record and not go near your precious and sensitive ERRORS. That way you can all go on avoiding the main issue and I can keep a robust record of the ongoing main page negligence. Of course this will not incur POLEMIC because it will just be a r cord of factual issues. End of (your) problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Izno: how is that supposed to solve anything? Scenario: TRM reports an error, someone attempts to fix it, but has introduced another error in the process (or didn't quite understand the problem, or whatever), and now TRM is prevented from saying anything further about it? Since I don't recognize your username from ERRORS, I'm going to assume you're not very familiar with the day-to-day workings over there (unless you're a lurker, I guess), so you get a pass for not totally thinking that idea through. @Iridescent: if nobody but the WP:OWNers of WP:ERRORS spots them or considers them worth raising, that says to me that the errors weren't that significant to start with ... or another possibility: nobody else is paying close enough attention. TRM finds a lot of things in OTD because frankly, I don't have that much time to complete my task so I don't go through them with a fine-toothed comb like he does. We don't always see eye to eye, but he's more often right than not (much more often). I agree that he could stand to tone it down a bit, but if we're more concerned with people's feelings than we are with fixing the problems, then we are failing our readers. Not that everyone should be Vulcans either, though. However, from my observations there are a lot of times when people would rather spend their energy defending poor phrasing or misleading claims or what-have-you rather than fixing the problem. So I understand why he gets frustrated. I'm not excusing him, but when one repeatedly gets told off, it's not surprising that he starts pushing back. Anyway, I'm already late with doing my OTD edits for today, so I'm gonna get back to it. —howcheng {chat} 22:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I took it on good faith that his initial observations were usually on point. However, it should be obvious to you that his follow up commentary is toxic. Rather than see him be removed from ERRORS or from Wikipedia entirely, I thought I might throw out a "he may only leave one comment per line item". (There is another editor who has a similar restriction at RFA and that seems to have helped that editor there.) We can adjust from there (no more than 50 words, for example). Presumably, he will be more able to communicate the issues he has if he were only able to make a single comment without followup. Other users can figure out the best change (above, there are a half dozen admins who would be willing to work on ERRORS if they didn't have to deal with the toxicity). He doesn't need to white knight for the page nor be the single point of failure it seems he thinks he is. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I've taken some random dips into ERRORS history from the past few months, and in addition to just seeing errors reported and fixed, I've also seen a bit of bitching about how errors got there in the first place and bitching about the people involved - none of that is needed, just report and fix, and I presume it's the kind of thing that Izno had in mind. Additionally, a lot of it is not so much clear errors, but imperfections, suggested improvements, failure to comply with strict DYK rules, etc. There's nothing wrong with wanting to improve those things, but most of is is not "Arrrgh, losers, your encyclopedia is a disgrace" failures. The sky is not falling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
      • One more point... A one-comment restriction would be ineffective for someone who starts their commentary with gems like "I know this is a waste of time because no-one gives a toss about...". The more I look at it, the more I think a full topic ban is eventually going to be needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Please, stop wasting time. I've already said I'll no longer contribute ever again to ERRORS, you've got what you wanted and chased me away forever. I hope the myriad errors which beset the main page don't ruin the experiences of 20 millions readers every day. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
          • You might not believe me, but I have not got what I most wanted. What I most wanted was for you to carry on doing your great work on main page errors, but change your persistent derogatory attitude to other volunteers. I do think that your removal from ERRORS is probably the second-best outcome given that you are apparently not prepared to adjust your attitude, but I'm disappointed we could not achieve the best outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• It seems this is a moot point, as the person whom most of you are referring to has self-imposed a voluntary topic ban from this area of Wikipedia. --WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• There is one point that I would like to comment on. The Rambling Man's approach to WP:ERRORS, is indeed in the manner of "fine-toothed comb" as Howcheng puts it pleasantly. Others may disagree it as nitpicking, but that is beyond the point. My opinion is that while this approach is perfectly fine for the final copyediting stage of a book about to be published, this is not a sustainable approach with the current reality our Main Page with limited volunteers. Across the project, the "fine-toothed comb" approach suits perfectly with WP:FAC, and if I am not mistaken, it has already been the standard approach. We are all aware of the importance of the Main Page and the necessity of not failing our readers, but we also must be realistic, and to realise that the only way to improve the readability of the Main Page is by working together.
  I disagree with howcheng on how TRM "repeatedly gets told off"; replace "told off" with "disagreed with", and that will probably be closer to reality. Many of the "errors" brought up by TRM, to quote their own words out of context with apologies, are simply instances where the content/blurb "could have been better, less misleading" ([54]). Whenever TRM brought up unambiguous errors, I am pretty sure most of us have been and are more than willing to fix them in a timely manner. But when it comes to questionable content, a simple query from a patrolling admin/editor are often met with hostility (especially for those admins that have history with TRM). We should not be personalising discussions; this is agreed by all editors that have commented so far. If we were to look back last 5000 revisions on ERRORS, it should not be difficult to find out which particular editor has been consistently initiating the personalising of discussion approach. It is frustrating because TRM is perfectly capable of working in a collegial manner; I have seen it, and I have read about it. This is not about sensitivity, nor is it about any one individual; but if any editor deliberately chooses to be belligerent toward another human being, their presence is not compatible with the project and needs to be removed from the topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Update

I've popped in at various points over the past few days, including over the weekend, when I don't normally edit, and found that issues are being resolved swiftly and without bickering. Maybe I've missed periods when that hasn't been the case (I've not exhaustively checked the diffs). But, for what I've seen, thank you everyone who's involved themselves so far. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Same here, and my thanks too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

From my point of view, the "duck boat" argument was a bit of a farce.--WaltCip (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

All the real errors are being dealt with elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're helping deal with it in your user space too, you also have my thanks - but we do need the established forum to be welcoming and friendly and free of snark and bitchiness. I still hope you might come back to it some day with a refreshed attitude. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks. You and your colleagues have made it abundantly clear that robust discussion has no place at ERRORS, so I'll just do it my way. I'm glad to be away and just watching the complete farce that's left. I'm very pleased to be no longer part of it and note that it's rendering your page obsolete. You guys focus on how to describe a "duck boat", and I'll pick up the rest of the crud. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a bit of over-discussion of relatively minor issues is an inevitable part of consensus-based discussion. But it was civil and friendly, and I think it's something we have to accept if we want people to join in and help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a complete timesink joke that underlines the fact that ERRORS needs hard and fast decision-making, not dithering and filibustering. You even managed to insult a newcomer to the page, so that's really improved the atmosphere. The whole show was, frankly, dismal. If that's what we're upholding as an example of how ERRORS best works, good job I'm doing my own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 July 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 review 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.

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table Rock Lake duck boat accident. It was closed as speedy keep because the article is currently linked to the main page via ITN. That rule invoked, WP:SKCRIT#6 seems perfectly clear on the matter to me, but I have been editorially involved in the article so I’d like someone else to review the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand while I was writing this the original closer re-instated the close, so never mind. Might turn into an edit war though. We’ll see. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rule is perfectly clear and I assume the new editor who nominated the page was un-aware of it. I've restored my Speedy Keep close and posted on their talk page, and expect they will be blocked if they edit-war in clear violation of policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a guideline not a policy or rule. It's also functionally irrelevant since any AFD opened while it's on the front page won't be closed until its off. Its just to prevent tags on the article which would disqualify it from the various main page criteria. But ultimately if the legitimacy of an article is in question it shouldn't be on the main page until that is settled. And a guideline for 'speedy keeping' does not supersede the actual deletion policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be ignored, even if it is just a "guideline". There's no reason not to discuss on WP:ERRORS or to wait until the page is removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am suggesting you dont say things are in violation of policy and talk about getting editors blocked when the actual policy that governs deletion doesnt say that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Irrelevant aside: It took quote a few seconds for the title of the article in question to cohere in my mind as a phrase, as I kept seeing it a disconnected list of words: table, rock, lake, duck, boat, accident. My question is: what kind of psychological or neurological specialist should I see? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hyphenating "duck-boat" would help. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• It sounds like a variant of Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• blah blah Wikipedia blah blah medical advice blah blah blah... ansh666 18:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• It doesn't help that they're all capitalized, as sentences usually aren't. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, try saying this: "Duck takes licks in lakes Luke Luck likes. Luke Luck takes licks in lakes duck likes." Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, that's really hard. On a more general note, they turn off the WiFi here at the Sanatarium pretty early, so I won't be around as much as I have in the past. Fortunately, there's an ex-Wikipedian ward here, so there's plenty of people to talk to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The AfD nominator Vanrich has been blocked as a sock. This can probably be closed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 23 July 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.

Can RM discussion be used to reach consensus to delete existing or ban creation of future articles?

There is a dispute about the outcome of RM discussion at Talk:World War II persecution of Serbs. A very small group of editors participated in two-days RM discussion and used it to reach consensus not only about renaming but also to:

1. delete trough renaming the article with major topic. Clarification: The major topic article was created 12 years ago as major topic article and stayed as such after millions of views and more than thousand edits.
2. to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles with topics which is removed from the major topic article. Clarification: the topics of splinter articles is persecution of many millions people and mass murder of dozens of thousands of people just because of their ethnicity.

None of above points were actually mentioned in RM closure which only mentions renaming and nothing else (diff). I tried to get opinion of editor Mahveotm who closed this discussion diff but they did not reply to my question.

That opens space for different interpretations and disputes about the outcome this RM discussion:

• Some editors (me included) may literaly interpret the RM closure as only related to renaming.
• Some editors (including Peacemaker67 and maybe GregorB) believe that this RM discussion actually ended with valid consensus on above points.

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong here, but I always thought that deletion of articles or banning eventual creation of articles on certain topics has to follow Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That is why I have a simple question: Can above RM discussion can be used for reaching consensus:

1. to delete existing article through renaming and
2. to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This contains a number of misleading statements and is an attempt to impose needlessly bureaucratic limits on the outcome of an RM. The RM was started about the title and scope of the article (which several editors had agreed had become a WP:COATRACK), and six editors quickly came to a consensus about both title and scope and on actions to be taken as a result. It was opened on 25 June and closed on 4 July (open over seven days), no-one opposed to the title and scope change commented, and the consensus was very clear among those that contributed. Clearly that consensus is only for the article in question and cannot "ban" creation of other articles. What was also discussed was where the information that was to be trimmed from the article (that didn't relate to persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia) would go. It wasn't to be deleted, as claimed. This was discussed, and the consensus was that the material should go in existing articles about the other occupied territories in Yugoslavia and in one proposed new article (so the OP is just wrong about the supposed "ban" on new articles). After the closure and move, I personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article, Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories. At best, the RM could have been advertised more widely, but even since the closure, the only editor to oppose the title and scope change is the OP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker. A RM is, well, a RM, and obviously is not binding w.r.t. other actions such as merging, splitting, or creating new content, and there is WP:CCC if nothing else. As far as I can tell, the outcome is that no content is being deleted (other than perhaps OR/SYNTH, and that is subject to discussion). This motion is unnecessary. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood something but I think your above comments Peacemaker67 and GregorB are contradictory to what you wrote before, to each other and to what obviously really happened. I will not go into details here, except to point that comment the outcome is that no content is being deleted (other than perhaps OR/SYNTH, and that is subject to discussion) is obviously untrue because Peacemaker67 removed huge parts of text, ie on Hungarion persecution of Serbs (ie diff). That material was far from OR/SYNTH, and even Peacemaker67 emphasized in their above comment that they personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article.

To avoid misunderstanding, could you two clarify what kind of consensus you reached during RM discussion by answering one simple question:

* Has RM discussion been used for reaching consensus that article on major topic should not exist? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments here. Peacemaker67 and GregorB stated that no content was removed, since it already existed (or was moved) elsewhere. The information is still in Wikipedia, even if it's not on the same article it was before, since the scope of the article was changed as a result of the move. Also, there was no restriction on creating other articles mentioned in any comments either here or at the move request; in fact, the participants of the discussion encouraged the creation of new, more specific articles. What "major topic" are you saying that the discussion reached consensus to delete? ansh666 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: what I meant is that the discussion itself was not explicitly about deleting stuff. Merging may always result in deletion of content, but that's typically only content that is duplicated or otherwise unusable. Also, since Peacemaker said he "personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article", what's your complaint? You are against the merge, or you are saying stuff was deleted without being covered in the target article, contrary to what Peacemaker says? GregorB (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The main issue here is quite simple. The World War II persecution of Serbs article covered persecution of all Serbs as main topic article for twelwe years. It did not cover only persecution in Croatia because millions of Serbs were persecuted and dozens of thousands were killed outside of Croatia, just because of their ethnicity. The main topic article does not exist now. A very small group of editors used two-days RM discussion to reach consensus that article on major topic should not exist. I might be wrong here (and I sincerely apologize if I am), but I am afraid that my concerns might be justified having in mind many contradictory and obviously incorrect statements of Peacemaker67 and GregorB accompanied with their apparent refusal to reply to above straightforward underlined question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You are quite right, the main topic article does not exist now, but killing the topic was the main point of the nomination and was explicitly declared as such (The article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK that amalgamates several semi-related campaigns of persecution into one, when there is no evidence of Ustasha, Wehrmacht, Albanian, Honvédség and Bulgarian coordination.). That's clearly what the editors agreed with, it's not a some sort of underhanded move. Speaking of "inconsistencies": your claim above (to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles) completely misconstrues the RM, because RM discussions cannot do that. GregorB (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the main topic article doesn't exist; the topic as a whole has been spread out over several articles. Was a move request the best way to do this? Possibly, possibly not. WP:PROSPLIT mentions a "split discussion" but there isn't really a set procedure or templates for that. Either way, the consensus at the move request is valid. (FWIW, the close itself was one of many bad closures that resulted in the closer's pagemover right being revoked). ansh666 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your "murder confession" GregorB. Killing the topic article is exactly what is the issue here. It is impossible to kill the topic without killing the article. There is no doubt that it is obvious that the article about "World War II persecution of Serbs" is the main topic article because of the victims, not because of the coordination between their (pro)Axis persecutors. Therefore I think there is no evidence of Ustasha, Wehrmacht, Albanian, Honvédség and Bulgarian coordination is one of the poorest DELETE arguments I have seen on wikipedia.

I simply think it is not allowed to kill any main topic/article without following requests of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Do you GregorB really think that it is possible to use such weak (or any) RM discussion to kill this (or any) kind of main topic article? If you do, what wikipedia policies your opinion is grounded at? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"I simply think it is not allowed to kill any main topic/article without following requests of Wikipedia:Deletion policy." I believe you're mistaken here. Moves and merges are fully within the scope of WP:BOLD (within reason, of course). I don't think RMs such as this one can be disputed on procedural grounds. If you disagree with the outcome, you're free to open a RfC and see how it goes. GregorB (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

GregorB, I most sincerely apologize if I am mistaken here, but I think that it is you who got it all wrong. This discussion is about the murder of the main topic article, not about the name of one of its splinter articles. You admitted that the main topic article does not exist because you killed it. What wikipedia policy says that it is possible to use such weak (or any) RM discussion to kill this (or any) kind of main topic article without following any request of Wikipedia:Deletion policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Antidiskriminator:, your opening statement contains a lot of untrue statements. That was an RM in which it was generally agreed upon that the current state of the article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK, the discussion was open for a little over 9 days with every single participating editor supporting the move. Peacemaker suggested that unlike what was proposed in the RM (which is not within the jurisdiction of RM by the way), a couple of articles need not be created, and that their content be moved to an already existing article - which he did after the closure (a couple of editors hinged their support on that and the OP not having any problem with it) . Obviously the consensus was for the page to be moved there's no disputing that (if you have a contrary opinion please reopen another RM or use Move Review). So as regards your questions * No article was deleted, nobody mentioned deletion. The standard during RM is to leave a redirect during moves which I did, if you want it to redirect somewhere or you are against the redirect, please ask at the talk page. * NO RMs CANNOT ban creation of splinter articles, but seeing that a couple of editors already don't see it necessary, it would be a good idea to start an RfC expressing what you think. I really do understand you Antidiskriminator, and I really apologize for not responding earlier. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest dropping the "murder"/"killed" commentary. It's an article, not a person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The killing term was introduced by other party. I will use "not exist" instead of killed, as per above suggestion.

