Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 23 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 21 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 90 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 69 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 60 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 [1]. No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 51 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

(Initiated 37 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	22	0	22
TfD	0	0	9	0	9
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	13	0	14
RfD	0	0	39	0	39
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 39 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 17 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Wikipedia oversighters

(Initiated 16 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 103 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 81 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 79 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 69 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 61 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Footballnerd2007. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 60 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 39 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 9096 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/WikipediaDay/2025 2025-01-05 23:04 2025-02-05 23:04 edit,move Pharos Lodha 2025-01-05 20:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Purbiya (soldiers) 2025-01-05 20:00 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:Infobox weather event/styles.css 2025-01-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Racing-Reference driver 2025-01-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sarfaraz K. Niazi 2025-01-05 17:34 2026-01-05 17:34 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree 2009 Malmö anti-Israel riots 2025-01-05 16:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CTOP/AI Significa liberdade Kathryn Babayan 2025-01-05 07:03 2025-02-05 07:03 edit,move Ser Amantio di Nicolao Algerian Women's Volleyball League 2025-01-05 06:24 2025-01-08 06:24 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Brave Inventors 2025-01-05 04:39 indefinite create WP:RUSUKR community general sanctions Tamzin AS Val and VSS Vintorez 2025-01-05 01:19 2025-07-05 01:19 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Pp-semi 2025-01-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2751 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:HABS 2025-01-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Anil Budha Magar 2025-01-04 17:52 2025-01-11 17:52 move Inappropriate page moves to User space Liz Tomasz Tchórz 2025-01-04 10:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Skibidi Toilet 2025-01-04 00:35 2025-02-04 00:35 edit,move Persistent vandalism: (by autoconfirmed accounts) Callanecc Nirmal Ghosh 2025-01-03 23:19 2026-01-03 23:19 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Tafajjal Hossain 2025-01-03 23:13 2026-01-03 23:13 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Jalpaiguri Institute of Technology 2025-01-03 20:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: By blocked user Rsjaffe List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment 2025-01-03 12:13 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Callanecc Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 January 2025 – present) 2025-01-03 11:52 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Callanecc Tijjani Reijnders 2025-01-03 04:35 2025-02-03 04:35 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Steven Walling 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria 2025-01-03 04:29 indefinite edit,move Restoring prior protection after swap: Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1261923873#2024 Israeli invasion of Syria SilverLocust Awni El-Dous 2025-01-03 00:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CTOP/AI Significa liberdade Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist political violence 2025-01-02 23:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian political violence (3rd nomination) 2025-01-02 23:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree User talk:58.124.0.187 2025-01-02 11:29 2025-01-06 11:29 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Angolan Civil War 2025-01-02 00:30 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing Ad Orientem

Proposal to adopt Community Approved General Sanctions for Horn of Africa Articles (Broadly Construed)

In a search through the Admin noticeboard archive the word "Somalia" comes up 106 times, mostly in AN/I and 3RR related pages, which suggests a long term pattern of disruptive editing relating to Somalia. In addition, the phrase "Horn of Africa" specifically comes up 15 times with similar lists to AN/I and 3RR. Many of these reports are from the last 12-18 months, and demonstrate a long term pattern of editorial disagreement punctuated by revert wars, POV accusations, questionable sources, and other issues which have most likely had a long term net negative effect on contributors working in this particular geographic area. In February of this year, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) summarized the problem in an AN/I thread as follows:

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles. There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.

In lew of this and the most recent incidence of Somalia on the AN/I page (here and here), I would put to the community the issue of adopting community approved sanctions mirroring those at Wikipedia:ARBPIA for the Horn of Africa region (broadly construed). TomStar81 (Talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is necessary. Many of the disruptive editing in this topic area are prone to excessive lawyering and frequently done through meatpuppetry. I can support a community approved discretionary sanction in place. Alex Shih (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If the current ANI threads are any indication, the situation is a complete mess; the only involved voice of reason in those threads is Ms Sarah Welch. The rest of them are like squabbling children. Something needs to be done. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Completely justifiable. Simon Adler (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Inquiry is there any way to narrow this slightly? Dedebit F.C. is an extreme example of an article that probably doesn't need to be under sanctions. The various tribal conflicts certainly should have community sanctions, I'm not sure it's necessary for the entire region, broadly construed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: This is intended more for geographical and regional culture as well as ongoing conflict related articles, not for sports articles per se, but I could see how they'd get wrapped up in this. For the time being though I prefer to think of "broadly construed" as meaning "where we need it now" with a provision for expansion to other areas should they become problematic in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Is this with or without 1RR? MER-C 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @MER-C: I say with 1RR, cause that's whats being used in combination with ARBPIA in most general sanction articles. TomStar81 (Talk)
• Support. It is clear that something needs to be done about long-running abuse of WP guidelines in the project, as the current conditions are not conducive to building an encyclopaedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would there be room to establish modified SPI norms where behavioural evidence is more integral to to the workings of investigations at least within the Somali project? It has been established in previous SPIs that long term vandal of the project Middayexpress/Soupforone, as well as potentially other disruptive editors, have means of evading technical scrutiny. With that in mind could there be stipulations as part of the new sanctions of having it be mandatory (or at least recommended) to review behavioural evidence? --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Kzl55: Unfortunately, this is less for editors and more for articles. The idea here is to place the articles under longterm supervision so as to frustrate the efforts of SPI and unproductive editors, who would be unable to take much action to disruptive the articles without ending up blocked for violations of much stricter article enforcement policies. That said, this is going to provide a measure of protection from people like Middayexpress and Soupforone, so a !vote for it is a !vote in the right direction. Trust me on this :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Sounds like a plan! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I could see switching to support in the end but want to make sure that we're being judicious with our use of this heavyweight tool. I would love to hear from some more admin who think that existing tools/noticeboards aren't enough to deal with the problems in that area. Even if/when that assurance comes, I'm not sure I can get behind the full scope listed here and would suggest a slightly more targeted scope would be appropriate based on the kinds of problems that have been going on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I noted above, its largely within the realm of culture (language, terminology, religion, historical identifications, etc) as well as with regards to the current ongoing conflicts in the region. @Cordless Larry: can back me up on that one, most of the ANI reporting has been with regards to these subject areas. I would still like to see everything related to Horn of Africa, but I'd settle for cultural, historical, and military related issues, broadly construed. That said, I can not in good faith fault you for your position. Its the really heavy artillery I want to bring out, but that should only be brought out after everything else has been tried and failed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I would note that it extends to cultural topics outside of the region itself but involving its peoples. The AN//I discussion that led to Middayexpress's original topic ban partly concerned Somalis in the United Kingdom, where he/she had been trying to distort and censor source material for years. If anyone has the time, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Where does this end? Will every page subjected to controversy be put under discretionary sanctions, undefined and broadly construed? Is this not power creep? What has been tried so far? Somalia has been semi-protected for a few months, what impact did that have? How many editors have been blocked? Note that discretionary sanctions serves to allocate control of the controversial to admins, at the expense of ordinary editors, is this really the way to go without even presenting the history of what's been attempted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: Ideally, this ends when the articles are better protected against disruptive editors, but thats my take on the matter since I've been waltzing to the beat of this issue for some time now. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • So never ending?