Note to uninitiated editors: page mover rights of Mahveotm were revoked because of multiple issues with their recent move closures link a day after they closed this "RM discussion".

Mahveotm, the discussion lasted for two days, between this edit and this edit. There was no discussion after this last edit. From some unknown reason it was not advertised at related wikiprojects so only a handful of editors who all share the same point of view at related articles, participated in this discussion.

@Mahveotm:, There is something else behind RM discussion. Please read the above confession: the main topic article does not exist now, but killing the topic was the main point of the nomination and was explicitly declared as such. The RM discussion was actually about reaching consensus that the main topic article should not exist.

It was decided that (12 years old) main topic article about persecution of millions of people and murder of dozens of thousands of people should not exist, without following Wikipedia:Deletion policy. On the other hand I am, somehow, expected to strictly abide to procedures and to initiate RfC (Move Review or Wikipedia:Deletion review?) if I want it to exist. If I am the only one who thinks there is something wrong here then this will be my last comment here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

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.

---

Once again this part of the project is being neglected by admins. We have, on a regular basis now, errors which persist for the whole day on the main page without being addressed by admins. Either more time should be spent by admins on this or we should close the page down and mark as historical. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd rather just mark DYK as historical ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't just affect DYK. OTD has around 2-3 errors per day too. ITN, TFA and TFL have perhaps one or so per day, and TFP is completely ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just as a general comment, I tend to find than when I'm doing volunteer things, I respond far better to a polite request than to an accusation that I am neglecting my (actually non-existent) duty. I have a great deal of sympathy for your position, The Rambling Man, but I honestly don't think your demanding approach is the most successful one you could adopt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Oh well, fuck the main page then. I couldn't care less what you think of me or some so-called "demanding approach", but at least you should care about the integrity of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sheesh, chill out. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Using three words to throw a patronizing blue link in the face of someone who has a legitimate grievance about the integrity of a page that everyone can see is not an ideal exercise in conflict resolution.--WaltCip (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  An excellent contribution. Truly, Erpert. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I concur with Erpert's sage advice. Dumuzid (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Excellent. Good job we're not relying on you to actually do something about the problem in hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  "Good job" or "good thing"? I'd just like to be clear, as "good job" seems discordant to me here. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Nor how any of your input here has any relevance to the issue at hand. I suggest you go and improve some articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I was actually trying to help you to understand how to get the best from other people, and that is not by making demands and belittling everyone who doesn't instantly toe your line. Honestly, I do have great respect for what you have done and continue to do, but your continuing invective is really not helping you or your cause - you're just making yourself look more and more like a whiner and increasingly likely to be ignored. You seriously need to get a mirror and take a look at yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I repeat: I don't care what you think of me or my methodology. Just fix the main page. Personalising the issue is not becoming of an admin, just work on maintaining the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my view - I do chip in and help at ERRORS from time to time, particularly looking for replacements when an OTD entry needs to be pulled. However, I reserve the right to not fix something where it's on a topic I don't know anything about, and decide that charging in on horseback in complete ignorance of what the article is about is counter-productive and probably in violation of WP:COMPETENCE. TRM is right when he says there is not enough admin attention on ERRORS and things do lapse without getting fixed; however screaming "fuck the main page then" is not going to magically make admins jump to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, as he well knows, is one of the good guys, but there is a systemic problem here. There are not enough admins who routinely patrol ERRORS. There are enough admins fullstop. There are far, far, far too many errors coming through from the various MP feeds, but especially ITN, OTD and DYK which I think is the worst offender (though I'll take my hat off to TRM who is the expert here). MP is our shop window and it routinely makes us look amateurish.

So, the possible solutions are:

1. Promote more admins.

   Yeah right.

2. Discontinue DYK/OTD/ITN so the small resource pool can focus on the small number of issues from the other sections.

   In my dreams

3. Improve the quality of DYK/OTD/ITN processes

   I refer you to the answer above

4. Get some more existing admins to frequent ERRORS

   See the next but one section

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at #1 - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth - and looking back at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoppyh I think I missed a trick; we could have got him on ERRORS patrol. Ah well. I am on record in saying that I would support Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man 2 purely to clear the ERRORS backlog, but realise such an RfA passing is about as likely as Katie Price becoming Secretary of State for Education. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "scream" anything. I notified this admin page of a problem that only admins can deal with. If no admins can be arsed to do anything about it, that's just fine, but this is the only venue that can be used to get more admin eyes on the ever-increasing number of issues at ERRORS. If admins would rather make things personal and get humpy about it, that's not my problem. If admins can't be arsed to fix main page issues because they see my reporting as somehow personal affronts, then also "whatever". Shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I unwatched the page a few months ago as TRM's combative stance was tedious to view, much less attempt to interact with. Sometimes it's not what we say but how we say it. (The means don't justify the ends.) Killiondude (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Heartbreaking, but we could use some volunteers who care about the integrity of the main page beyond personal issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  And it would be easier to do so with a more collegiate approach that doesn't actively deter people from wanting to help. You know this. Fish Karate 08:23, 20 July 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.

Attapeu dam collapse

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 could someone look at the requested move here, as it's on the mainpage right now. I have commented on the move myself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks John. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 26 July 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.

Please review this 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.

---

Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've blocked this user indefinitely for continuing after a warning to disrupt the area of waterboarding with false claims of BLP against someone who is not mentioned in the article. I am posting here to avoid any appearance of involvement as I have participated in the ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding. The last straw for me was when I saw that, not content with false claims of BLP to bolster a counter-factual position at the article talk, the editor had started chipping away at Enhanced interrogation techniques, changing sourced information to conform with their POV. The length of block seems unavoidable given the user's extensive pre-existing block log. As ever, I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it. --John (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good block - P&W was adequately warned prior the block,[55] however he continued to carry out the objectionable WP:DE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. "All of the sources I've read, which are not clearly biased in favor of the left, describe this as "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh interrogation"" - ie " All of the sources I've read, other than those I disagree with...". Obviously unacceptable POV approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'll add that I have declined an unblock request, which was little more than an attack on the blocking admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good block - I totally agree with Boing! said Zebedee decline rational. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Looks fair enough. The spurious claims of BLP violations (e.g. [56] [57]) are particularly bad. Hut 8.5 19:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any objections, either. The warning was fine, the block log necessarily predicated the length of block time, and the changing of consensus was egregious; attacking the blocking admin was additional poor judgment, to say the least. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm involved in the discussion at talk: waterboarding, so take my opinon cum grano salis. I took this block as an occasion to look over the user's contribution. Over the last year or so, the user nearly exclusively debated some few political hot-button issues. From May 22nd to now it's waterboarding, from November 2017 to February 2018 it was Al Franken (where he was much less concerned about WP:BLP). His primary concern is so-called "liberal bias" - where "liberal" is everything outside a very narrow cone of perception (apparently the Guardian, Forbes, Salon (website) and Slate (magazine) are "the left-wing fringe"). The last significant content contributions, apart from a bizarre edit war on Ugg boots, were in 2015. As far as I can tell, the user is WP:NOTHERE. Im sorry, but good block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reconsider - I am also involved in the RFC discussion at talk: waterboarding, very much on the opposite side of this editor. I find his position on BLP unsupportable, if not ludicrous. Nonetheless, I would like to permit him to continue to contribute to the ongoing RFC there. I would much rather have his views dealt with on their merits and not create any basis for claims that Wikipedia will not tolerate right-wing voices. The edits he is being blocked for, while arguably disruptive, reflect an opinion that has many followers and were not, in my opinion, made in bad faith. The articles in question are closely watched and any edits he makes against consensus can be and were promptly undone. Therefore the risk of allowing him to continue to edit at least talk pages on this topic are very low and blocks can be quickly replaced if warranted. I don't want to silence this voice, though I heartily disagree with it.--agr (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it", as noted above. He can be unblocked pretty quick once he confirms that he understands what he did wrong. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:14, 23 July 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.

Reckful has been scheduled for deletion since 2012

Back in 2012 Reckful was marked to be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckful. It is still here - I guess it should be deleted or the template be removed...

If I'm in the wrong place I apologise and ask to be pointed in the right direction. --Baerentp (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• It was later recreated, which is why it still exists. There was substantial new coverage, so if you still think he isn't notable, I'd start a new AfD. I don't see a template anywhere on the page? There is a template on the talk page to note the past deletion, and that should stay there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I missed that completely - sorry about that! Thanks, --Baerentp (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A good way to check things like this is to look at the article's log, which I think that all editors can access via the article history page (for instance, [58]). Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The other quick n dirty way is to look at the editing history page and see if there are any large gaps (in this case 2013 - 2018) which may indicate it wasnt available for editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You can go to Special:Log and type "Reckful" in as the target - you'll see that the page was deleted in 2013, restored and userfied on 18 March 2018, and then the userfied version was moved a day later, from User:Valoem/Reckful back into mainspace (via Byron Bernstein for some reason). Fish Karate 12:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Who's the LTA at User talk:The Rambling Man?

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.

---

User talk:The Rambling Man (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) might also need protection. I've left it open to collect IPs, but that might not be the best thing to do. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Vote X again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur, it is rather self-evidently Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. The edit summaries are a dead give-away, coupled with GB-based public-access IPs. --Jayron32 13:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-ed for a day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I got name-checked from three years ago :D Doesn't time fly when you're having fun.... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it's yet another one of my sockpuppets. I think I was blocked once for responding to the IP as it was considered "facilitating a banned user", even though I had no idea at the time who it was. Some admins, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 24 July 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.

Purpureocillium lilacinum

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 we please have a WikiData page for Purpureocillium lilacinum (an economically significant species)? I have moved content from the genus (which is no longer monotypic) page ... I think that the SV:WP and other language pages should also point to the species, not the genus.Roy Bateman (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; there's a Wikidata page for it here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

OK - many thanks - it didn't seem to come up when I did a search the other day ... Roy Bateman (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It was created just a few hours before your initial post here. WikiData works in mysterious ways. Killiondude (talk) 19:58, 24 July 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.

Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion

I deleted this a while back when the WP:GS/Crypto were new under it as academic spam (particularly of links and ideas). I'd seen that other articles had been deleted, and asssumed it was good practice, and reviewing the page, felt it fell within the any other reasonable sanctions bit.

Given that there has been contention over this above and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9, with some (myself included) feeling that AN was the correct venue for a review of general sanctions, I'll go ahead and offer this up for review here: it's a valid review of my actions under the GS (which were undertaken in good faith, but could be a mistake), and will hopefully clarify what the community thinks of this as a whole. For full disclosure, I also am posting this because I believe a review of existing actions will help solve the question better than an abstract RfC would, and think it is best to get clear community opinion on existing actions (see my comments at VPI), but given the controversy surrounding the recent DRV, I also would like review of the one action I took in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• AN is not well suited for reviewing content questions. A thorough review of whether that page should have been deleted requires an XfD. XfD better sorts and tabulates these things.

AN is much better for reviewing administration problems. Was TonyBallioni INVOLVED when deleting this page? Was he excesively rude, or bullying or harassing editors? No, none of that is even an remotely an issue.

DRV is good for reviewing whether the deletion process was followed. It is very difficult to do a DRV-type review on this because there are no concrete criteria for WP:GS/CRYPTO speedy deletion.

Similar to what I said at the end of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol, I am sympathetic to a G11 deletion of the page. Only sympathetic because the unsolved problem of WP:Reference bombing of a heavy first version makes it very difficult to call it "obvious" that nothing in it is reasonably re-usable. As I pueruse the sources, I find that none are good at attesting notability. Non-independent sources, usually quickly indicated by them advertising the product they sell, or mere mentions. I'm guessing that TonyBallioni considers himself experienced in assessing cryptocoin spam, and I suppose that if that were to be an explicit thing for him to be doing the speedy deletion, I support that.

The RfC would largely cover the scope of ArbCom and Discretionary Sanctions, because the narrow question cryptospam is much easier. Call it CSD#G11.

I advocate that for WP:Reference bombed commercial topics, any deletion assessment, CSD#G11 or XfD, need only consider the first three references, that the onus is on the author to show two notability-demonstrating sources in the first three. It is not practical to expect Wikipedians to carefully assess dozens of unsuitable sources for every spam submission. If this were accepted, the page would easily be G11-eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• While my experience at NPP suggests we need CSD criteria around Crypto, I do not believe that the community endorsed/authorized that when enacting the GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#G11a? G11 with extended generosity for WP:GS/Crypto new pages by newcomers? This would help apply it. There is broad support for these deletions, the issue is documentation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe and Tazerdadog: not sure G11a would be best, but maybe a line like In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have wide latitude in applying the speedy deletion criteria. this would take into account BLPBAN deletions and deletions under ARBIPA (for 500/30 vios), which are basically the only other areas where this would apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Suggest In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have increased leeway in applying the speedy deletion criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Works by me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • FWIW as a non-admin I would also support that wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe the letter of the GS allows deletions. the spirit certainly does not, and deletions were on nobodies radar in the discussion that authorized GS in this topic area. Therefore, TonyBallioni's deletion, while unquestionably in good faith, is procedurally incorrect. After reviewing the article, I think this is a borderline G11. I would agree with a deletion under that CSD criterion, and wholeheartedly support an expansion of G11 along the lines of SmokeyJoe's G11a. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• We've already got a discussion of this topic a couple of sections up, let's not fork it. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a mess because of the DRV. Here’s a clean chance for people to comment on a case that doesn’t have a closure. FWIW, the lack of comment here except by the same small group that got mad at the DRV suggests to me that the community as a whole doesn’t generally care about this. It’s a processwonkery thing where as stated by others above, there is broad support for the actual deletions just moral panic at the way they were done. As the thread at WT:AC is pointing out, standard DS (which these are, the authorization is what matters, not the template copied from when setting up the page), unquestionably allow for deletions. The question is whether or not it was good judgement to do so.
    That said, I’m also personally fine with just calling this G11 with the GS standard of review applying (or even just G11, tbh). Arguing over the wonkery here (on both sides) isn’t useful to the encyclopedia in my view, and when there is a clear uncontroversial path to take with regard to an action (and future actions), it is the best way forward in my view.TonyBallioni (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There was a bit of people getting there backs up (eh. a deletion unreveiwable at DRV). I am personally losing track what the controversial question is. You and MER-C have been excellent leaders in battling cryptospam in particular, clarifying WP:NCORP, and don't deserve the grumpiness. Can I suggest a compromise: Any GS-G11 deletion (or any DS deletion) raised at DRV must be notified at WP:AN? Or GS/Crypto matter discussed at DRV must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies? You call it processwonkery, some some believe there is value in process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I’m fine with that compromise. (MER-C can speak for himself). My use of wonnkery is more in the sense that this discussion appears to be something that is mainly of interest to people who are really involved in the backend process details of WP (including myself on the “it’s fine” end.) My point was that finding a workable solution that doesn’t require a full meta discussion on the nature of the deletion process every time is ideal for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. For the record, I think the pettyfogging about process in this topic area has the potential to be equally as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as keeping the articles live. Wikipedia is in the real world. This topic needs to be held to the same high standard as BLPs -- if in doubt, delete. MER-C 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If keeping the articles live means nominating them for AFD, and it's certain that the articles should be deleted, they will stay around with AFD templates and possibly other tags such as {{notability}}, {{COI}} and {{advert}} for a few days before deletion. BLP deletion is different as there's privacy to consider. Is it better for Wikipedia to be seen as biased in its coverage? Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • If I had to pick between bias and lending legitimacy to under-regulated financial instruments/companies many of which are used for scams I would pick bias. That's why I think the community enacted GS and why I support allowing for admin CSD as part of enforcing those sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • An article with banners at the top saying that it is nominated for deletion as advertising doesn't lend legitimacy to anything. Peter James (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol had a majority for overturning and was closed with no consensus but was not overturned. This is the correct outcome only if WP:GS/Crypto authorises deletion and it looks like there's no consensus that it does. Even if there's consensus to apply it to content, there could be a dispute where there is 60% support for one proposal and 40% for another, and an administrator would be able to use GS in favour of the 40% that the 60% would not be enough to overturn. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unarchiving this - I'd like an answer to the broader question of whether admins can delete pages under GS that do not fall under a CSD criterion without discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion

I deleted this a while back when the WP:GS/Crypto were new under it as academic spam (particularly of links and ideas). I'd seen that other articles had been deleted, and asssumed it was good practice, and reviewing the page, felt it fell within the any other reasonable sanctions bit.

Given that there has been contention over this above and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9, with some (myself included) feeling that AN was the correct venue for a review of general sanctions, I'll go ahead and offer this up for review here: it's a valid review of my actions under the GS (which were undertaken in good faith, but could be a mistake), and will hopefully clarify what the community thinks of this as a whole. For full disclosure, I also am posting this because I believe a review of existing actions will help solve the question better than an abstract RfC would, and think it is best to get clear community opinion on existing actions (see my comments at VPI), but given the controversy surrounding the recent DRV, I also would like review of the one action I took in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• AN is not well suited for reviewing content questions. A thorough review of whether that page should have been deleted requires an XfD. XfD better sorts and tabulates these things.

AN is much better for reviewing administration problems. Was TonyBallioni INVOLVED when deleting this page? Was he excesively rude, or bullying or harassing editors? No, none of that is even an remotely an issue.

DRV is good for reviewing whether the deletion process was followed. It is very difficult to do a DRV-type review on this because there are no concrete criteria for WP:GS/CRYPTO speedy deletion.

Similar to what I said at the end of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol, I am sympathetic to a G11 deletion of the page. Only sympathetic because the unsolved problem of WP:Reference bombing of a heavy first version makes it very difficult to call it "obvious" that nothing in it is reasonably re-usable. As I pueruse the sources, I find that none are good at attesting notability. Non-independent sources, usually quickly indicated by them advertising the product they sell, or mere mentions. I'm guessing that TonyBallioni considers himself experienced in assessing cryptocoin spam, and I suppose that if that were to be an explicit thing for him to be doing the speedy deletion, I support that.

The RfC would largely cover the scope of ArbCom and Discretionary Sanctions, because the narrow question cryptospam is much easier. Call it CSD#G11.

I advocate that for WP:Reference bombed commercial topics, any deletion assessment, CSD#G11 or XfD, need only consider the first three references, that the onus is on the author to show two notability-demonstrating sources in the first three. It is not practical to expect Wikipedians to carefully assess dozens of unsuitable sources for every spam submission. If this were accepted, the page would easily be G11-eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• While my experience at NPP suggests we need CSD criteria around Crypto, I do not believe that the community endorsed/authorized that when enacting the GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#G11a? G11 with extended generosity for WP:GS/Crypto new pages by newcomers? This would help apply it. There is broad support for these deletions, the issue is documentation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe and Tazerdadog: not sure G11a would be best, but maybe a line like In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have wide latitude in applying the speedy deletion criteria. this would take into account BLPBAN deletions and deletions under ARBIPA (for 500/30 vios), which are basically the only other areas where this would apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Suggest In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have increased leeway in applying the speedy deletion criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Works by me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • FWIW as a non-admin I would also support that wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe the letter of the GS allows deletions. the spirit certainly does not, and deletions were on nobodies radar in the discussion that authorized GS in this topic area. Therefore, TonyBallioni's deletion, while unquestionably in good faith, is procedurally incorrect. After reviewing the article, I think this is a borderline G11. I would agree with a deletion under that CSD criterion, and wholeheartedly support an expansion of G11 along the lines of SmokeyJoe's G11a. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• We've already got a discussion of this topic a couple of sections up, let's not fork it. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a mess because of the DRV. Here’s a clean chance for people to comment on a case that doesn’t have a closure. FWIW, the lack of comment here except by the same small group that got mad at the DRV suggests to me that the community as a whole doesn’t generally care about this. It’s a processwonkery thing where as stated by others above, there is broad support for the actual deletions just moral panic at the way they were done. As the thread at WT:AC is pointing out, standard DS (which these are, the authorization is what matters, not the template copied from when setting up the page), unquestionably allow for deletions. The question is whether or not it was good judgement to do so.
    That said, I’m also personally fine with just calling this G11 with the GS standard of review applying (or even just G11, tbh). Arguing over the wonkery here (on both sides) isn’t useful to the encyclopedia in my view, and when there is a clear uncontroversial path to take with regard to an action (and future actions), it is the best way forward in my view.TonyBallioni (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There was a bit of people getting there backs up (eh. a deletion unreveiwable at DRV). I am personally losing track what the controversial question is. You and MER-C have been excellent leaders in battling cryptospam in particular, clarifying WP:NCORP, and don't deserve the grumpiness. Can I suggest a compromise: Any GS-G11 deletion (or any DS deletion) raised at DRV must be notified at WP:AN? Or GS/Crypto matter discussed at DRV must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies? You call it processwonkery, some some believe there is value in process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I’m fine with that compromise. (MER-C can speak for himself). My use of wonnkery is more in the sense that this discussion appears to be something that is mainly of interest to people who are really involved in the backend process details of WP (including myself on the “it’s fine” end.) My point was that finding a workable solution that doesn’t require a full meta discussion on the nature of the deletion process every time is ideal for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. For the record, I think the pettyfogging about process in this topic area has the potential to be equally as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as keeping the articles live. Wikipedia is in the real world. This topic needs to be held to the same high standard as BLPs -- if in doubt, delete. MER-C 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If keeping the articles live means nominating them for AFD, and it's certain that the articles should be deleted, they will stay around with AFD templates and possibly other tags such as {{notability}}, {{COI}} and {{advert}} for a few days before deletion. BLP deletion is different as there's privacy to consider. Is it better for Wikipedia to be seen as biased in its coverage? Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • If I had to pick between bias and lending legitimacy to under-regulated financial instruments/companies many of which are used for scams I would pick bias. That's why I think the community enacted GS and why I support allowing for admin CSD as part of enforcing those sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • An article with banners at the top saying that it is nominated for deletion as advertising doesn't lend legitimacy to anything. Peter James (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol had a majority for overturning and was closed with no consensus but was not overturned. This is the correct outcome only if WP:GS/Crypto authorises deletion and it looks like there's no consensus that it does. Even if there's consensus to apply it to content, there could be a dispute where there is 60% support for one proposal and 40% for another, and an administrator would be able to use GS in favour of the 40% that the 60% would not be enough to overturn. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unarchiving this - I'd like an answer to the broader question of whether admins can delete pages under GS that do not fall under a CSD criterion without discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Streamline unblock requests for missing IP information

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.

---

Unblock requests that follow the instructions from the following templates are almost always missing the necessary IP information for the requests to be actioned:

• Template:Blocked proxy
• Template:Colocationwebhost
• Template:Webhostblock

(Have I missed any?)

The missing data always prompts an admin to have to ask for it and delays those that might be unblocked. It is frequently the reason for the first unblock decline.

A few examples
1, 2 by 331dot 3, 4, 5, 6 by Yamla who is using Template:Forgot ip which exists just for this reason. Are they forgetting to mention their IP? Where did we request it from them? 7, 8, 9 by JamesBWatson 10 by Boing! said Zebedee 11 12 13, 14, 15 by SQL

Wouldn't it make sense to work the IP request into the templates to save time? I had discussed this with Yamla a few months back and he brought up good points to consider.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse. As someone who spends a lot of time reviewing unblock requests, this is a great idea and would make it a lot easier on these users. One single request followed by an unblock or a confirmation that the IP is a proxy or whatever, rather than several back-and-fourths with admins. You may have forgotten Template:Zombie proxy, though I've never seen it used. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have just looked at Template:Blocked proxy, Template:Colocationwebhost, and Template:Webhostblock and I was astonished to find that they do not tell the blocked editor to include their IP address in their unblock request. I had always thought that they did say that, and it had never crossed my mind to check. If I had done so, I would have just added that instruction to the templates, rather than start a discussion here about it. Am I missing something, or is it so blindingly obvious that the change should be made that nobody could possibly have to even think about it even for a second? Also, yes, change functionaries team to UTRS, obviously. I don't like "Forgot ip", because the editor usually didn't forget anything: he or she had just never been told it was needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely feel free to delete Template:forgot ip. Note that many people won't know their IP. I tend to point them to WhatIsMyIP, but that's a commercial site and there may be better options. Note that users sometimes get their IP address incorrect even when I link to that because they post their private network address instead, ignoring the link. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually Yamla, that template would have a new and proper meaning if these changes have consensus because you would be using it in cases where they did forget after having gotten the message in the (changed) blocking template. Haha James, yes it looks obvious to me but the last time I made an obvious change it led to this thread and this RfC so I thought I would take the conservative route and get consensus. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: - Here lately I've taken to suggesting that the editor googles "What is my IP". It should be the first hit in the results. SQL^{Query me!} 20:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong endorse - I think this came up a couple days ago at ANI as well. The templates need tweaked as JamesBWatson suggests. SQL^{Query me!} 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, yes, I really hadn't realised the templates didn't actually say to provide your IP address - I guess that explains why almost nobody ever does. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the work on this. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Beyond this issue, these templates seem confusing for some non-admins/non-IT workers. When they appeal the block, they sometimes misinterpret the webhost block as a behavioral block. It's fairly common for someone to say, "Why am I blocked? I haven't done anything!" This leads to the same problem as above: "you're not blocked" "yes I am" "copy the message" "it says it's a webhost block" "well, what's your IP address?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hell yes for all the obvious reasons. This wastes administrator time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Just do it already. MER-C 09:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse per above arguments. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:39, 24 July 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.

Changes made. Feel free to tweak or reword as necessary. MER-C 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Fault in page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or one of its subpages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T200402

In Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, each listed subcategory is accompanied by a count of how many pages are in that subcategory. But for at least the last several days, the number with the link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, is much more than the amount of pages listed when I look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that too; the cat_pages entry is out of sync. -FASTILY 06:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw it too. A few days ago the count was over 150 and stayed there but the category was empty; at the moment the count is 294, still empty. – Athaenara ✉ 08:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a recurrence of this problem from May.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T195397

BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

request for revoking TPA

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 somebody kindly revoke TPA of User talk:Clarkzero? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, and talk page nonsense blanked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I realize User:Clarkzero is now indef blocked with TPA revoked, but why does he still have rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights [59]. How on earth did someone with a track record like this get them in the first place? . Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  On the off chance that he can get himself unblocked, I have removed those two rights. There's no way a serial copyright violator should have them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 26 July 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/BLP issues on British politics articles closed

An arbitration case regarding BLP issues on British politics articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia.
2. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
3. KalHolmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. All appeals must be directed toward arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
4. The community is reminded that publicly posting details or speculation regarding an editor’s personal information or off-wiki behavior violates the policy on outing, unless the information has been disclosed on-wiki by the editor in question. Concerns regarding off-wiki behavior are best reported through an appropriate private channel rather than on community noticeboards.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles closed

ASR VISIONS

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.

---

Vandalism as first edits. —Heating172 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2018.

(Non-administrator comment) @Heating172: Unless there are deleted edits, I do not see how the user's edits to their talk page constitute vandalism. Self-promotional, yes, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism; please take a moment to read WP:NOTVAND. In any case, if the edits were vandalism, the proper channel to report is WP:AIV. –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

While not vandalism, the account is a promotional one, with a promotional name. I've blocked the account on these grounds, and they are more than welcome to request an unblock with a name change, and what they plan on editing outside of their organization. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 26 July 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.

Abandoned discussion at Talk:Comic Con

Can anyone close this discussion, please? 189.69.68.249 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Which discussion? There are several discussions on that talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That about the merge. 187.26.160.124 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog-that-is-not-a-backlog at WP:UAA

There are several usernames that have been globally locked – I assume the bot has not removed them because they are not blocked locally, though. There are also quite a few requests that have been replied to as "wait until the user edits". Would it be proper for a non-admin to clean those up, or would it be better to have an admin do it? –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything marked to wait can be moved to the holding pen. And yes, you can just remove anyone who is globally locked. This sort of thing is one of the few ways non-admins can really help at UAA and is always appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Role account?

This user has signed my talkpage as "Suede" here, but on his own userpage says Suede is "my associate". I don't really want to amplify the drama with this person; could somebody else talk to them? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked up the person Wreichel28 mentioned on their talk page, 'Suede Dickerson': It happens that there's a marketing specialist for Pierce-Arrow Publishing by that name. On the site that Wreichel28 aka 'Suede' complains about you removing, there's a review of a book which happens to have been published by none other, written by someone called Warren R. Reichel. There's also a new user, Suede Dickerson adding the same link to the article. I don't think they're the same person, but I think they share a COI, and I left them both notices of the guidelines. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

• 71.89.128.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Review edit summaries for examples of calling multiple editors "anti-Semite", "retarded", and misidentifying constructive edits as "vandalism". The IP is also edit-stalking, revert-warring, and is apparently WP:NOTHERE. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13

I have added the {{banned user|[[WP:3X]]}} tag on User:Wikiexplorer13 for his long term socking. Though I am not 100% sure if only admins can put it, but nonetheless thought of letting others know here. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Premiership of Imran Khan

I'm unable to create page on Premiership of Imran Khan. Any admin around? --Saqib (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Saqib Because when he will become PM then his Premiership will start. Currently, it is under restriction. Störm (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done It might be a bit premature, but as it's not related to the blacklist entry I've gone ahead and created the title. Be warned I might delete the initial entry, so the next person to edit the page will receive any notifications instead of me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Small, but significant error in a batch of my deletion rationales

Hi, moments ago I reviewed the images in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 July 2018 and cleaned up the ones that were worth saving and proceeded to delete the remaining. Instead of utilizing the deletion summary "F7: Violates non-free use policy" (which is what they were tagged for in the first place), I accidentally entered "F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1" instead. A small, but significant difference. This is usually not a a big deal; I'd restored the file and re-delete it citing the correct deletion rationale. However, in this case, it affected nearly 90 files. I'd... rather not manually do that, one-by-one. But is this my only option here? Is mass undeletion possible? Or should I simply leave them be and clarify my error if and when someone yells at me for deleting their file? Please don't hit me. ℯxplicit 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Just leave them be. F7 in both cases so the rationale is close, and individuals can object in either case, and are more likely to be distressed if the file is deleted twice! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

At least you didn't paste in a movie title! Graham87 04:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Could someone block my old alt-account?