Can you list the article this would apply to? How many have been semi protected or pending revisions? Are undefined extensive powers being requested due to other processes being to slow? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I’m not sure we’re here yet. It’s a controversial area, but I don’t see it at the stage where DS are needed yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I think we are, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs). Between Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress which continues to expand ever downward as more accounts are discovered, and the initial attempt at adding discretionary sanctions here (which I F&%# up badly, I must concede) we are well past that point. Well past that point. How much longer are we going to pretend that this is not a serious problem? Or are you and the community gonna let a few dozen more of these reports fester before we take action? I say the time has come to try something new, and judging from the supports here others feel the same way. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

SPIs are not usually dealt with through discretionary sanctions. If disruption on an article is great enough and semi-protection isn't working, then admins are already authorized to use ECP, so I don't see the need to add another category of pages where admins have broad authority to apply ECP as a DS. Re: the edit warring, just block them. I'm personally not comfortable extending DS into this area, but I also understand if others are. Like at least one member of ArbCom has expressed, if we're not careful, soon everything will be under DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Except for a few differences, our Horn of Africa space-articles suffer from the same problems such as those related to Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan/Pakistan/India where we have DS. The Horn of Africa region has been war-torn, is religiously divided (particularly Ethiopia, Somalia border region), one with many clans-tribes-ethnic groups, numerous claims of historical or modern era nation-state or pan-nationalistic entities, a deeply contested history, sociology, anthropology, genocides/abuse/terror and the rest. What concerns us in wikipedia and this discussion is whether wikipedia articles are reasonably honest in reflecting or at least including an npov summary of the peer-reviewed scholarship, and do admins have the tools to encourage constructive editors to participate and discourage the disruptive editors and a toxic PA-filled work environment? The answer to the first is largely "no". This is a long-term problem (for evidence, see Ethiopia1, Ethiopia2, Somalia1, Somalia2 (see the two AfD discussions), Somalia3, etc). For the second question on admin tools, perhaps @Buckshot06, Doug Weller, and Nick-D: may have some input since they have commented/acted in HOA disputes (Cordless Larry has been already pinged above). There are factors indeed that may suggest a "not yet". First, there are fewer editors in the Horn of Africa space and fewer ANI/AN/ARCA cases. I see this in part an issue of the PA-filled toxic work environment (see the unhelpful 'racist' and 'white supremacist' etc allegations, coupled with edit warring and mass redirects in the most recent AN case, for example) coupled with longterm MidDayExpress/SoupforOne disruptive editing as TomStar81 and Nick-D have noted. This frustrates and drives away the more constructive editors. Second, given the poor state of many of our articles in the Horn of Africa space and relatively lesser number of peer-reviewed publications to read carefully and summarize, we may wonder if DS tools would help or make things worse. I believe the DS tools would help because they would not discourage participation by new editors, would help discourage systematic disruption/abuse by the likes of MidDayExpress, and because our admins remain obliged to use such tools with discretion. Third, given the tools available through SPI and against edit warring, we may wonder why does HOA space need DS tools? Given my experience and efforts in this space, I believe that the DS tools are needed for the same reasons that Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, etc space need them. DS tools may help reduce the systematic disruption by contesting or agenda-driven parties who are less interested in building the encyclopedia and more interested in presenting their unsourced passionately held views along with wiki-lawyering/meatpuppetry to block the editors summarizing the other sides (yes, plural). It may also encourage quality participation and help create a less hostile and less PA-filled work environment in the difficult Horn of Africa space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Please see the views of current ARBCom members about areas where discretionary sanctions may be appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Endorse strongly and completely; Middayexpress would not have been as half as much a problem had these sanctions been in force. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Largely per Buckshot. This appears to be a systematically troubled area, and few if any admins have enough knowledge of it to be confident about wading into the endless disputes which are going on. A large stick will be helpful in excluding and stopping the bad faith editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question If few if any admins have enough knowledge of it to be confident about wading into the endless disputes does putting the DS toolset behind them actually help them act more competently (no doubt it could help them act more confidently)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Barkeep49: An admin may not know a subject, but still she/he can spot behavioral issues, persistent disruption or repeated violation of our content guidelines in contested/difficult/sensitive/inflammatory articles. Let us review what the community and ARBCom have supported during the Palestine-Israel DS proposal discussions. All of the context and circumstances that led to those adopted motions apply to the Horn of Africa space. Under "Purpose", "advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle" – Yes, the advocacy/propaganda/furtherance .../etc is true for HOA. Under "Decorum", "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system" – Yes, HOA space is much affected by these issues. Under "Editorial process", "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic" – Yes one more time for HOA. Under "Dispute resolution", "Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums" – Yes in HOA context again, because the disputing parties typically have been focusing on each other, instead of seeking and summarizing peer-reviewed scholarship with an RS-driven consensus approach to build an encyclopedia. For edit diffs, see examples above, and this recent case which resulted in blocks, plus a lot more in the case histories of MidDayExpress-SoupforOne socks, EthiopianHabesha, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. We are really far from implementing DS for this subject that barely attracts disruption compared to any other DS area. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disputes happen all over Wikipedia. The disputes of HOA have been rather low in amount and are far from the stage where you would need DS. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a more narrow DS, but this seems too broad to me for the problems that have occurred. -Obsidi (talk)
  • @Obsidi: any suggestions for a more narrow DS that you support? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

    I was originally thinking something along the lines of Somalia (including its culture and history articles), but reviewing the pages, I just don't see the level of disruption that would require GS. -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

    @Obsidi: if yo have the time please take a look at this, there is also this (and many others), these are only a couple of examples of long-term persistent disruption to the project. It is worth noting that, as far as I know, all the editors/admins who have contributed (or are familiar with) the project, have responded with support of the proposal. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Username question

I wonder what y'all think, whether User:Untitled.docx is a username violation or not. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently that username is already in use. funplussmart (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. Why would someone ask about a hypothetical username at AN? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't see why it would be a violation. There isn't anything in WP:UPOL that would disqualify it, IMO. ansh666 01:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's odd, but I don't think it cause any special technical issues that need to be dealt with. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, per Ansh666. But why here and not WP:RFC/N? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Never heard of it before, Ivanvector... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Like Thomas's English Muffins, Wikipedia has many nooks and crannies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You should {{Uw-softerblock}} for promoting Microsoft Word :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see a clear-cut violation so the usual procedure is to talk to the user in question, and if that doesn’t work out, RFC/N. Or not since nobody here seems to think it is a violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this cromulent?

Resolved

 – image deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Droid small icon.tiff

An allegedly free image of "a droid", but can't really be anything other than R2D2, I think this design may be impermissible as a "free" image. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well it's obviously R2D2 (and look at the name of the uploader, and the source is https://iconstore.co/icons/star-wars-icons/ which I suspect may not be fully GFDL-compliant). Beep boop beep delete. Fish+Karate 14:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've un-embiggened the picture so it doesn't cross in to the the below section on my screen. Iffy★Chat -- 15:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like a copyvio to me. Maybe not the most egregious one, and maybe not by the uploader, but by the artist who submitted it to the source. Note that "Droid" is a registered trademark owned by Lucasfilm (now Disney, I suppose), so the filename is clearly marking it as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• A clear violation of copyright. There's no way this is a generic "droid". (BTW, I'm not sure that the trademark for "droid" -- the word -- would hold up in court. As a shortening of the long-existing "android", it's about as generally trademarkable as calling an elevator a "vator". But, then again, trying to win that case again Disney's gazillions of high-priced lawyers would be an excercise in futility.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

BMK I've had the same thought, but even back when it was just LucasFilm, Motorola and Verizon both paid royalties to use the term. As unremarkable a term as it may be, with enough of a history of vigorous enforcement, it'll eventually become so associated with Star Wars that people will just assume it's trademarked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume that Verizon and Motorola just thought it was cheaper to license it rather than fight it, since any good intellectual property lawyer would be able to dig up the many decades of prior usage of "android". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right, I was just saying that those cases, as well as the numerous cease-and-desist letters LucasFilm has sent out seem to be establishing a precedent that future cases would look to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:FFD is that-a-way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I know, but I don't know if it was actually a problem or not because there are all kinds of caveats around depiction of copyright items in original artwork. It's a rather specialised area of law. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've deleted the file per WP:CSD#F9 (unambiguous copyright violation). Mz7 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: For future reference, "likenesses" are usually copyrighted in the case of characters, which R2-D2 certainly is. It's possible that LicasFilm overlooked R2-D2's likeness, but doubtful. So yeah, fan art is almost always copyright vios, but is often (though not always) overlooked by the creator. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

5.150.96.0/19

I've blocked this range (contributions, block log) for 1 year for unrelentless and never-ending vandalism; the range has been blocked for similar periods numerous times in the past, and every time the block expires, the vandalism starts straight up again. I see one IP on the range reverting vandalism (possibly a teacher?); they're just going to have to get an account. I'm tempted to up the block to indefinite, but I can't think of any occasion when any admin has actually indeffed a /19 range. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I know of an indeffed /16, and you've just reminded me I meant to follow up on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would leave it at a year. Pressing block again in a year's time if the crap resumes is reasonable. Indeffing an IP range that big is quite unusual. Fish+Karate 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm of the camp that thinks that indeffing IPs is always (subject to IAR) a bad idea and should never (except IAR) be done. Block for one year, when the problems return, block for one more year. That's not too hard to keep up with. --Jayron32 01:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  +1, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Jayron32, always? Isn't it normal to indef-block IPs that are found to be open proxies? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Please no. And thankfully, it's not normal these days. I'm not the only admin who has spent way too long dealing with unblock requests from dynamic IPs where the open proxy lasted a few days several years ago. Nearly all open proxies vanish after a short time. It's true there are still some indef-blocks remaining, some are occasionally reviewed, but we're not routinely adding to them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Pretty much this. There are so many things that can happen - IP's get re-assigned, proxy owner moves on, proxy owner gets disconnected for abuse and a non-proxy moves in, etc. The max I usually go is 2 years, and that's in cases where I'm pretty sure it isn't going to move. SQL^{Query me!} 01:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have experience with them doing the same thing on the Simple English Wikipedia back in May and June. As they're rangeblocked here now, it's likely they'll return to SEW and then other wikis, in which case I'll notify a steward to look into a g-block. Vermont (talk)

This isn't just schools. It's hundreds of public libraries. I'm sorry, Ritchie, but you could have discussed the block with us instead of presenting us with a fait accompli. There was no urgency - from the time monitoring commenced at 1 PM on Tuesday all vandalism was removed within ten minutes. Blocking gives the vandals an incentive to disrupt the service - if we had been allowed to continue reverting them instantly they vandalised they would soon have lost interest. I checked the block logs at Simple Wikipedia of the IPs responsible for the latest spree. They have been blocked for a total of 130 hours. No individual block exceeded 48 hours and there is nothing recent. If an IP were globally blocked it would not be blocked for more than a week. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether it's schools or libraries should be irrelevant because there are hundreds of legitimate editors who are school age anyway... I'm not a fan of school blocks, but this is quite a mountain of garbage. The only thing is, we block the school range and surely whoever wants to vandalize can just find somewhere else to do it. Think about it, if you're a bored student in London, and you get into your head that you want to see what happens when you mess with an article on Wikipedia, the school block template flat out says how to get around it. On the other hand, if you are a busy teacher with dozens of papers to grade and you notice an error in Wikipedia as you are checking someone's paper for plagiarism, or you are a student who takes academics seriously and you have tons of homework to concentrate on, are your really going to follow the steps in order to create an account to correct that error? We have to ask ourselves whether this one year block is really going to benefit the encyclopedia or hinder it. That said, this particular range is spewing a ton of the crap, so... PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've come in on a Saturday morning to respond. Instruction on constructive editing can be a useful part of a lesson. Also when Wikipedia is consulted during a lesson it's useful to be able to correct errors in articles there and then - otherwise it tends to be forgotten and the mistakes linger on. It's absolutely right that the {{schoolblock}} template is an invitation to vandalise. Crime isn't stopped by the police suggesting that offenders go to another street which they won't be patrolling - they watch out for offences being committed and deal with them as they happen.