Nothijiri88 (talk · contribs), despite the name, was me, as can be seen in its only (currently) live edit. I don't remember the password, nor did I even apparently remember the account's existence when I asked Salvio to block all my other alt-accounts later that summer. But I've found myself having to state a few times in the last several months that all my socks were blocked on my request, and it bothers me that I just now realized that I was not being entirely truthful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Restore Karamot Ullah Biplob

Please restore Karamot Ullah Biplob article, Now I am working on this. I want to solve this copyright issue and I also told this in talk page. But an admin already delete this article. Now, I request you to restore this article for only next 1 hour. After 1 hour if this article has copyvio issue, you will delete this. I hope I could solve this issue.-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@শাহাদাত সায়েম: We have to leave the revisions that had copyright violations deleted.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad , and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I know that, And now I request you to restore it for give me a change to solve this issue in this article.-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• You can restore it at my user sub page. Thanks-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@শাহাদাত সায়েম: It looks like you do not seem to understand: we can not restore material that violates copyright, even if you plan to fix it. The revisions that violate copyright must stay deleted. You need to start over, following the instructions I have given you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Brian Christopher

If there is anyone who knows what good reliable sources are for wrestling articles, can you watch the above page? I've put it under full-protection for a few hours as there is an edit war going on about is he or isn't he dead. My lack of knowledge of the subject area makes it difficult to assess what sources are ok and what are tabloid or fan-zine level. Nthep (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that some people cite a tweet to support he's dead but don't put it in the article, while others want to wait until there is an RS that states it. Recently people tweeted that Brickhouse Brown had died, which he had not (yet), which is probably why a few people are gun shy on putting it in the article until there is something more firm than "Dave Metzer Tweeted it". I will keep an eye out for a good source to support the claim and hopefully put this to rest.  MPJ-DK  18:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Thanks, so far I'm seeing Metzer (who he?) tweeted it and two websites are reporting the tweet but nothing more solid than that. Nthep (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Meltzer reports on wrestling and MMA, "industry expert" and if reported on his website would count as a reliable source, but one tweet is too soon to put it down as definitite.  MPJ-DK  18:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep and MPJ-DK: The Wrap, a subsidiary of MSN.com, is reporting it. Based on text in this article ("according to several reports," "Representatives for the Lawler family did not immediately respond to TheWrap's request for comment," etc.), they've got active professionals working on the story and are not just relying on Dave Meltzer's social media, TMZ, Wikipedia, or whatever else. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:A006:9205:E961:82CD (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor clarification: The Wrap isn't a subsidiary of MSN. It appears MSN syndicates material from them. In any event, they're not a tabloid or anything like that. Trivialist (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

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 is time sensitive.

• Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randykitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simegnew Bekele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chiyo Miyako (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting admin intervention in these two AfD's. The mere nomination and placement of a deletion tag at the top of these articles is a violation of the basic tenet on which WP:BLP policy is based on, a respect for human dignity. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolved in April 2009, among other things, what is shown below (emphasis mine):[60]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... 2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

Please close these discussions to be reopened at a later date. One of these people is likely not even buried yet and we having esoteric discussions about notability, completely insensitive to their families and friends.

Imagine if your grandma just died, you go to her Wikipedia page, which has been there since 2016, and see a bright red deletion notice. You follow the link on it and find a bunch of strangers talking about how she accomplished nothing notable in her 117-year life. This is insensitive to basic human dignity.

The world will not end if we wait a couple of months before having a discussion to delete. If we continue this behaviour, it is to the detriment of this project's reception in the public. These people are not WP:PUBLICFIGUREs.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: To understand what I am talking about, Google "Chiyo Miyako" and click on the Wikipedia link shown. This is the experience we are giving our readers.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the fly in the ointment here is - what if someone creates an article on a non-notable (or borderline notable) person purely based on the coverage of their death? This happens more than you;d think, and we've had it a number of times at Recent Deaths. Are you suggesting that a non-notable person should get a free pass on an article for a few months just because they've just died? Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I can understand the problem with recently created pages like Simegnew Bekele But those are not indexed on Google. I more concerned with pages like Chiyo Miyako that have been around for years. The recourse I am suggesting is a moratorium on AfDs on BLP's that are older than 90 days.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure what admins can do about this issue. If there's a dignity/personal privacy issue, then maybe a WP:RFC is the way to go. However, they tend to drag on, waste lots of time for everyone, and rarely come to a conclusion that has unanimous support. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot do that without first discussing the issue in a public forum. I am fully aware I cannot mitigate the damage already done. In a way, I am creating a paper trail for just that exact RFC. If I can demonstrate that even an Admin cannot intercede in a situation like this, then an RFC discussion on change WP:BLP to include a clause protecting pages older than 90 days from AfD and PROD for at least 90 days after the death of the subject.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• First I deeply regret any emotional distress that might arise from deletion proceedings for articles about recently deceased individuals. That said, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. As I am reading the OP's statement, it is being suggested that we should allow articles to be created about non-notable figures and that they should be permitted to remain here for a period of time out of sensitivity to those in mourning. Again, expressing my hope that we are not causing undue distress, I must strongly disagree with the proposal. We are already suffering from a constant creation of articles about people and events of borderline, or in some cases negligible notability in the wake of sensationalized current and often transient news coverage. This is all symptomatic of our pervasive bias towards WP:Recentism. Rather than giving leeway towards articles created in the immediate aftermath of, or even during events, or the deaths of persons who gain some short burst of news coverage, I would prefer that we tighten our standards. With some commonsense exceptions where no reasonable person could doubt the long term significance of the subject, I would prefer a 3-5 day moratorium on the creation of articles about current events (and deaths) where the long term notability is not crystal clear. Regarding the nomination of Simegnew Bekele for deletion I have little to add to my statement at the AfD. I believe the subject does not meet our our guidelines for inclusion in a stand alone article. Coverage of the subject is almost entirely in relation to his death, and to the extent that he may have been a public face of a project that probably is notable, I would suggest that is where any mention of him belongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 29 July 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.

RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Probable merge

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.

---

Resolved

Hello administrators, it seems possible that articles Michael 'Nick' Nichols and Michael Nichols (photographer) are about the same person. Please have a look. Thanks--DDupard (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Merged. DrKay (talk) 16:09, 3 August 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.

Procedural close needed

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Aiono needs to be closed due to quite serious procedural defects. Per INVOLVED I'm disqualified from doing it. Please could someone close it quite soon before the discussion of the problems get out of hand. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I'm confused. It was reopened at your request and the discussion seems to proceeding normally. What are the "quite serious procedural defects"? – Joe (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think you should just leave it open now and proceed as normal. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe and DrKay look at the discussion after the lastest "relisting" where Habst pointed out that proper notification of the reopening was not given at the places where the "original" AFD notices were posted, and also expresses concern that there appears to be an "an organized attempt to delete / redirect the article". That's why I believe closing this one and starting fresh is the best option. (BTW the instructions at WP:Deletion review say the first step is to discuss reopening with the closer, but is silent about what all needs to be done if the closer agrees to reopen, it just leaves it dangling.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence of an organized attempt or canvassing, and the discussion only seemed to be missing from two lists, to which I've re-added it. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did read the whole discussion. I am not sure what the "proper places" that you are referring to are? The AfD was reopened and relisted, so it appears on the appropriate daily log and any delsort lists it was previously added to. As far as I know there is no requirement to list or notify anywhere else. Habst mentions that no notice was put on the article itself, but that's not true: a bot re-added the AfD template ten minutes after it was reopened.

It's debateable whether Papaursa's notification of participants in a related AfD was canvassing. In any case, canvassing is not a "procedural" problem and AFAIK we don't usually close AfDs when it happens. It's been noted in the discussion and the closing admin can take it into account. Now that you've posted it here, it's certainly been brought to the attention of enough editors to ensure a thorough discussion, so I think the path-of-least-resistance is simply to leave this open for another five days and then let someone experienced close it.

DRV does not mention what to do if the closer agrees to reopen because that's it... the close that was contested is reversed, and the AfD continues as if it didn't happen. There is nothing to do. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Joe Roe, I'm probably a bit over cautious as I'm not experienced at AFD closures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:01, 4 August 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.

Blocked KasparBot

I have blocked KasparBot, after several requests to adapt the code for operation on en.wikipedia. Consensus was reached that parameters in {{Authority control}} that were set to blank ('<param>='; no content) would be used to suppress display (Template_talk:Authority_control#Original_suppression_proposal; User:Tom.Reding implemented that feature).

Diffs:

• diff to suppress value by User:Nikkimaria
• diff KasparBot removing parameter again.

Remarks/'warnings':

• User_talk:T.seppelt#Empty_parameters_and_Kasparbot (Bot talkpage redirects to operator talkpage)
• de:Benutzer_Diskussion:T.seppelt#Kasparbot_on_en

Will place notices on talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

KasparBot (talk · contribs)

As I mentioned during earlier discussion, relying on an empty parameter value (|MBA=) was not a good idea. It should have been |MBA=none, although I don't know what the bot would have done with that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which solution is the best one (I foresee problems with all of them - 'MBA=none' would suggest that there is no MBA where editors would then correct it to the one they found; 'MBA=' will likely result in editors filling in the 'empty' parameter .. 'suppress=MBA' is going to be unhandleable). Anyway, this is tangential to the discussion here, I have left notices to T.seppelt over a month ago and 3 weeks ago, and the operator has not responded (or even edited on their home wiki). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer XfD Topic ban appeal

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

---

Back in January, it was voted upon to indefinitely topic-ban me from XFD.

I admit that XFD has been a major sticking point for me over the years, and the above discussion wasn't my first go-round there. This one seems to have been instigated by my attempts to clean up Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. I clearly bit off more than I could chew there -- I was plowing through a ton of articles that seemed incredibly abandoned and non-notable on first glance, only to be proven wrong by one AFD too many. I was frustrated to no end by a constant barrage of !votes that seemed to me like WP:ATA and a lot of what I perceived as WP:SEP behavior. It was driving me to become far more angry and confrontational than I needed to be. I think it was clear that taking on such a huge task was only exacerbating my problems in previous XFDs. When this happened, I was told that it would be possible to appeal later on, so here I am. I went overboard and kept provoking myself instead of stepping back, and I think the topic-ban was justified since it cleared my head of the XFD process and frustrations thereof for a while.

Recently I was asked to take a look at Beader. This article seems like a surefire AFD candidate. No sources that I have found, including Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary, support the article as written. An AFD would be a good way to decide whether to delete it outright, redirect to beadwork, or rewrite it to be about something else. I also found Template:Angaleena Presley, a template that navigates only three articles and isn't even used on its parent article, thus failing WP:NENAN. Thirdly I found Real-time multimedia over ATM, a completely contextless essay that doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. And finally I found Sports Overnight America, a show that airs on a non-notable SiriusXM channel, and extensive Googling of which does not turn up anything but reposts of episodes. I would like to use these four as a trial basis for reverting my XFD topic-ban. Perhaps some sort of soft limitations can be placed to make sure I don't go overboard again (limit on number of XFDs per day/week, one-strike rule on bad XFD behavior, etc.). Whatever it is, I would like to acknowledge my reckless behavior and be given a chance to appeal my topic-ban. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the TBAN placed approximately 6 months ago both prevented TenPoundHammer from nominating articles for deletion, and from commenting/!voting on other people's nominations. As this user has followed their TBAN and contributed constructively elsewhere, I'm inclined to support loosening the topic ban, with some restrictions for at least 6 more months. Based on the appeal statement, they seem more interested in being able to nominate articles than in voting, but it feels backwards to allow TPH to nominate articles for deletion but not to comment on other people's deletion proposals. A limit on the number of AFDs per day seems necessary as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I find your topic ban appeal inadequate in several ways, TenPoundHammer. The severe behavioral problems that led to the topic ban go back well over a decade, and I expect you to acknowledge those disruptive behaviors and make specific pledges to avoid specific behaviors. Let's take for example your long-term behavior of profanely insulting and berating editors who provide links to reliable sources showing notabilty in AfD debates. I speak as an editor who lists about 100 examples on my user page where I saved articles from AfD by adding sources. You seem to believe that such editors are obligated to add those sources to the article, even though there is nothing whatsoever in policies or guidelines that requires that. I recommend that you have a specific editing restriction that obligates you to add properly formatted references to any article you nominated for deletion whenever any other editor finds a good source. You should also be restricted from using the "f-bomb" or any other profanity or personal insults in XfD discussions. You have failed to address your misleading edit summaries which seemed intended to deceive other editors. You must make a firm commitment to informative, truthful edit summaries. You have repeatedly admitted that your Google skills are inadequate to properly complete WP:BEFORE. Since this problem has persisted for well over a decade, I want to know which specific and concrete steps that you have taken to improve your Google search skills in the past six months. I have a very strong suspicion that lifting your topic ban without specific restrictions on your behavior, and specific ironclad behavioral commitments from you, will lead straight to further disruption, and further blocks or bans. So, convince me that your long years of repeated disruptive XfD behavior will never, ever happen again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with conditions. The conditions being: "No more than one nomination per day"; "Nominations must involve a comprehensive deletion rational particular to the page nominationed, not a rationale that can be applied generically to many pages"; and "No more than ten XfD posts per day, counting nominations, !votes, questions, answers, and comments". TPH was always valuable in XfD functions, but I think the problems all stemmed from attempting too much. If this works out, the conditions can be relaxed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The blatant problems were so longterm, so intractable, and so devious there is no way I would support a removal of the TBan, and the fact that the editor is already chomping at the bit is a red flag. He should also not be fielding requests to "take a look at an article" to see if he agrees it should be deleted -- that in itself is a violation of the TBan in my opinion. The fact is, there was overwhelming support for an indefinite TBan, and some additional calls for a WP:NOTHERE block. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support- I see strong evidence that, since the ban, TPH has been improving his attitude and skills and has acknowledged the behaviour that led to the ban. I'd support loosening the ban to allow one nomination a day without commentary on other peoples' nominations, lasting three months or so, and we'll see how that goes. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The fact that you already have pages in your sights means you haven't been thinking about other things, you've just been biding your time. This is a behavioral addiction for you it seems, and you haven't hit 'rock bottom' to start the recovery process. So yeah, that's a no from me. --Tarage (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ROPE. If lifting these sanctions goes poorly, then you literally have nothing to worry about. -FASTILY 07:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ROPE#When not to use: Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake. WP:ROPE is an essay. Using it here a quick way of saying "OK, let's give this editor another chance, because hopefully they'll be careful knowing that if they screw up again, they won't get another one". Also, TPB isn't blocked or banned anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As the primary author of that essay, I can assure you that what I meant was full site bans, and have adjusted the language to reflect that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Time served, lessons learned. I think a second chance is in order. -FASTILY 07:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. While as Softlavender says, there was indeed overwhelming support for an indefinite topic ban, "indefinite" does not mean "eternal", it means until the issues are acknowledged, understood, and resolved. They have certainly been acknowledged, and presumably understood. We can only assume good faith and give TPH the opportunity to demonstrate that they've been resolved. I do think a throttle of some sort is sensible (one nomination and three comments total across all XFD discussions a day?), and TPH must surely appreciate this would be the last chance, with any incivility towards, belittling of, or ranting at other editors seeing the XFD ban re-implemented, likely for good. I would like him to acknowledge what Cullen says, as the "specific and ironclad behavioural commitments" Cullen mentions are a reasonable expectation before the ban is partially lifted. Fish Karate 08:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the issues have not been acknowledged or understood. TPH has only acknowledged the issue around his "attempts to clean up Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field", not the numerous serious and longterm problems cited in the proposal thread: [61]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, not only what Softlavender, Cullen328 and Tarage pointed out, but the examples given in the appeal demonstrate clearly why it shouldn't be granted:
  1. Beader can, by his own admission, by fixed via WP:ATD without an AFD. Yet he believes it should be discussed there. Plus, it takes only a short while to find this entry in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles which shows our article is copied from this work without attribution (but since it's a US government work, it's likely PD).
  2. The only reason why TPH thinks Template:Angaleena Presley should be deleted is an essay he himself wrote (talk about circular reasoning!) and the fact that it's not used in the main article, which can easily be fixed.
  3. Real-time multimedia over ATM might be a mess but it only takes a short Google search to find that this is a notable topic that can easily be written about by someone knowledgeable, e.g. [62] [63] [64] [65]. This seems to be another one of those cases where TPH believes deletion is in order because he does not understand it.
  4. Sports Overnight America can easily be merged/redirected to Sports Byline USA without an AFD.