The only function of a block is to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia. This block does damage the encyclopaedia because all the vandalism gets removed within ten minutes and hundreds of thousands of people are being prevented from editing simply to exclude a few. You might as well say that because a few people get drunk and rowdy in pubs that's a reason to close all pubs, or shut ClueBot down and protect the entire site instead. We can deal with the problem because the IP number plus the edit time enables us to pinpoint the individual pupils responsible. We propose to post notices in all IT suites informing of this and possible action, which could include expulsion and possible police action depending on the pupil's age and the seriousness of the abuse.

All children of school age are in school during school hours. A lot of them don't want to be there. The children who visit libraries out of school hours are not the sort of people who vandalise Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this topic before Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive201#Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, Ritchie, but you could have discussed the block with us" I did; since you were jumping IPs and not contactable via email I had no other way of possibly opening a discussion.

"It's hundreds of public libraries." Which ones? It's certainly not my local public library, where I was updating London Waterloo East railway station from this afternoon. For all I know, you could just be lying in the hope I'll believe you and unblock you so you can vandalise even more.

"if we had been allowed to continue reverting them instantly they vandalised they would soon have lost interest" - and a lot of people would have wasted time leaving warning messages, filing reports at WP:AIV etc. Anyway, the figures don't agree with you. I did a check of all the edits on the entire IP range going back several years. Aside from one guy (you?) reverting vandalism, I could not find a single good-faith edit on any of them, but lots of rubbish like this, this and this. So while "hundreds of thousands of people are being prevented from editing simply to exclude a few" does seem to be a reasonable argument, in this specific instance the empirical evidence shows is that this just isn't true. PCHS-NJROTC is known for being strongly against range blocking unless it's necessary, and if he is saying the block is necessary, then it probably is. I'm not going to ignore the blocking policy and let a whole bunch of people vandalise the encyclopedia on the off chance that somebody might let a obscene BLP violation only stand for ten minutes.

I remember when I was at school that the entire year got frogmarched into the assembly hall and given an almighty bollocking en masse by the headmaster because one kid had blocked up the toilets causing them to flood the entire floor. I don't see this as being any different.

Fortunately, the block is anon-only. So if you want to edit, create an account and you can. Problem solved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I assessed the collateral damage since it has been called into question. One year is good for the block duration. The IP has no clue about the damage done by accounts which in this case is substantial. Many of the accounts are blocked and we don't want new ones based on those. Many of the edits are vandalism/garbage/socking. One LTA uses this range as does another distinct sockmaster. What I don't see is anything scholarly as might would be expected. The "good" edits are mediocre at best but they are enough to keep things as an anonblock instead of a hardblock. The IP's arguments aren't backed up by the data.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Damage? What kind of damage has this range caused? Most vandalism from schools is as "mediocre" as the legitimate edits you speak of; it is easy to spot and get rid of, and in fact it's easier to sit there and watch for it coming from a school range and snipe any of it that gets missed like a watchman in the guard tower than to pick through a mountain of DSL/cable/cellular range edits (which is where these nonsense edits are ultimately going to come from if we block the schools). I'm on vacation at the moment and haven't looked at the edits from the IP range in depth, but I say keep the one year block if there is legitimately an LTA user (someone listed at WP:Long term abuse) using the range, otherwise take into consideration how many people are using the range. London is a pretty big city, and I generally say if out of 100 edits 1 is any flavor of good faith and the other 99 are the typical random characters or "I love Brooke with all of my heart" the IP or IP range is a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the encyclopedia. On the other hand... to the person who said that these "kids" who edit from libraries don't vandalize, you are wrong. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way... RE: BLP violations, these blocks don't stop them, so if you are trying to prevent all possibility of BLP violations being committed, it'd be better to just semi-protect all of the BLPs. To give an example of how ineffective these kind of blocks are at achieving what you wish to achieve, I am editing from Pensacola Christian College right now. If I weren't a registered user, and you wanted to stop me from writing unkind things about a living person, you could schoolblock all of PCC, but I could literally go down to Burger King and skirt the block if I wanted to. If I were a distinctive vandal that Wikipedia would have an interest in stopping, like User:Grawp or User:Mmbabies, the schoolblock probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but don't expect it to stop the casual edit tester from finding a way to write gibberish on an article. These kind of blocks are most useful for putting the kibosh on an active vandalism spree, not preventing vandalism altogether. It's an inherent and perennial problem with open wikis; bad things can and will happen. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all the comments. I will deal with them in order. Before the block my discussion with Ritchie was on User talk:5.150.99.188. There were messages from him at 09:57 and 10:05, 19 September but nothing further. The block was at 14:48 - the change in IP came subsequently, as I think he well knows. We would not reveal the addresses of individual public libraries any more than we would give out the addresses of individual schools. The identities only become known when they report - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ron liebman and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Anonymous Aryan activist. The library is not blocked now and has not been for a long time. Ritchie's local public library is not blocked now because he asked for it to be unblocked Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ansh666#Oppose (#8).

My IP is not blocked (obviously) and you can see I'm not vandalising - I don't see why Ritchie felt it necessary to raise the point. I understand that blocks are only imposed after four warning messages. That stage will never be reached because we will have reverted the vandalism long before then. This makes it apparent to your vandal fighters that we have the situation fully under control. This is an example of what we are doing at the moment:

Your IP:      10.253.68.254                     Time:          23 Sep 2018 17:17:54 
Policy Group: 211-0090_Public-Access-Libraries  Filter Server: nsef2.lgfl.org.uk 
Date/Time: 23 Sep 2018 17:17:54
Request parameters
dpid:49 dpruleid:56 cat:233 groupname:211-0090_Public-Access-Libraries userip:10.253.68.254 
nsphostname: nsef2.lgfl.org.uk protocol: nsef dplanguage:-
Session variables
ws2ShibAuth~N~ ws2ShibUID~~ ws2cid~~ ws2RBC~1~ ws2LA#211~ ws2sch~20818 ws2ip~10.253.68.254~ 
ws2LAOptOut~~ ws2AA~~ ws2pg~~ ws2blockIP~172.30.178.25~

Obscene BLP violations are dealt with by ClueBot instantly - for the rest there's no "off chance that somebody might" clear the vandalism within ten minutes - the monitoring system works and Ritchie knows it works. You've provided some figures but they don't prove what you say they prove - in all those years the range has been blocked, believe me, many, many good editors have wanted to contribute but have been prevented from doing so. The good editors have been driven off the range. We've put together some figures which reveal the true story. First and foremost, the reports which have been coming in indicate that libraries have been blocked even though no vandals are using them. 194.66.226.95 is the central reference library for the whole of the United Kingdom. It has a total of 1,889 edits. There are thirteen vandalism warnings, none later than 2015. At one point it was unblocked by an administrator who said he would monitor it for a while.

5.150.93.133 has 191 edits and three vandalism warnings (none later than 2014). 62.140.210.135 has 63 edits and no vandalism warnings. 80.5.88.70 has 164 edits and six vandalism warnings, none later than 2017. 195.191.67.226 has fifty edits and one vandalism warning (in 2015). The reason for its block appears to be as follows:

At 07:59, 30 August 2017 a well-known troll posted the question "How many people in Germany were killed in air raids by the RAF?" It was removed by the library and the library was blocked at 09:29.

Ritchie's anecdote proves our point - everyone got a warning and the lavatories were not closed. As I have said, once we are allowed to continue with the work we have started the problem will disappear within a few days. The point about the accounts shows our approach is the correct one. If this were a real problem which could not be solved by blocking the accounts the range would be hardblocked - and it's not. If the block notice didn't encourage the vandals to open an account they wouldn't do it. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We? If you are admitting that you are a we that uses the internet to vandalize Wikipedia, than that is why you-plural is blocked. Not enough warning is the we defense? Most unimpressive, we. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In our experience, children who choose to spend their precious leisure time in public libraries do not go there to vandalise Wikipedia: they are either reading or playing computer games. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete one sentence as it appears to have been misconstrued. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The point about the "not enough warning" is that each IP in the range is a separate location. Each individual vandal should be warned enough times per the policy. If you think the policy is wrong, Alanscottwalker, start an RfC to change it. Looking at your contributions you don't appear to do any vandal fighting. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

What policy do you think is being breached here, such that a rangeblock requires an RfC? WP:RANGEBLOCK is a thing. A CU has already checked and confirmed (above) that collateral damage is at a minimum. One can quibble over the as brief as possible bit, but given the amount of vandalism from this range, one year does not seem unreasonable, and is certainly not out of the bounds of admin discretion, per most of the admins in this thread. Also, references to individual users' vandal-fighting histories doesn't really help anyone's case. it's not exactly rocket science anyway Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, these kind of rangeblocks need to be discussed more often and I thank the blocking admin for discussing it. There are a handful of disruptive admins who issue these kind of blocks when they are not needed, and those admins really ought to not only lose their mop but be blocked like any other disruptive admin. This block allows account creation though, so I don't see this being an overly big deal; it just forces editors to make an account which is not hard to do. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to check the diffs to be accurate, but as I recall, one IP came in on AIV and I blocked for 12 hours. I spotted more vandalism, with one IP reverting. I waited, saw more vandalism happening, and range blocked for a couple of hours, hoping it was just a one-off, and apologised to the "teacher" IP, giving them a barnstar for their efforts. I went off to do something else, and notice that after the block had expired, another IP had been reported at AIV and blocked for 31 hours. I checked the block log and blocked for a year based on previous blocks of 1-3 years stretching back to 2014. If I hadn't done this, another admin would have done anyway. The bottom line is vandalism should not persist on Wikipedia - ever. An hour is too long. Ten minutes is too long. Ten seconds is too long. Our aim should be towards it never happening.

Despite the IP's claims above, ClueBot is not perfect. If it was, AIV would be marked historical. For example, today I was asked to clear up 184.175.102.29 (talk · contribs). This IP had left numerous obscene messages and edit summaries in support of Hilter and the Third Reich. ClueBot didn't go near them. Regarding warnings, the correct number of minimum warnings to give to a vandal before a block is ZERO. Per WP:VANDALISM : "Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal." If you put obscenities supporting the Third Reich in an article, you get blocked, I don't care how many Twinkle warnings you have or don't have, you get the hell off this site right now.

Having said all of the above, I have an idea that will hopefully resolve this dispute. Provided I get consensus (or no objections from admins), I am happy to lift this range block as an experiment. However, if a report comes in on WP:AIV by a neutral and involved editor in the first 48 hours, and results in a block for any relevant IP, the range block gets re-applied. How does that strike people? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there some flavor of pattern where it appears to be the same person over and over again, or is it sporadic instances of random characters being added? If it's the former, keep the range blocked unless there's a specific reason someone needs it unblocked. The way you can tell if it's truly an LTA is if the abuse ceases with the range block or if the same pattern of vandalism pops up elsewhere; a true LTA will use some other network to vandalize until everything they have reasonable access to is blocked (believe me, I have plenty of experience with LTAs) The problem I have with these kind of blocks is that I often see them implimented when there is no clear pattern of abuse and it's often a matter of burning a village to prevent ants from infesting it, simply because someone has seen one or two sugar ants crawling around there, but there are times when blocking is indeed appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the other blocked IPs mentioned above. They seem to have all been done by Future Perfect at Sunrise because they were used by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. I don't see much appetite for unblocking them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming what you are saying is correct... support rangeblock as is. This is a great example of when rangeblocks are appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page there is this message:

Educational institution staff and network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Can you post details either there or here? You say that if vandalism lingers for one second that is one second too long. Then protect the entire site. I doubt that there is any fixed timelag after which a rangeblock must be applied if vandalism is not removed before then. This vandalism is not gross BLP violations, it's schoolchildren larking about. Nobody actually sees it - the typical article they vandalise will not be visited within ten months, let alone ten minutes. When the police are investigating say a drug ring they don't immediately arrest the first mule they uncover. They watch and wait, and when they do move in they bust the entire operation. We don't know if it is the same person coming back - give us enough time to investigate and if it is we'll find him and take him out. You've given one lead - Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. However, this person's edits don't seem to be immediately identifiable - what criteria do you use?