Judging by those examples, they do not inspire any confidence that TPH has actually learned why this ban was instituted in the first place. As pointed out above, it does not appear that he really stepped back and reflected but merely waited out the ban to resume the same problematic behavior. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• For, one I don't think RMOA ought be devoted an entire article.But, it can be easily devoted a paragraph and merged, without an AfD, which I'll take an attempt at, soon:).But, , I'm clueless about Beader, do you think all the 13,000 articles at DOT, deserves a standalone article? Agree as to the rest.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if Beader probably should be at AFD. I can't find a single reference to this job that isn't copied either from the DOT or our article. You would have thought, wouldn't you, that if a job appears there it would be referenced somewhere? I wonder if it has an alternative, better known name? Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on the current appeal rationale, which seems to be saying "sorry for my lack of self-control that time", and talking as if the ban is just down to that one episode (with a passing mention that "XFD has been a major sticking point for me over the years"). It is not. User:Cullen328 says it best, and there's one key point behind my current opposition. This has been a problem for the past decade, and it consists of TPH either not understanding or refusing to abide by what XFD is for and refusing to follow policy before making nominations. WP:BEFORE is key to it, and I believe TPH says he's been bad at it because he's no good at Google. Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. It's plain from AFDs discussed during the ban proposal that he made no attempt whatsoever - other people found sources within seconds from simple searches that a child could do. And in his article work, TPH actually seems to be very good at finding sources. None of this has been addressed in the current appeal. TPH should stick to what he's good at, which is article creation and improvement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. For some reason, TPH abandons everything he knows when editing articles as soon as he encounters articles he thinks should be deleted. I'm certainly no expert but based on this it seems Tarage might be right when they call it a "behavioral addiction". It's doubtful that this has changed or will change, so keeping the topic ban is actually in his best interest. Because the next time we have to discuss his behavior when (not if) he goes overboard with deletion again, we might well be forced to consider banning him from this project altogether and not just a small area. And I don't see how this benefits anyone. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing! and Cullen328 and SoWhy. While a restriction is probably annoying, and possibly prevents some productive work this editor would enjoy, it does allow him to be active on the site, which is a real positive for the encyclopaedia; a removal and (possible/likely) following reinstatement or ban would be a net negative for us. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - a net positive, and quite frankly, quite a few of the AFDs I've been participating in have been lately have been pretty low in participation. We need more people discussing in them. 6 months was plenty long, and if people aren't happy with it, it can always be re-applied. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per (a) WP:ROPE, and (b) I was never happy with the discussion that imposed an indef topic ban in the first place; quite apart from the Opposes, there were quite a number of people supporting a temporary topic ban, not to mention drive-by Supports. While I respect Ritchie333 a lot, I don't think that was one of his best closes ever. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Would allowing TPH to comment but disallowing nomination work? --Izno (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see any problem with allowing XFD discussion, as it does seem to be nomination that's the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment / partial oppose I note that "to bead" ("to provide with beads or beading") includes "a narrow moulding" (Chambers), thus a "beader" would clearly be anyone who attaches such a narrow moulding. I concur that a limit of one XfD per day would be a rational point of entry. Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Boing!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. I have no indication (this being the nature of topic bans) that anything underlying has changed. But he deserves the chance. I'd support proposals such as limiting this to discussions, not initiating, XfDs, or rate-limiting them. I'm unconvinced by the examples like beader - having found a couple of obvious targets for deletion demonstrates little about the less clear ones, or (far more importantly) the behavioural issues around them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm uneasy with those WP:ROPE arguments. That essay (which explicitly does not apply to ban/unban discussions) is basically a WP:AGF supplement, i.e. "if you don't know whether they have learnt their lesson, unblock them and you will quickly see". Some people here though are pretty certain that we do kow that TPH has not learned his lessons (and might not be capable to learn them at all) but support unbanning anyway. But they know that if we give him the rope, he will hang himself which is not a desirable outcome. We should not want that because he does good work in other areas. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I was thinking pretty much the same thing, and you've put it very well. I'm concerned that a WP:ROPE unban could backfire and lead to more extreme restrictions at a later date. And I really don't want that - I don't want TPH to end up with a more extreme ban than he currently has, and I strongly prefer restricting him to what he is very good at. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  I have never before seen a tbanned editor's good work in another area actually damage their prospect of getting the ban lifted. Wow. Reyk _YO! 15:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  I can understand how my comment might have come across, and it was perhaps poorly presented, so I'll try to explain further. I am not opposing TPH's unban because of his other good work. My opposition is because TPH has not attempted to address the actual chronic problems with his XFD contributions, as I explained above, and I really think we need to see that if the ban is to be lifted or reduced. WP:ROPE is, as User:SoWhy suggests, something of an "I don't know, so let's see how they go" thing. But with TPH, we do know, and I think we should insist on a convincing addressing of his actual problems before we consider an unban. I think a WP:ROPE unban without such a convincing appeal would be more to his harm than his good, and that is based on my respect for his long history of contributions which I do not want to lose. I hope that makes my thoughts clearer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree - but I also see this risk as being a problem for TPH, not for anyone else. No-one is forcing him to behave in a particular way. If that's a way which gets him blocked in the future, that's no different to any other editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - TPH is generally a deletionist, but not a crazy, Vogonesque one. Rather, he uses logic and reason and has the good of the encyclopedia in mind. We definitely disagree on where the line should be drawn at AfD on certain topics, but I respect him for the honesty of his opinions always — he's not irrational or unthinking, which is more than I can say for a couple of the AfD regulars, who remain unsanctioned. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Ban was excessive and never should have been implemented in the first place. pbp 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

• OK, for the time being, how about this? TPH's topic ban from deletion discussions is vacated; however, he is not allowed to initiate any deletion process (CSD, PROD or XFD) for a period of 3 months. After that period, he may apply here for the topic ban to be vacated completely. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support- sounds reasonable. Reyk _YO! 14:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Happy with that, and arguably TPH should not have been banned from contributing to XFD discussions that he did not start in the first place. It's his out-of-policy nominations that need to be stopped. As for appealing the ban on XFD nominations in three months, that's fine, but I'd say it would require him to properly address his actual problems, to which he has so far not come close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support 3 month trial before application, and likely support full lifting at that time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Given the disagreement above about the length of time served, 3 months seems short. Maybe 6 months to 1 year are more likely to gain consensus. (I personally have no objection to any particular number.) --Izno (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I will likely support allowing 1-3 XFD nominations per day in 3 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as reasonable. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: If he is unable to nominate within policy, why should we assume he is able to !vote within policy? As I said above, I'm pretty sure keeping TPH from deletion altogether is the best course of action but I cannot fault the logic that the ban was placed because of his nominations and not his !voting, so I will abstain from this discussion. I highly recommend instituting a limit to the amount of !voting he is allowed to discourage the "brainless shotgun" approach and force him to carefully consider his !votes. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Much of the disruption came from clearly spurious nominations (public-facing notices and excessive XFDs). This path allows TPH to show us that he has learned what community norms are without allowing that side of the disruption, which builds a track record which we can use later to say "Yes, you have figured it out", "No, you haven't figured it out yet", or "No, you have continued your disruption at XFD by the way in which you have commented there and therefore we will replace the ban on XFD" (or if we should for some reason think he is entirely a net negative outside of XFD, ban him entirely). --Izno (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Very reasonable suggestion. I'm okay with him coming back without preconditions, even. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• I could support this, but I prefer a full lift now. pbp 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as nominee. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not sure you should be voting. --Tarage (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  It’s perfectly normal and permitted to comment on the merits fo a restriction that applies to oneself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - but only as a backup plan, if there isn’t a consensus to fully repeal the restrictions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• support Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per B!sZ. The sanction should fit the problem. Miniapolis 22:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a reasonable first step.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless and until TenPoundHammer specifically addresses the behavioral concerns that I raised and that several other editors raised in the section above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'd also support allowing 1-3 noms per day now, but this is a reasonable, if conservative, way to integrate TPH back into deletion processes. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as TPH is an useful member of the community, it is always better to have such members unrestricted. Like Cullen328, however, i would very much like to see him address the concerns raised above and six months ago. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Let's have a progressive loosening of the restrictions. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a more tentative step than my suggested 1 nomination per day (plus 9 other XfD posts). NB. it is easier to be calm in someone else's nominated XfD because you don't feel to be seen to have put your credibility on the line. Contributing with civility will be hard when he makes his own nominations again. After Black Kite's three months, I suggest a second step of limited nominations per day, for some months at least, before the topic ban is to be vacated completely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TPH has been very much a mixed blessing around XfDs. I'm pretty far on the inclusionist side, but I think TPH does a really good job in places (music discussion as I recall). Just sometimes takes it all too personally (which can be easy to do). I like SmokeyJoe's suggestion for what to do after 3 months. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral I am an uninvolved editor, however after seeing what has happened, this seems to be a great solution. However, I do agree with Cullen's comments, so I am neutral for now unless nom does respond to our concerns. Abequinn14 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Arbitrary break

So is there a consensus here of any kind? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 3 August 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.

Something wrong with page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions

• Page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is linked to from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. In Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions displays as "G13: Abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (314)", although Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions currently has no members, not 314 members. This mismatch between actual and reported number of members for Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions has been happening for a week or two now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe related to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195397? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

See also #Fault in page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or one of its subpages hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Anomie who's been working on this: Any luck with the bugs? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

phab:T195397 was fixed a while ago. Possibly this was due to phab:T199762, which is now fixed too. I manually triggered a recount of the category, let's see if it goes bad again. Anomie⚔ 20:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anomie: It's broken again. There's ~150 phantom items in the category. -FASTILY 22:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• And again: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion says that 151 pages are in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, but actually there is only one page in it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have just called purge on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and the fault went away. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

60.246.161.253

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.

---

Resolved

 – -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This user is gross misuse of the internet at it’s finest, he is adding a gross, inappropriate, offensive, and just plain awful image to a large number of pages. Please, someone needs to oversight that person’s edits. ~SML • TP 23:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixty Minute Limit (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 July 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.

Deceased Wikipedian

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've sadly found out that User:Markhurd passed away in September 2017. Could an administrator do the required actions? Thanks. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Has been done - the user page is fully protected and user rights have been removed. Per WP:DWG that's it. Hut 8.5 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry, I should have done this at the time. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 31 July 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.

Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill

Unanimously opposed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I am bringing forward, for community review, a Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill. I have re-enabled their talk page for the sole purpose of answering community questions that may be asked during this review. The investigation page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive. Checkuser @Ponyo: has been consulted and he has agreed to this review and has also checked the account.

The appellant says: "It has been a year now since I last used a sock [66]. I want to apply under WP:STANDARD OFFER. I believe I can yet be and prove myself a decent, respectable and productive editor who can improve this website?s output in both quality and output. Despite my editing history I had extensive readings into and citations to scholarly sources. Given this chance I believe I will improve the encyclopedia's faithfulness to scholarship.

I initially want to confine myself to subjects and articles related to Islam and Sufism such as Tawassul and Mawlid. Eventually I want to appeal my ARBIPA topic ban so I can one day return to editing the Kashmir articles."

The community will see, in the investigation report, several IPs that are marked as 'Suspected sockpuppets'. I queried this with Towns Hill who responded: "The last IP I used is this one. [67] I got it oversighted on May 8 this year. I think it was @Primefac: who sent me the confirmation email when the IP's contributions were oversighted. The rest of the IPs listed were not mine. If they were I would own up to them in my standard offer application since they are all from at least 6 months ago"

I have no position on this appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose See this. If this is the case, TH hacked an account, and that beyond a shadow of a doubt is a deal breaker for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose when applying for the standard offer it is incumbent upon the person asking for it to convince the community that the unknown potential for good outweighs the known potential for disruption. I don’t see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Aren't you supposed to request unblock through your main account which was Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? We don't grant unblock requests to sock puppets. "I want to appeal my ARBIPA topic ban so I can one day return to editing the Kashmir articles", that would be a nightmare. As mentioned on this SPI, whoever reads this request should know of this recent incident because there is much suspicion that this account continues to make edits on Wikipedia through suspicious accounts and IP addresses, targeting same articles, restoring same edits because of which he was topic banned and later blocked for sock puppetry when he was restoring the same edits through confirmed sock puppets. I see no reason to grant unblock. This account had been a totally net negative from the beginning and even after being blocked for sockpuppetry he was engaging in off wiki canvassing to get his opponents blocked (User talk:Towns Hill#Re: Your email). Lorstaking (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Lorstaking: see RickinBaltimore's link. Faizan is deceased; Towns Hill hacked the account in 2017. ansh666 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• People say anything when they want to get unblocked. Why it took Faizan months to come up with such unconvincing theory? He had many warnings and general notifications on his talk page before he was blocked. It is doubtful that he would wake up only after he was notified about the block and come here to claim he was hacked. I sense there was significant account sharing, but that cannot be construed as "hacking" since "hacking" is operating other's account without consent. Lorstaking (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Considering he is dead now and there appears to be a living person behind the account making this appeal, I would say it’s fairly likely that they are not the same people (and please don’t respond to this if you are going to claim that other trusted Wikimedians are lying about his death.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• At this moment, Towns Hill is tagged as a sock Faizan per user page[68] and socks are not unblocked per the policy (WP:SOCK#Blocking). There was no account hacking since "Faizan" account has edited from both countries, Pakisan and Australia,[69][70] during the same period. Towns Hill resides in Australia per his userpage[71] and per his admission that he used this IP. If there was any account "hacking" then the CU could identify it. This is a case of account sharing and Towns Hill should better spend some time proving how his account has no relation with Faizan before requesting unblock. The Faizan account tried enough to prove otherwise during those on-wiki unblock requests as well as UTRS appeals (that I can't see) but none of them were successful.[72] Lorstaking (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Not being unblocked has more to do with the fact that there was no way for them to verify their identity. Policy is to not unblock under any circumstances in that case, and has nothing to do with a presumption of guilt. There is no way without a CU to tell where someone is editing from, and the check resulting in the block didn't seem to find anything unusual (i.e. the edits in the time range probably all matched Towns Hill). I won't comment on the UTRS appeal except to say that it didn't include any useful information. ansh666 07:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Clicking through the link provided by RickinBaltimore, I think we should turn this request down. The hack claim is extremely plausible (the timeline is troubling) and is, as RickinBaltimore says, a dealbreaker. --regentspark (comment) 02:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RickinBaltimore. That's not okay at all. ansh666 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• 'Above discussion shows concerns with the ownership of User:Faizan and much of discussion is about the alleged hacking and confirmed sock puppetry related to that account. None of the statements in unblock request have addressed it. Oppose. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment-What is TownHill's comment about Faizan account at the UTRS ticket?∯WBG^converse 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment by Towns Hill I realise that my past behaviour was not the best. I am not exactly proud of that. But I do have thousands of bytes worth of verifiable content to my name. The quality of my contributions were good. I realise that my behaviour of edit warring and socking was bad. I want to make a fresh start with my good side only this time. I understand some people doubt my application because of the Faizan incident. Faizan is now deceased and I don't want to dwell on his story too much out of respect for the deceased but his hacking claim was not the truth. I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry and in Faizan's case he told me to make edits from his own account. I can share these users' emails to me with admins in private if they wish to verify what I am saying. I will share this non-public information of other users only privately. Those days of allowing myself to be used as others' meat and using socks myself and edit warring were not exactly my best days. I am not proud of it. But I don't think this should be held against me forever. I do believe I should be given another chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• As the blocking administrator, I am not happy that I wasn't even notified of this discussion or Ponyo's consent to it (Ponyo is a "she" btw). Beyond that, one of the things that disturbs me about this unblock request is TH's most recent comment above where they claim other users (some not named), including one existing editor, Kautilya3, "recruited" them. For that reason alone, I oppose.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything that would give me cause to trust this user again. The whole Faizan thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth; whether he was "invited" to use Faizan's account or not, that's a gross and knowing breach of Wikipedia's terms of use. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment My only involvement in this request was to respond to a CU request at UTRS where I noted that the IP used by Towns Hill to submit their appeal had not been used since January 2018 and that Just Chilling could bring the block here for a standard offer review if they chose to do so. I imagine not notifying the blocking admin of the request was just an oversight.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Ponyo: Ha! It was a deep dark nefarious conspiracy between you and Just Chilling.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per everyone above. Alex Shih (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -TH needs to address the elephant in the room first, Like the above I don't trust this user at all. (I'll also add if the hacking thing is true then TH should pretty much be banned for life). –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose--As Davey2010 told.∯WBG^converse 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, the assertions of being recruited-for-editing is seriously bizarre and needs to be dealt with by the functionaries.Either TH is speaking the truth (which shall lead to a site-ban of both him and K3) or he is alone fabricating things, which shall again lead to a ban of his.
• I would have trashed the claims, given that I personally hold K3 in high-repute.But, the entire Faizan-TownHill sockpuppetry is downright confusing and it's highly doubtful as to whom of the two (Faizan or TH) spoke the truth.∯WBG^converse 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

A attempt to overrule our BLP policy with an RfC?