In an effort to get some data we visited the page, expecting to find documented instances of abuse à la Grawp or JarlaxleArtemis. What we found was a vague claim, filed six years after the last confirmed edit, that she "has a long history with Jc3s5h. She routinely edit wars with Jc3s5h." There are no diffs, which is a big red flag because Jc3s5h will have been edit warring with her. So we went to his contribution record. In the past few weeks he has been edit warring with numerous editors, mainly on Greenwich Mean Time. They are complaining that he is forcing his POV into the article. He has stated his views at User talk:Jc3s5h#Greenwich Mean Time. His modus operandi appears to be to remove all content that he personally doesn't agree with claiming that it was added by a "banned user". He claimed MrDemeanour was banned at 09:45 on 21 September. He repeated the claim at 11:25 the same morning. He has objected to an agreed rewrite of a couple of sections claiming that it was drafted by a "banned user". He never gives reasons and he never formalises his objections in an SPI. This has all the hallmarks of a joe job, and our public libraries are the ultimate victims. 5.150.74.195 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes coming to the Block function

About a week ago there was a notice on this board asking for input on the design of Special:Block and the block log. It sounded drearily technical, which is probably why nobody replied. But I was curious so I followed the link, which led to a very obscure page called Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking. There I learned that there are major changes planned for the block function: they are going to add the ability to block users from a specific page, or pages, or category of pages, rather than from WP as a whole. They call it "granular blocking" or "partial blocking". Apparently site-wide blocking will still be possible and in fact will be the default. But it sounds as if it is going to make the placing of a block a lot more complicated than the simple one-click process it is now. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who was unaware this is in the works. It may well be a good idea, but I think we as admins need more preparation, maybe some training before it launches, maybe even some kind of opt-in or beta test before it becomes the law of the land. I don't think WP:AN is a good place for sober discussion about meta issues, so I started a discussion at WT:RFA - admitting that it has nothing to do with RfA but was a site watched by many administrators. That's not really a good place to discuss it either. Anybody got a better idea for where we can talk about this, prepare for it, provide input? I think WMF has tried to let us know this is going on, but generally they communicate in ways that do not connect with most of us. And I feel that a lot of bad blood that sometimes exists between WMF and users, happens when WMF launches something new that comes as a surprise to users. I still don't know how this is going to work, but at least now I know that it is coming. And now, so do you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Melanie, what about WT:BLOCK?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, this is not a new thing. This has been discussed, on-Wiki, for several months (probably at least a year now) with many, well-advertised discussions. The discussions probably concluded a few months back, with consensus as to which changes to the blocking function the community desired, and based on those discussions, the devs got to work on implementing them. This is NOT a new surprise change, it has been around for a while. I participated in these discussions some time ago, and recall that there was lots of input, and a general consensus to proceed with implementation. If someone else can dig up the diffs to the discussions, that would help. --Jayron32 17:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly one of the village pumps, or wt:admin, with a note on wp:cent. And yes, we've known about this for a long time. ansh666 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Found them: Melanie, see here, which lists several discussions, the earliest going back to about 2015, though the current implementation discussions started in late 2017. --Jayron32 18:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

As they say in the Army, there's always someone who doesn't get the word. There always seem to be a LOT of us at Wikipedia that don't get the word; maybe we don't follow the right pages. I'm glad you know about it and took part in the discussions. I still think this is going to come as a surprise to quite a few of us. I'm just doing my bit to decrease that number. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, on behalf of people I probably have no right to speak for, that you didn't get the word. I distinctly remember site-wide watchlist notices, notices at the Village Pumps and at AN about these discussions, etc. Other than knocking on people's doors and hand delivering a candygram, I don't know what else the foundation could have done to publicize this more. --Jayron32 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would love somebody to turn up to MelanieN's house with a candygram, as I'm sure she would too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take one too, if someone's offering. Remember that you only pay toll leaving the island, that's how we get'cha. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (+1) to wot Jayron sed. I do not have much affinity for the foundation's communication styles but in this particular case, they were near-flawless. It was mentioned over AN, (atleast twice), admins who shew interest were updated regularly and there were enough discussions with the broader community, (that led to the shunning of using categories as a block-agent) . I guess many sysops are aware of the changes, irrespective of where they stand and going by the wire frames, it won't be much difficult. ∯WBG^converse 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've participated in this; it's been a while, because I've not seen anything lately, but I know it was advertised a while back. [I just hope they're also redoing the block interface; it's a good deal more unfriendly than before they redid it a year-or-something ago.] I don't like how major changes sometimes get pushed through without warning, but this was well advertised in my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The best way to stay up to date on this stuff is the Administrators' newsletter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

For more general audiences, there is also of course The Signpost, whose current issue's Technology report—specifically the "Future changes" section—briefly mentioned this pending change, too. I say "is" with hesitance, though, given there appears to be no confidence that this month will have an issue due to insufficient staffing and activity. Additionally, there is Tech/News on the Meta Wiki along with various other newsletters and internal news media throughout the projects. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palmer Middle School

Palmer Middle School was deleted a week or so back but was recreated, and has been nominated again. Unfortunately the second nom was more or less tacked onto the back of the first, which is making a mess out of out of the days' AfD page. I was going to try to straighten this out myself, but I'm dubious I can do it right without admin powers; also, it seems fairly likely that it could just be speedied as recreated material and avoid the second AfD entirely. Could some passing admin take a look at it and try to sort it out? Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean 11 years and a week or so back. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe: The first AfD actually took place in 2007, over a decade back and that was the only time the article was deleted. The current mess was caused by Curation Toolbar which has outstanding bug when creating second nomination AfD pages. The simple solution now is to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palmer Middle School (2nd nomination) and move the nomination statement there. Then remove it from the previous AfD page. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorted (no admin magic needed), well apart from checking the old version, but I doubt it'll be G4able due to the age of the Afd meaning that the deleted version is unlikely to be "substantially identical" to the current article. ping Zchrykng to let them know, TW is usually better for Afding things for this reason.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, and sorry for missing the year of the first deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe and Galobtter: Thanks! Still trying to figure out exactly how the curation tools work, assumed it would work more like TW. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it should but it doesn't Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Many reviewers will use TW instead of the toolbar for deletion tasks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not G4able, by the way. It's not notable either, but it's not going anywhere via G4. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for Kingdamian1

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

---

Kingdamian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in disruptive editing after numerous warnings, as can be seen on his user talk page. Kingdamian1 claims to be a productive editor, but much of his mainspace work has resulted in reversion, talk page discussions, and deletion discussions. Being an imperfect newbie is not in itself a good reason to ban someone, but the user has a history of making uncivil, harassing, or otherwise strange comments directed towards other users, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, and this list is not exhaustive. He brings drama from other sites (specifically, Conservapedia and RationalWiki) into Wikipedia. He posted a threat directed at me, which resulted in his initial oversight block, and after begging to be unblocked, he was finally given a second chance (which I adamantly opposed as I believed he needed more time away from the site), and that second chance only led to more disruption, including copyright violations on his user page, a chess game on his user page in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and edit warring. Since his latest block, he has posted three unblock requests, all of which only minimize his own responsibility and, frankly, only serve to disrupt. I propose this site ban because I believe this user it not here to build an encyclopedia and he will just continue to beg to be unblocked until either a sympathetic admin gives him yet another chance (which I believe would be a mistake just like the last time), or he is banned either through a community ban or through ArbCom. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support site ban. My interaction with the user earlier this week made it clear to me that he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Further, per the user's block log, the prior unblock was a final warning, with "the provision that any further disruption will result in the block being reinstated". Despite this second chance, the user has apparently maintained a battleground mentality that is not compatible with constructive editing. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• An involved support; I note that Callanecc has already indeffed this user. I'm not strongly opposed to an unblock that included a TBAN from American Politics, but don't feel that the user has the temperament/maturity to take advantage of that opportunity. I also note that I'm not sure this discussion is necessary; allowing the user's unblock requests to be declined until they take a longer break would have also been enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Immature is an understatement; I have two teenage friends who I would trust with the admin toolset before I would trust this guy with basic editing (and I mean that in a literal sense, not in a personal attack sense). This discussion is needed because last time he successfully begged his way out of his block, this time I think it needs to stick. A ban establishes that he is not welcome here, and it will also put the kabosh on any kind of wikilawyering he may try should he resort to socking like he has on other sites where I have encountered him. I'm glad most people (including you) agree with the ban though. 69.85.242.18 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Oops, forgot to log in (hello from the guest network at PCC). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have asked them to explain in their own words what went wrong and what to do instead. They don't make an intelligible response. It's like they don't understand what I'm asking for.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps someone could offer to copy any responses to this thread as they cannot respond here themselves.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• support site ban unless someone can pull a rabbit out of their hat. Had not seen PCHS-NJROTC's dif's ere now. Clearly not on the same consensual reality as most of the rest of us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per agreement Mariowashere (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Mariowashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What agreement, and who's your original account? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently this is the person trying to get TonyBallioni deopped. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support He is practically already banned at this point after all of the trouble he has caused for the community. funplussmart (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This user has absolutely no understanding of the quality of sources required for the inclusion of contentious material in a biography of a living person. An obviously fictional humor parody does not become a reliable source just because it is published in the Washington Post, but this editor tried to use it anyway. More broadly, their behavior has been problematic for quite some time. I do not care a bit about shenanigans over at Conservapedia or RationalWiki, but it is disruptive to bring those disputes here to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support – this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia, given his battleground mentality and disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I had a look at his contributions. He wades in like a bull in a china shop to some of the most controversial and difficult articles on the encyclopedia like Racial views of Donald Trump and goes bezerk when he doesn't get his own way. I see his latest unblock request asks if we can entertain a topic ban instead; sorry, but I see the edit warring and name calling on just about any topic he's worked on. Has to be a full ban, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Arbcom asked me what I thought when they were considering lifting the previous block, and I told them I supposed a last chance was in order but had no doubt that he’s be blocked again for something eventually, so I’m unsurprised to see this. What I don’t understand is why it is necessary. The user was blocked, they made a bunch of terrible unblock requests which were all declined, talk page access was revoked, it all seeems pretty standard so I don’t know why it was felt necessary to come here at all but if we’re doing this sure, site ban away, this person simply does not seem to “get” Wikipedia editing. 19:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
• I was about to close this as "ban enacted" but I see that Dlohcierekim has restored the user's talk page access for comment here just a couple hours ago. I kind of doubt that anything they can say will really have an impact on this discussion at this point, but we can wait a bit longer for a reply. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Response carried over from user talk

permalink If I've screweed up the formatting let me know.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I knew it was coming. I knew it. I respect Wikipedia, of course. It is a testament to how superior our Western Civilization is compared to all others. But we cannot ignore the ideological bias here. Please, stop gaslighting me. We all know that I am NOT getting blocked because of "disruptive editing" or whatever excuse people want to make up. The ONLY reason I am getting banned is because the articles I tried to edit are controlled by a small number of far-leftist editors. One of these editors literally admits in their userboxes of detesting Donald Trump and hating conservatives... But I am sure this is a simple coincidence. In fact, let's ban my entire country from editing for suggesting that user who admits to despising nationalist conservatives might not be impartial when dealing with conservatives. We all know that 9 out of 10 people voting for me to be banned are Anti-Conservative, and NO, this is not a personal attack. I did not vandalize Wikipedia, I did not use a SINGLE obscene word and have NOT reverted more than 3 times. But it doesn't matter, because we all know why I am getting banned. I do not have much to say. My final request will be, PLEASE, do NOT gaslight me and do not try to pretend that this has nothing to do with ideology. All of us understand the bias against conservatism in some of these articles. Please! Just do what you have to do! Good luck. Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we’re done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine

Good afternoon! The level of my English is very weak, so I apologize for any grammatical errors! The page is on protection, I can not add new information! So please read on the discussion page and contribute this information to the article, it will help to update the data in the article! Thanks for the help!--Murza-Zade (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Murza-Zade: you can use {{Edit extended-protected}} (on that article's talk page) to ask for someone to make the edit for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--Murza-Zade (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Murza-Zade, I had no problem understanding you. Your English seems fine to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for bot-synced geonotices