See discussion and links at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?

May I request that an administrator evaluate whether I am right about this being a BLP violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The link is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Musk_part_2:_can_an_An_RfC_overrule_our_BLP_policy?. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. I've said the same thing at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC) @Guy Macon: I messed up the ping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything resembling overruling our BLP policy. More than likely, this is a case of WP:CRYBLP. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, Ill check that out. I still have no idea what the supposed BLP vio is.- MrX 🖋 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on 'musk pedo diver' --Guy Macon 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[73]

"Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious.... if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack." ---Johnuniq 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[74]

"I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.)" --Only in death does duty end 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[75][76]

"Its flatly impossible to cover this without Identifying either directly or indirectly through linking to the material. Since the diver is a non-notable non-public figure, I am not satisfied after looking at the various sources that it is possible to comply with the BLP and cover this while protecting the diver. BLP applies regardless of if the person is explicitly named if they can be easily identified. Now you need to gain consensus to include the material, do not replace it again." --Only in death does duty end 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[77]

"I previously reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk. The subsequent comments on that page made it clear that this is an unambiguous BLP violation to be removed on sight, and that the removals are exempt from our edit warring rules." Guy Macon 20:03, 30 July 2018[78]

Also see:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq hit it on the head with their RFC comment: "There is no reason for Wikipedia to name the person. It is fine to link to references which include all the details, if the material is found to satisfy WP:DUE as far as long-term significance for Musk is concerned." No one is explicitly arguing in the RFC that the other person's name appear in the article. Quite the opposite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what this is about? For crying out loud—leave the non-notable person's name out. Problem solved. Why the hysteria? This reminds me of the religion in infobox hysteria, which I recall also involved Guy Macon.- MrX 🖋 21:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX, you're missing the point; what's being argued is that even if the non-notable person isn't named, even mentioning the incident would be a BLP violation because it could potentially inspire someone to look him up. See also WP:ANI#Elon Musk. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If someone learns about it, they might looks him up? That's ridiculous. By that reasoning, we shouldn't have an article on Elon Musk because someone could read about him and be inspired to look for more information. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, I'm not missing the point; I simply don't agree with the novel interpretation that citing sources would ever be a WP:BLP violation. Specifically, I don't agree that that citing sources would harm the person who's name is already indelibly recorded in numerous sources. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind.- MrX 🖋 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that "even if the non-notable person isn't named, even mentioning the incident would be a BLP violation because it could potentially inspire someone to look him up" goes much too far in interpreting the scope of BLP policy. Natureium's rejoinder is valid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would hasten to point out that the credibility of the accusation in question is virtually nonexistent. It was basic name-calling by Musk, based on the concept of Sexual tourism and Thailand's lowered age of consent compared to Western countries. It had nothing to do with the argument between them, and it was the comment's sheer immaturity that made it newsworthy (in the same vein as all the coverage POTUS's twitter account gets). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: On that, any ideas why Ages of consent in Asia#Thailand says the AoC is 18, whilst Age of consent#Age of consent by location reckons 15? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Either because it was changed on one article but not the other, or because the law in question applies different rules to different situations and people got confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Serial Number 54129: Sexual crimes are compounded if the victim is under 18, but the actual age of consent is 15. At least, according to legal blogs and other apparently reliable sources. Note the {{cn}} tags in Ages of consent in Asia#Thailand. I'm gonna try and dig up the best source I can and fix that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I seem to recall there was some drama over this a few months back, maybe a year or so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds phenonomally likely  :) Thank you both, interesting. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, calling it an "accusation" or a "claim" gives the wrong idea. It was more of a side remark rather than an accusation. If the wording is fixed I don't see how it would be an issue. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If we were talking about weak sources that were including the name, I'd fully agree with MPants here, we'd be talking about weak sourcing of a very serious BLP violation. But the fact that (with just a quick search) NYTimes and CNN both name the person, it seems impossible for us to hide with strong RSes are presenting. We can take care to not name names (the person was not a public figure), but we can't help the fact that the RSes we'd use for this name the person. That's out of our control. --Masem (t) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblock requests claiming colocation, when IP is not blocked

I often patrol Category:Requests for unblock and over the past few days, I've noticed a number of unblock requests similar to the one posted at User talk:2A01:CB15:A7:B700:4C99:C6B2:BF3B:8C60, where the person claims there's a colocation web host block or perhaps a proxy/vpn block, only... the IP address is not blocked. Now, I understand the block can apply to the range instead of the single IP address, but that's not the case either. If it was an autoblock, they'd be using unblock-auto. User talk:27.63.93.0 is another example, as is User talk:69.181.189.249 and User talk:60.25.10.137. In several years of patrolling, I don't remember so many unblock requests for addresses which don't appear blocked, so I'm concerned there's a real problem. I haven't ruled out WP:CIR (on their part or mine) or trolling, though. --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that in a lot of occasions with the new template changes - the VPN/Proxy is being turned off prior to the request. I've been noticing these a lot too since the change. SQL^{Query me!} 20:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Right, of course. That's plausible. They were on a VPN, they are blocked, they copy the block template, turn off the VPN, and post the request. On an IP that isn't blocked. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that is plausible. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If that's what's happening, could the editor be cookie-blocked? I don't know what kind of notifications editors get if that happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I just tested it, it's identical to an autoblock. SQL^{Query me!} 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

INC sock?

see - Special:Diff/853180521 - another INC sock? I blocked it anyway as vandal only. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban (Light show)

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 consider lifting this. I understand why I was banned, will do my best to avoid similar issues, and therefore don't foresee any more problems. My previous request was denied. It's been about a year since the ban was placed. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure." .... This question is a clear cut violation of that topicban and as such NeilN's blocked LS for a month, No objections to this being reopened if an admin believes this was toosoon, –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive297#Request_for_guidelines_on_sexual_allegation_sections

That's not one year, that's four months ago -- and it's a topic ban which explicitly states that you can't appeal it for at least six months. So that's one false statement and one topic-ban violation already. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, don't drown us in the details on what you learned, how you've changed, etc. Please, those are superfluous. byteflush _Talk 01:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Light Show is in fact correct that the initial ban was placed nearly a year ago [79], what Calton’s link shows is that they were still trying to end-run it four months ago, which is enough for a hard no from me. I think the community would expect at least six months of no activity whatsoever related to this ban, and personally I would start that time only after this current discussion is closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're right, I misread that as a new application of a topic ban, not the quoting of the already existing one. It's still less than six months since the appeal and the subsequent one-month block for violating the ban. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - Personally I feel it would've been more wiser to have waited a year before returning ....No explanation has been given as to what they understand and what they wont do going forward, Either way I'm not seeing any valid reasons to lift this. –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - Where's their "act of contrition" by stating what they understand about the reason for the ban? Where's the plan they should provide to show they won't revisit the same behavior? At Commons, LS had been blocked for years of multiple copyright violations on images, asked to be unblocked, it was granted, and then returned to the same behavior again while making excuses for the behavior - and not once admitting they were wrong. Needless to say, LS has been indeffed there. Their behavior there that didn't change - which is quite similar in attitude to their IDHT behavior here - why should we believe it will change in en.wp? Especially since they have no plan presented, no explanation of what it is they now understand about their block. I see nothing in this request that persuades. They could try to persuade if the request is done that shows some soul searching. I'd like to see some acknowledgement and promises from them first. After that, if the TB is lifted, I suppose it could be put into place again, but... does anyone want to go through that? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - Problems with this editor have historically been endemic. There is nothing in this request that changes that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - just saying "I understand why I was banned, will do my best to avoid similar issues, and therefore don't foresee any more problems." is not enough to address the whole host of issues that have historically happened with this editor. I would expect a bit more than this in order to consider removing the topic ban. Only a little over 100 edits since the last request to lift the topic ban does not show me that the behavioral issues have been addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply: Since I linked to my previous appeal, I saw no reason to simply repeat my answers which I gave there to essentially the same questions. I even explained it again with a separate AN comment, where I said: "Basically, on more than four occasions where I've either complained or simply asked about apparent violations of policies or guidelines, it's resulted in me getting banned or blocked."

And as we all know, I've never (seriously) been accused of violating guidelines about civility, being neutral, tag teaming, harassment, assuming good faith, using reliable sources, etc. In other words, following guidelines and editing properly are not and never have been an issue. And as far as I can recall, the only time I edit warred was when I tried to prevent an SPA editor from defaming Denis Avey, a British war hero. Go figure.

The main issues have come from complaining about violations by others, and about which I offered a simple suggested compromise. In fact, now that two members of that 3-person team have resigned, that's another reason that problems aren't likely to reappear. I hope that addresses the "misbehavioral" issues you're concerned about.--Light show (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Since I linked to my previous appeal, I saw no reason to simply repeat my answers which I gave there to essentially the same questions.'

You mean the reasons that were already rejected? Not a good start.

And as we all know, I've never (seriously) been accused of violating guidelines...

So, essentially, you did nothing wrong. Not helpful to your case.

now that two members of that 3-person team have resigned, that's another reason that problems aren't likely to reappear...

It's also just a plot against you. So I'll call that "strike three". --Calton | Talk 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply: The main reason it was rejected was because I supposedly violated the topic ban by relying on BANEX. So you're partly right, in that I "essentially did nothing wrong." --Light show (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. Based on their reply, above. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - if one of the conditions of the ban was to wait 6 months before appeal and it's only been four, well, that in and of itself is more than enough to reject it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a complicated society, and rules are needed to regulate any complicated society. If you cannot follow the rules of your topic ban, how can we trust you'll follow the very important rules of BLP? John from Idegon (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It was 8 months before I first appealed, not 4. --Light show (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Light show, please follow the advice given by Winkelvi in regards to future appeals. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 3 August 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.

Longest Page in Wikipedia

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 kindly delete this. I can't even load the page to add a speedy deletion tag. GMG^talk 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also apparently 1,000,000_Digits_of_Pi. GMG^talk 14:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And 100,000 Digits of Pi as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Could we have a slightly condensed version, say 33,000 Digits of Pi? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) .... would probably still be a lot shorter than User talk:EEng.

This was an oddly amusing find. That is a lot of numbers - 1 MB raw text. lol --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

...and might we consider blocking, or at least warning, User:TheProgrammerBoy (formerly WindoRant) who created both of them? --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I warned the user. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And I blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think if you're going to do that you could at least put in some more effort. That page was only about 20% longer than List of compositions by Franz Schubert. Hut 8.5 18:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Could we get create protection? The first two are just asking for trouble and the third was also an article in 2015. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not protect, please. A similar page (existing as a redirect) was kept at RFD, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Longest Wikipedia Article. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected Longest Page in Wikipedia, but what do you think about the Pi articles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected them to Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits where there is information on when that many digits of pi were reached.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Though I thought this was a reference to the only page that can be seen from space. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

These have tended to split opinions at RfD: a nomination in 2014 resulted in "keep", but the oucome of a similar discussion three years later was "delete". – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala and Emir of Wikipedia: the only reason Longest Wikipedia Article was kept is that Special:Longpages used to be there for a short time in 2005, so it ostensibly protects against linkrot (a horrible reason, IMO, but it is what it is). There is no such history regarding Longest Page in Wikipedia, so I R2'd it. ansh666 00:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't the only reason the redirect was kept at RfD. As for the one you've just speedied, I don't think it should have been speedied: there was a comment in the previous discussion that R2 doesn't apply to these redirects, but more substantially, this one is unlikely to gain consensus for deletion if nominated at RfD now. – Uanfala (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can we just get a general system protection against the creation (or saving) of pages of that size? I can't see any legitimate reason for having any. bd2412 T 19:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• What about user talk pages that are so large, among other issues? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Same. There's no good reason that user talk pages should be allowed to get so large that their size itself impedes communication with the user. bd2412 T 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• There's something related in the 2 MB limit to the "post-expand include size" of a page, where any parts of the page beyond this limit don't get displayed. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) There's a lot of pages on the Special:Longpages list that could use editing attention; I removed a bunch of unsourced "results" from Minuta slavy supposedly about 2019 and 2020 TV shows, and Forcade should probably be turned into a set-index article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Could somebody do something about User talk:Arunram...with 675 threads and with a total size of 944.7kB(approximately) it should be awarded the prize for the Longest Talk Page on the planet. — FR  10:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Shall we ping them? @Arunram: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think User_talk:EEng has him beat. Fish Karate 11:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Fish and karate, in light of the discussion above, would you mind reverting your protection of Longest Page in Wikipedia? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Happy to if you can explain why it needs to be create-able. Fish Karate 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... salting is only for the cases where there is consensus against the creation, right? To recap what was said above, this redirect is very similar to a redirect that was kept at RfD, it was created by an established editor in good standing, and it was subsequently deleted using a speedy deletion criterion of contestible applicabilty. I personally have no opinion on whether the redirect should exist (the main issue for me is only the miscapitalisation), and I think if it were nominated at RfD, the most likely outcome would be "no consensus". I don't see how this could be the kind of redirect whose creation should be a privilige reserved for administrators. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree, in that the similar redirect was retained for its historical reasons (in the old days, before the Special: namespace, Longest Wikipedia Article was where the longest pages were listed), but nor do I care that much, so have unprotected the redlink. In the unlikely event of its being recreated I'm sure it will be deleted, and then we can all go round in circles and have this discussion again. Fish Karate 12:23, 2 August 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.

Rollbacker status removed unfairly?

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 over a year ago, xaosflux granted me rollbacker rights after I proved that I understood what constituted vandalism on Wikipedia, and in the time since I have only been questioned on my reverts a few times and been able to clear up those issues through talk page discussion. I have continued to use the standard procedure of reverting with edit summary and discussing at the talk page for any non-vandalism issues. Then, today, NeilN removed that status and the only explanation I was given was that I apparently misunderstand what vandalism is. My interpretation of vandalism has not changed since I was told it was correct last year, and from what I can see at WP:VAND, WP:NOTVAND, and WP:ROLLBACK my actions are still covered by those policies and guidelines and line-up with how I have been approaching the tool all this time. I would like to be given back the rollback tool, or at least be given an actual explanation for where I have been going wrong so that I can learn and earn the right back. NeilN is the one that directed me here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Adamstom, please inform involved editors using talk page notifications. That is mandatory.

For the benefit of other editors, here is the ANEW report against the user which led to all this. Lourdes 21:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this)." Adamstom.97 was given a chance to step back from this. They did not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

adamstom.97, you rolled back two edits (at least): [80], [81], which were clearly not vandalism. At the ANEW report, rather than realizing you made an error, you defended doing so: "Those are definitely all vandalism, from adding unsourced content to adding information on the post-credit scene (there is clear consensus not to add this).", and then defend being unwilling to discuss your reverts: "I think it is fair not to have to explain my reverts when the edit history contains dozens of examples of the same revert by multiple editors and the issue has already been discussed at the talk page." Given that, I agree with removal of your rollback permissions, as it is clear that you are unable to determine what is vandalism and what is not, and instead used rollback during a content dispute. No matter how right you think you are, you cannot do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I did send a talk page notification to NeilN who is the admin in question here. And secondly, those two edits are deliberate attempts to ignore discussion, are not covered by WP:NOTVAND, and are very clearly covered by points 1 and 5 of Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. I did not use rollback during a content dispute, I used it long after a content dispute to revert blatant attempts to ignore discussion and consensus by multiple misguided editors. If that is not allowed, then perhaps the instructions on how to use the tool need to be updated as this is all part of what I was told I could do when I first gained this status. I am also not impressed with the way I have been treated here - you could have said that I made a mistake, explained what that mistake was, and then left me to learn and earn the right back, but instead I had the right swiftly removed from with no explanation because I dared to defend myself! That is not the community spirit I have come to expect on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - Regarding using the rollback tool to revert an edit inconsistent with consensus, see the very first point at WP:NOTVAND, as well as the third point. And you are correct, your very first edit after posting this was to inform. SQL^{Query me!} 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty big stretch to refer to these as "bold edits", and I don't think that sets a very good precedent, but I can also see that I'm not going to get anywhere with this either. Now I just want to know whether I am going to be able to request the rollback tool be reinstated moving forward, or if I am going to be prevented from doing that by the petty behaviour that was displayed at the ANEW report. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: As I said at ANEW, you get rollback access after you demonstrate you know what is considered vandalism, not before or as you adjust. The fact that you're still considering the edits as vandalism is deeply problematic. Editing against consensus (if it exists) or ignoring the talk page is not vandalism or misguided. It's simply disagreeing with consensus or the existing content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade's analysis of the two given diffs: not vandalism-->rollback abuse. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal (edit conflict × 4) - this editor evidently understands neither Wikipedia:What is vandalism? nor the requirement to be willing to discuss one's use of advanced permissions. The policy page says that rollback is to be used only when the reason for reverting is absolutely clear; in any instance where it may be necessary to explain why content is being reverted (such as enforcing the result of a talk page discussion) rollback is not to be used, and the reverting editor is advised to use a different method to undo the edit which allows entering an edit summary. More from the policy: "Administrators may revoke the rollback privilege or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Look at it like this: If you're reverting because an edit is against longstanding consensus or because it's poorly sourced, it is particularly important for you to say so in an edit summary. Otherwise, the person you're reverting is likely to make the same mistakes elsewhere or even just repeat them on that page; they also won't have any idea what they need to do to address your objection (finding better sources or reaching a new consensus on talk, respectively.) Rollbacking vandalism is a thing because when something is clear, bad-faith vandalism, we can assume the editor understands what they're doing wrong, so there's no point in humoring them by explaining it to them. In all other situations (whenever an edit is in good faith), discussion is a vital part of the process. If you just revert with no explanation, you haven't fixed anything in the long term. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's becoming very clear that there is a deep-seated holier-than-thou attitude here that is not conducive to discussion. However, my question has still not been answered, and I would like it to be before I move on from this discussion. Once again: will I be able to prove that I have learned from this experience and deserve to regain the rollbacker right, or will any attempt in the future to regain it be derailed by overzealous admins that do not believe a person can ever learn or change? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Your attitude isn't helping but yes, show that you've taken on board what you've been told here, and you should be able to get the right back in a few months. Conversely, continuing to call good-faith edits vandalism will result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On behalf of overzealous power hungry abusive rogue admins everywhere, let me just say that we can be surprisingly forgiving if you do show a real ability to learn from your mistakes. So far you’ve not done so. Thanks for asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nope Miniapolis 22:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Since I was invoked... yes, I added rollbacker following a fairly routine request at WP:PERM (see Special:PermaLink/788098447#User:Adamstom.97 ). RB bar to entry is low and this editor had been around a while and had a plausible request so I added, it wasn't so much of proving capability as AGF the access would be appropriately used. I have not reviewed any recent events. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal I'd recommend waiting 3-6 months to request re-instatement; you may want to try WP:TWINKLE in the meantime. (but please be careful) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Adamstom.97: "I am also not impressed with the way I have been treated here" - You mean the part where NeilN opted to not give you the 24 hour block for edit-warring you clearly deserved, allowing you to instead volunteer to stay away from the page for a week? And of course, no block log entry, so your next edit offence will be treated as a first offence and you'll use that as an excuse for for a free pass. Nice way to thank the guy... - ^theWOLFchild 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, I'm tired of seeing users mislabelling edits they don't agree with as vandalism to justify misuse of the rollback privilege. It happens a lot on RFPP too. Fish Karate 08:40, 3 August 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.

Significant WP:PERM/AWB backlog

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.

---

Wouldn't normally point out a backlog to AN, but the backlog for AutoWikiBrowser permissions is now 2 weeks, which seems really excessive. There's only 6 requests which should be pretty quick to deal with. Sorry to nag like this, but I've been waiting for 10 days to be able to start work on a template restructuring!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also to add to this, the WT:AFCP backlog is growing in length too. Iffy★Chat -- 09:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be dealing with these tomorrow. I've been travelling and have not had as much access as usual. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 3 August 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.

Blocked from Saving Ryan Hampton (author)

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, When I tried to save a stub I wrote about Bryan Hampton (author) the action was blocked with a message that said: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

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

I think this person should have a Wiki article, and I am not sure why it was blocked. I found the request for the article on the "Request for Articles" page, here. All I wanted to do was write a short article about Ryan Hampton. Thanks, Stregadellanonna (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Background info, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Ryan Hampton (Author). ~ GB fan 09:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stregadellanonna: I suggest you create a draft at User:Stregadellanonna/Bryan Hampton (I created the page there) and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. There are concerns about this author because some illegitimate users tried to create it before. Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Luk, I know the header and the first sentence says Bryan but the requested article that Stregadellanonna is mentioning is Ryan. ~ GB fan 10:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course I meant Ryan. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try and create the article according to your suggestion. Thanks. Stregadellanonna (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: Oh, it makes more sense (a cursory web search for Bryan returned no meaningful result). I moved the page, thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:35, 2 August 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.

Request to lift topic ban (Sharkslayer87)

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 topic banned on May 1,2018 for violating several wikipedia policies while editing a caste article. I was relatively new to wikipedia and was not familiar with the policies. I know that ignorance is not an excuse. I apologize for my rude behavior. Since then, I have been making good contributions in other areas without any complaints so far. I promise I will continue to abide by wiki rules and remain a good editor. I request to consider my appeal to lift the topic ban. I have appealed for a lift in the past but was turned down. I am requesting again. I am ready to address any concerns you have about me. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Previous decline --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend that this be declined. While Sharkslayer has mostly stayed free of conflict, their edits since the ban are minor in nature; dates, film cast members, etc. I would like to see some evidence that they can use sources properly in more difficult situations, before we let them return to the caste-related minefields. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 2 August 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:Tsma73

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 take a look at the activities of User:Tsma73, in particular User talk:HelpUsStopSpam/Archive 1#HelpUsStopSpam creates vandalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 1#DataMelt? I'm tempted to indef them for WP:NOTHERE, but it's possible they're the legitimate victims of some kind of wiki extortion attempt, so I'd like other admins to take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tsma73 is a sock and other than being involved in the same AfD and slinging wild accusations at HelpUsStopSpam, the two users have nothing to do with each other. Not sure how HUSS is able to retain that username, but that's another issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at their website and found this. The mention of them receiving paid editing emails is concerning, although given all these accounts are clearly very closely connected to the subject they shouldn't have been involved with the article in the first place. BubbleEngineer (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They brought up the abstract "blackmail" [82] [83] claim here on Wikipedia, too, but never gave any details - and as usual reporting in a vague third person "From what I've heard". Their conjecture is wrong that these offers relate to my edits. These emails will likely be the usual SEO spam as seen on Quora: https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-an-expert-Wikipedia-content-writer-or-editor . Also, the entire idea of blackmailing to delete does not work for a very simple fact: only admins can delete articles. Users like me (or BubbleEngineer, who started the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataMelt) can only propose a deletion discussion, which will be reviewed. So any such "gang" or "troll farm" would need an admin member. So who is the dark lord?

What brought Datamelt onto my radar were the obvious COI edits of Special:Contributions/104.55.212.99 in April, showing repeated self-cite book spam all the way back to 2016 in Jython (spamming the datamelt/scavis book into the Jython article); and this [84] clearly verified the COI ("jwork.org administrator") - so obviously I put a COI warning & lack of independent sources on the article. Actually it was not me who nominated the article for deletion... all the sockpuppeting, IP canvassing, personal attacks [85], now even off-wiki attacks etc. of course do not help either. And I am not sure I can trust their claims anyway: you can see them sockpuppeting even on their own site: [86] "P.S.: This article is submitted by a Wikipedia editor who asks not to disclose his identity." (most likely, this "editor" is User:Tsma73, and potentially a WP:COWORKER/WP:FAMILY "meatpuppet" sharing the same IP). LOL: pretending they are their own users, since they don't appear to have any... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:45, 2 August 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.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Request 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.

---

Can someone move this page pls, see talk (page already exists). prokaryotes (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 5 August 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_talk:Timathom/Archive_1

I attempted to break up the archive for User_talk:Timathom, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Can you please advise me on how to go about breaking up this archive, if I can not get the talk page deleted? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not certain what you're asking for. The current split, while irregular, seems fine. Killiondude (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @Killiondude:, ideally, the archives should be User talk:Timathom/Archive 1, "User talk:Timathom/Archive 2", "User talk:Timathom/Archive 3", etc. Someone refused to delete the page such that this could be done. Additionally, User talk:Timathom/Archive 1 is over 200 kB, and the bot is not splitting it properly. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I know it is up to the "owner" of a talk page to archive the page. Not somebody else. The Banner talk 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It does seem odd that Jax has now taken it upon himself to archive inactive user's talk pages without their permission and actively looking for user talk pages over 100K in size to do so. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply - @The Banner:, as it turns out, on behalf of the user, someone else already archived the page here without splitting it into multiple pages. I changed the archive period, which caused the talk archive to be further split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Bump - --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you "bump" your section when it seems that the requested split has already been done by Lowercase sigma bot and nothing needs to be done further, certainly nothing that especially needs admins? If you have a technical question, WP:VPT may be the better place for this. Fram (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply - @Fram:, 'ideally, the archives should be User talk:Timathom/Archive 1, "User talk:Timathom/Archive 2", "User talk:Timathom/Archive 3", etc. Someone refused to delete the page such that this could be done. Additionally, User talk:Timathom/Archive 1 is over 200 kB, and the bot is not splitting it properly. Please {{ping}} me when you respond'. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That page is only 4K since 26 July, it hasn't received a human post since 2014, and the editor hasn't edited since 2016. That the pages aren't at the absolutely ideal pagename but something that works as well in the end is not a problem. We can better spend our time on actual problems that need fixing or admin intervention, not this... Fram (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 30)

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, please remove (delete) this page to allow The Simpsons (30th series) to move here. --Patriccck (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@78.26: Thank you --Patriccck (talk) 15:43, 6 August 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.

AE block appeal

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

---

I have been blocked for a period of 72 hours for allegedly violating WP:1RR. Even though I haven't been blocked previously, I was handed a three day block while other users have recently been given lenient blocks of just 24 hours. Firstly, the user that reported me has been making reverts on the same Human rights abuses in Kashmir article himself, that too without engaging on the talk page and I am the one being blocked. The blocking admin didn't even wait to hear from me. The first diff reported was a revert from 28 July. The second diff reported was actually an edit that I made on 2 August and not a revert. The third diff reported is the ONLY revert that I made on 2 August that too when the reporting user had reverted me. Now if both me and the reporting user made a revert on 2 August, how does that violate WP:1RR and why I'm the only one being blocked? This was simply a content dispute where the reporting user never engaged in a discussion but the admin decides to block me without a violation of 1 revert per 24 hours even occuring. Son of Kolachi (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Copied from [87] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert 1, Revert 2. I typically block for 72 hours for first time violations when doing AE WP:1RR blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly edit warring over time, but I don't see that they were ever notified that there was a 1RR restriction in force. They attempted to discuss on talk, but weren't able to bring in enough people to establish a consensus in either direction. I'd support a reduction, or even time served. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Read this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Liborbital#21_July_2018. This account is clearly a sock of someone who is here for disruption and POV pushing. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: They were notified of DS and the article has the proper edit notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the editnotice now, thanks, and their edits aren't tagged as mobile, so objection withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Decline unblock Normally, I would grant an unblock request for two reasons 1) the block was genuinely in error or against policy or 2) the person in question cops to what they did, and convincingly argues they intend to play by the rules. The diffs above show the block was justified; 1RR was clearly violated. The person's response show no indication of culpability, it's all deflection onto the actions of others. For that reason, I cannot support an early unblock at this time. --Jayron32 18:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Decline both edits are reverts, the first one removes some text which was recently added to the article by someone else and the second is a reinstatement of the first edit. That there's discussion on the talk page is not an excuse for edit warring. I don't see any evidence anyone else has recently violated 1RR on this article (the "other user" mentioned only made one revert) and even if they had that would not be a reason to lift the block. Hut 8.5 19:46, 3 August 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.

Unblock request by User:BukhariSaeed

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.

---

BukhariSaeed (talk · contribs) put the following unblock request on their talk page and asked me to copy it here for a community review. There was a previous review in November 2017. Huon (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

During the past several months i have realised that i have committed mistakes and i will not repeat the same mistakes (i.e. sockpuppetry, violation of WP:BLOCK, bad behaviour) and i assure that no harmful or destructive activity will take place no sort of vandalism, no sort of sock puppetry or any type of rubbish stuff will be seen.— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and I think we should consider a WP:SNOW close here. The user clearly knew about our policies around WP:SOCK and repeatedly violated them during 2017. Claiming they suddenly realised their mistakes "during the past several months" stretches credulity past the breaking point. There's nothing in this unblock request that convinces me they'd behave if unblocked. However, note that I am not aware of any block evasion over the past six months. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there appears to have been primarily "sock-puppetry to create the illusion of consensus" here, though there was some block evasion noted in their appeal in November 2017. They managed to get blocked within 7 days of creating an account, and had a whole bunch of immature behavior in response. They've been fairly active on other wikis (such as Urdu) since then. I do have some language/competence concerns; will this user be able to understand and follow site policies? And if they do inadvertently violate a policy or guidelikne, will they learn from their mistake, or will they resort to vandalism and sock-puppetry? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see any specific TBAN that will be of benefit in an unblock. I do specifically want to emphasize the need for references when adding content here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I am an admin and bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia. Bukhari is one of the most active user of urdu Wikipedia, I see him editing on daily basis and his edits are very constructive. He knows Wikipedia’s rules and policies very well and now he’s eliminator on Urdu Wikipedia. I request English Wikipedia admins to unblock him please.--Obaid Raza (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban -- I administered the indef block for socking and understand Yamla's concern: User:BukhariSaeed began their editing career here with persistent conflicts, disruptive agenda-based editing and socking. In unblock requests, they swore on an "oath of god" that they would never sock again [88], [89], and yet were check-user confirmed to be creating socks at the same time. Similar misbehavior resulted in a separate indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia. Their Standard Offer request [in November 2017 determined they had still been socking again. But as power-enwiki states this appears to be a case of immature behavior -- as well as an overzealous agenda to promote religious figures. Since then this user has shown that they can contribute effectively at Urdu Wikipedia and Commons. My inclination is to unblock with a topic ban on Sufi and Christian Saints broadly construed so that they can first demonstrate the ability to adhere to policy. The topic ban can be reviewed after six months. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Per WP:CIR. BukhariSaeed who couldn't understand WP:SOCK even after months of the block,[90] and he was asking other editors to proxy for him. It is clear that it is going to be very hard to teach him the policies and guidelines whenever he will do anything wrong. It is also apparent on Urdu Wikipedia that he is indulged in off-wiki canvassing there.[91] Above unblock request is too unconvincing because it doesn't show what he will do if he was unblocked. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong about proxying. I told him today that he should ask for email to contact him personally. We, Urdu wikipedians, are very connected on other social channels. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

He was asking other editors to make edits for him while while he was blocked.[92] Read WP:PROXYING. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023:, i was not convassing him, i find his edits on اللو ارجن, thats why ask for his e-mail or phone, i want to add him on Urdu Wikipedia whatsapp group, and he gave me his email address. If you dont trust me you can confirm from any Urdu speaker. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC) -- Since BukhariSaeed cannot reply here, I'm copying his comment from his user talk page. Huon (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap, and it should be made clear that a quick re-block is coming his way if he screws up again. --Jayron32 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. Despite having got into trouble and having been blocked ("until the end of time" according to Google Translate) on Urdu Wikipedia about a year ago, the user has 93k global edits and holds advanced permissions on several sister projects, and has an Urdu admin here vouching for them. It seems reasonable to assume the user has mended their ways, until there's some evidence here to the contrary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban: I agree with CactusWriter. --Muzammil (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support: First of all I want to say that he's amazing person. We created together an International collabration called "Peace Spirits", to create some articles about India, Israel and Pakistan, BukhariSaeed did amazing work from his side in Urdu Wikipedia and I trust him to not break the rule again. Actually, I was suprised about his block, I couldn't belive that he opened a sock puppet. So I'm Supporting, I belive him. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No reason has been given how WP:ROPE applies here. Unblock request is poorly written and it doesn't show how he can benefit this encyclopedia. Onkuchia (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "During the past several months i have realised that i have committed mistakes" that maybe sound for the first offense, not for repeated violations. Unless he could show significant contributions from English Wikipedia sister projects then only there would be some solid basis that why this account needs to be unblocked. BukhariSaeed has only 274 edits, of which nearly half of the edits were made on his own user talk page and mostly for requesting unblock. He has been blocked four times and I don't see how those numerous problems won't reoccur. Lorstaking (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no indication that the potential good from unblocking outweighs the known potential for disruption. Unblocking is not in the best interest of Wikipedia because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per CactusWriter. We have evidence they have improved on sister projects. WP:ROPE, etc. I do support the minimum 6-month topic ban. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• The recent message from BukhariSaeed that "i was not convassing him" when he was  asking other editor to make edits for him while he was blocked.[93] This shows BukhariSaeed's inability to understand policies on multiple accounts and blocks. It seems that 6 months reset[94] never helped him to understand the policy and thus we have no reason not to oppose this request. Oppose. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • He asked him to write an article on a specific topic? I don't think that's proxying. Or canvasing in any meaningful sense. Or is there something I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• A blocked editor is not allowed to ask others to make edits for him. I was also saying that BukhariSaeed had his block reset for another 6 months for such evasion but still he is not learning.
  I should also note that BukhariSaeed is sending me emails to support unblock on him. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: The user shared the screenshot of the message he sent for clarification. Please check this --Muzammil (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose - BukhariSaeed refers to his multiple socking and creation of inappropriate promotional pages as "mistakes". A look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed/Archive (note that the account was renamed - Hammadsaeed is his old user name) shows what these "mistakes" were: repeated recreation of promotional pages, sockpuppeteering to keep these pages, creating socks with user names impersonating users in good standing, and personal attacks. He referred to his socking as a "mistake" back then as well and promised to stop for instance here, which he didn't - there were a number of socks and IPsocks after that, as can be seen in the SPI, and as pointed out above. As Yamla mentions, it's not as if BukhariSaeed didn't know about the sock policies when he created all his socks, which means that his definition of "mistake" is a bit unusual - maybe a language barrier issue, but still. Now, this was a while ago and people can change (he has clearly done good work at other Wikipedia versions), but the unblock request says nothing about what he means to do at English Wikipedia if unblocked, so how can we know? If the block is lifted I very strongly support the suggested topic ban on topics related to saints. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I know this user Bukhari is one of the most active user of urdu Wikipedia, Urdu wiktionary. and others wiki project I see him edit basis and his edits are very constructive. He knows Wikipedia’s rules and policies very well, If they are banned then the Urdu wiki community will be a big loss, J. Ansari Talk 05:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• English Wikipedia is not any extension of Urdu Wikipedia. Show us if he has contributed well in an actual English Wikipedia sister project like Simple Wiki or Wikivoyage or others. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: J ansari updated their post above after Accesscrawl's reply.

J ansari, replying to your new phrasing here: I agree that his English Wiktionary work appears to be good, and that is a positive sign, but I am still wondering what kind of work he would be interested in doing on English Wikipedia. I have posted a question on his user talk page asking specifically about that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban i worked with this user in my cultural exchange project and he is very active in collaboration in Urdu, Punjabi and Arabic. I found his behavior here very strange and unexpected from him but i think the topic ban for 6 mouths (reviewable after that period) will do the job and stop his behavior. Regards--مصعب (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with this suggestion. Topic ban is for those who are disruptive for a specific subject. BukhariSaeed's problems have been more than just editing in a specific subject. That's why topic ban is not an alternative. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: Dear friend, you are perfectly justified in holding a different view, which you've done while voting above (Just after Hobit). So is perhaps the case with مصعب. CactusWriter and some of the other users. IMHO, nobody's views should be downplayed because they are not inline with yours. We should respect each other. --Muzammil (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Problems are clearly bigger than misconduct in a specific subject. Sorry but topic ban cannot be used as a scapegoat for avoiding block for broader issues. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per WP:CIR -- I don't see any indication that this editor has stopped canvassing or asking other editors to proxy for him in the light of above examples.[95] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban: The topic ban can be reviewed after six months. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:48, 4 August 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.

Alex Neman

It all started when he made a lot of changes in the currently-protected Suzuki Carry article with the major method of changing images suddenly without any prior discussion, until then Davey2010 reverted the edits many times and in the end the article went on full protection and he was partially-blocked from editing the article (he has a long history of edits in the article as far as 2014 and other long history of changing images without discussion before). But in the article's talk page, he's seems to be incapable to communicate in English in a normal way, given his Indonesian origin. He stated that when the page had been unprotected, he indirectly declared (albeit in a somewhat polite but clumsy way) that he will definitely do the same thing, which is an unusual response to previous messages. By doing this and he went full site-wide block for 72 hours. But before the block was lifted, he has already went with another alias New Alex Neman which is a sleeper account for that have been registered a decade earlier, which is summed up as a sockpuppetry (he also went for the alias AlexNeman99, カーアップローダー, オートカー, New Alex N and Alexuploader2017 ; Alex N is also available but not in this wiki). Thus, he went blocked indefinitely (full block log can be seen here). After that, he went full IP sockpuppeting which happens until this very day. One of the edits was he went edited the Suzuki Carry article right after the protection was just lifted. Other type of edits is mostly just reverting his IP edits and seem wants to edit the article to his liking. At this rate, I think the only solution is range-block whenever possible. Sorry for my grammar, as I originated from Indonesia too. 182.30.204.161 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex Neman. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is my IP banned

I’ve gone to log on to my account and I’m unable to access it do to an IP ban. I would like to know why this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:494:ecd4:4510:6b92:415a:dada (talk • contribs) 04:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you can post here, your IP isn't blocked. What message do you see when you try to log in? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for reduction in page protection level

Hello,

I hope you are well.

I tried to edit Lujaina Mohsin Darwish page but I have to admit there were many technical things I did not know about Wikipedia. I really don't understand many things about it. Can you please remove the protection from the page? I will not edit it again. But at least let us not prevent other people from editing it.

Kindly remove the restriction on the account so others can add details.

I would really appreciate another chance.

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lujainamhd (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lujainamhd, as Number 57 explained on your user talk page, If you have any suggested edits or corrections to the article, please detail them on the article talk page. GONvsKillua is already discussing possible changes to the article there; I encourage you to join them. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, there is some COI/paid editing activity on this article (and I suspect also on her sister's article). I think any removal of protection would lead to some new accounts adding the promotional stuff that GONvsKillua has been requesting (and not getting). Number 57 12:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

• 122.52.33.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Revoking talk page messages. Revoke TPA, thank you. 172.56.217.134 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Any disruptive edits by the IP should be reverted immediately. 172.56.217.134 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  unfortunately Per WP:BLANKING the ip is allowed to blank thier talk page Untamed1910 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've blocked IP 172 from the other IP's talk page to stop the edit warring. Users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page, with the only exception being a declined unblock request. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information provided on Awan caste

There is an entirely wrong information provided about the Awan caste on the Wikipedia page it is said that Awans are panjabis and only speak panjabi which is extremely wrong Awans are not panjabis they are all over Pakistan Speaking multiple languages more than 50% of Awans are in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa who speak Pashto and hindko have been excluded from the page and the information about Awans coming from Afghanistan with the forces of mehmood ghaznavi has also been excluded so I request you to please allow me to make these corrections to avoid vedalism. This is because there is an idea being given by someone that Awans are somehow panjabis which they are not. Ibrahim11111 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Auto confirmed restriction

In spite of best intentions, the auto confirmed restriction and big yellow warning at WP:ANI are a big deal and an homage to *that one IP*. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Compromised account

• Ms. Lance Boyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The BLP Jesse Palmer (Australian footballer) is under attack from various accounts. Reverting is getting nowhere because Ms. Lance Boyer is repeatedly reverting vandalism to add back (here and here) attacky nonsense, then issuing insane final warnings [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] when challenged. Help, please! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this user has been persistently warning random good faith contributors for abuse and harassment. This has been going on since 2006. This is a sock puppet who the owner made thousands of Wikipedia accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. All you do is just revert the vandalism 4 im on your talk page. The question was the same answered in the next section. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What is going on with this character. I am blocked ?

Can someone look into it?2603:8000:D300:3650:5EB:4A97:8ADF:79D6 (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See the previous section. I explain what is going on. You can click on the sockpuppet investigations link to go to archive or long term abuser to see more information. This user normally targets innocent IP users. It has been going on since 2007, and not one person has resolved it after 17 years. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And don't worry, you won't be blocked. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To all above: I have blocked the disruptive account. Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Ms. Lance Boyer

Could someone take a look at Ms. Lance Boyer (talk · contribs) ? This new user is posting non-stop hundreds of level-4-im vandalism notices, multiple times, for every kind of edit, be it vandalism or a difference in wording.

-- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this user has been persistently warning random good faith contributors for abuse and harassment. This has been going on since 2006. This is a sock puppet who the owner made thousands of Wikipedia accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. All you do is just revert the vandalism 4 im on your talk page. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he's only editing spamming so he can get the 500 edits to change the history of chairs. which has full protection casue of 4chan trolls Developed it entirely (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to respond to misconceived comments about my motives for posting (as an IP).

About this

I noticed that the Wikipedia editor who inserted the name of the rape/murder victim (in clear breach of Indian criminal/penal law) is editing under his real life name (a fairly unique one) along with other personal details on his user page which make it trivial to identify him.

Since I know for a fact (I watched the case proceedings and as I am no stranger to WMF's India counsel or to WMF-Legal) that current WMF policy is now to throw their India editors under the bus (I linked to the Delhi High Court judgment dt. 20/08/2024) I suggested on the article's talk page that it would be prudent for identifiable Indian editors not to rely on WP:UNCENSORED but to instead read the WMF's Terms of Use.

If there is any chilling effect it is not from my side, but on WMF's part and their stand (recorded in the judgment) that they have no connection with their editors/admins and are voluntarily turning over their user details so that notice/summons can be served on the 3 admins in question (in the ANI defamation case against WNF).

Finally, I have already clearly stated, in good faith, that I am here to build an encyclopedia and not to harm it. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Iwaqarhashmi

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Iwaqarhashmi

User:Iwaqarhashmi is repeatedly nominating good-faith user pages for speedy deletion. They are leaving messages on the user's talk page according to the following template:

--

Hello, $username, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:$username, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development

Standard layout

Lead section

The perfect article

Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

---

This is followed by the nomination itself, again, a templated one:

---

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Neodiprion demoides requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

---

This behavior has a number of issues.

• Alluding to notability in the context of user pages is nonsense.

• Calling WP:U5 / WP:NOTWEBHOST is usually inappropriate. In reality, the applicable rule is often WP:UPGOOD, for example, as "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material".

• Ignoring WP:DELETEOTHER: "Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion".

• Misleading about the appeals procedure: linking to WP:RFUD, while the appropriate venue, per RFUD comments, is deletion review.

---

Having seen a relevant warning to this user from their fellow editors (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iwaqarhashmi&oldid=1132532942 - "Please take care", Jan 03, 2023), I see no point in talking to them directly, as the behavior seems to be systematic.

See, e.g., User talk:Neodiprion demoides for an example. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by their CSD Log, the deleting admin agreed in almost every case. I have not counted, but approximately 6 user pages are still present out of almost 300 nominated in August so far. Since the deleting admins have a duty to check prior to deleting it seems to me that there is no case to answer here. Or are you going to bring every admin who acted upon every nomination here to answer charges? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem very well versed in some of the ways of Wikipedia. Have you edited previously under another user name? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Iwaqarhashmi

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.

Lost Password/New Account

Hello, this is user:Skyline Enthusiast. I unfortunately neglected to include an email in my account creation process and subsequently forgot the password when I tried to log in to my account today (I have entered almost 80 variations of the password I thought I had chosen). I am deeply sorry about the confusion, and created this new account as the Wikipedia page for forgotten passwords suggests. As to avoid being labeled a sock puppet, I was wondering what other measures I should take as to follow Wikipedia guidelines as closely as possible. Thank you! Skyscraper Aficionado (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You're fine. You've self-declared on your user page, and by definition you won't be editing with both accounts at once. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Skyscraper Aficionado (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuos vandalism/casteist push

This Anonymous user: 2409:408c:adb5:3805:e56b:a989:87f5:f563 is continuously vandalising the pages related to Medieval dynasties - Chalukya dynasty, Kadamba dynasty, Western Chalukya Empire & Pallava dynasty, despite warning from several confirmed Wikipedia users & pushing casteist claims & imposition

Respective administrator please take a long and stop the upcoming vandalism by the anonymous user: 2409:408c :adb5:3805:e56b:a989:87f5:f563 113.193.110.61 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Looks like @Ohnoitsjamie has blocked 2409:408C:ADB5:3805:E56B:A989:87F5:F563 for 1 year.

– 2804:F14:80A0:C01:CAC:C72A:E92:375B (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Can an administrator check this user's behavior; he constantly reverts documented edits to restore his own opinions that are not documented by the sources. For example, see here [103] and here not even bother to answer to another user questions 194.219.206.56 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)