A proposal to sync geonotices with a bot, which will allow all admins to edit geonotices again, is being discussed. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Standard offer request : Rajeshbieee

Rajeshbieee (talk · contribs) was blocked for having a perceived conflict of interest and sockpuppetry back in February. As six months has passed, and he assures me has not socked since, he has a reasonable case for taking the Standard Offer. I don't know much about him at all, and to be honest his unblock requests don't strike me with much confidence - he has repeatedly said "yes, I will adhere to WP:N and WP:COI from now on" without actually spelling out what exactly he wants to work on. On the other hand, the last couple of articles he created have been retained in mainspace, so it's not like he's a spam-only account or anything. As I don't really have a strong opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked, I thought I would throw it open to the community to decide. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed can we get a CU to look to see if there is any evidence of socking? I think that would be relevant to the discussion as it's part of the block rationale. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave him a heads up that we might want a checkuser, and if it uncovers any socks then the deal is very much off, so good point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

With User:TonyBallioni on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No apparent socking seen by this checkuser.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• They seem to have done some nice work on historical cinema topics; their trouble seems to be promoting their own work and that of people they know. So... maybe unblock with a TBAN on any cinema or music subject after 2000? (just to draw a hard-to-boundary-push line between any remotely promotable stuff and history) Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with this measure as being required to prevent further COI editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Berean Hunter and Jytdog, support unblock with TBAN on entertainment topics post-2000. @Jytdog:, does any of their useful historical work go later than 2000? In other words, if we moved the bar to 2010 would it make a difference to their useful work? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that 2000 is far enough back. Look at this added in 2014, expanded by Rajeshbieee over time to this. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I cleaned up some of that article... Yikes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Important reading - I knew the account name rang an alarm bell in my memory but had to dig a bit to find the source; without commenting on the substance of the appeal, I think anyone considering it should read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gantlet/Archive. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: Wasn't there a specific reason why he was unblocked to begin with? I feel like there was some exception made in his case, otherwise, why wouldn't we have unblocked Gantlet, or Rajeshbiee (two Bs)? I note some of the discussion here, where Bbb23 and Tokyogirl79 had some input. I don't exactly recall the details of this case and don't have tons of time to look right now, but I feel like there was more to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• I was one of those who had declined his unblock request during his earlier block and I'll make these points: He shouldn't be uploading any images, and it was one of the conditions I suggested that Tokyogirl impose when she unblocked him; Similar to Jytdog's position, I think a timeline on preventing creations on films is needed, I'd likely go for some time between 2000 and 2010; in addition, I think he has to be prevented from writing any biographical articles as most subjects are people he has had marginal interactions with. Also, regarding the SPI above, I don't think Rajeshbieee is linked to that sock farm which was more of a paid COI farm while Rajeshbieee is more of a fanboy with problematic editing. —SpacemanSpiff 04:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For reference, some old discussions on his prior unblock. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

HEY. ADMINS.

Sorry y'all, but how did this happen? And happen for so long? I have an excuse: Alabama was playing and I was dragged to arbitration. Seriously, this is crazy. How did no one (including me...) see this? Drmies (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, I think you have to go all the way back to this edit of August 29 by 2600:8802:6500:3E0:D4A:7A61:19DB:D2C0 (talk · contribs) to see where this started. If I missed any earlier BLP violations then my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 23:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering why Airplaneman, who had protected the page two weeks earlier because of this exact same vandalism, came back and reverted the same vandalism again but did not do anything else, like re-protecting the page or blocking the vandal. It took General Ization posting at AIV, posting at RFPP, and then going straight to Drmies to get any action on this. We admins seem to have failed pretty thoroughly at defending BLP here. I agree with Drmies' advice: if you see it again, go straight to ANI and all-caps-scream about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also: I'm not suggesting Airplaneman did anything wrong; admins are not required to push the buttons. I'm just curious. I see this as a systemic failure, not any one user's problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, thanks for the ping, Ivanvector. This is the reversion of mine Ivanvector is referring to. My thought process at the time was that this was one-off vandalism 5 days after protection had ended and that it did not establish a pattern to motivate protecting the page again. Looking back, I'm not sure why I did not REVDEL the edit. A lapse in judgement on my part. Airplaneman ✈ 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Shit happens--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• All of you should go sit in a corner and reflect on what you've done. Or better yet, accept the blame without too much self-recrimination and go on improving the project. Shit does, indeed, happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Well, since I love analyzing things so much, Airplaneman and GI issued the standard 1→4 warnings, and GI reported to RfPP once the final warning was breached. RfPP can have 12-24 hour+ backlog sometimes, so you're not going to get immediate action there. They didn't report to AIV for around another half hour. So that's where the first half hour went. The subsequent half hour before they went to Drmies was just a fairly typical AIV wait time. AIV can have a wait time sometimes. It's not always instantaneous. If it's a severe case that needs to be actioned urgently and isn't, a note on AN/I would be appropriate (simple requests at AN/I often have no delay whatsoever). Nobody individually or collectively "failed" here, it was just one very persistent vandal who managed to cause a lot of disruption in a short amount of time before they were blocked. But, we're talking about 40 minutes at AIV. That's not all that unusual. The discussion shouldn't be what went wrong and who's to blame, we should just take this as a lesson that more eyes on AIV are needed. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

In emergency cases like this, getting to ANI and/or pinging individual active admins is probably the most efficient course of action. And it is sometimes a good idea to indicate the degree of urgency when one files a RFPP nomination. (Well, sure, everybody thinks RFPP is only for urgent matter, but three vandal edits in three days is not the same as ten vandal edits in one hour).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that I meant to say "accept the responsibility," not "accept the blame," above. I agree with Drmies opening a section here to get attention on it. I also agree that if everybody had been on the ball, it wouldn't have happened. But I would have to disagree if anyone said that there's no excuse for everybody not being on the ball 24/7 because we're not robots. Yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Small request

Hi, this is not related to enwiki but it would be a great favor if some (or more?) admin from here with experience in !voting can help with his opinion: There is a hung jury in elwiki. There are 8 proposals (πρόταση=proposal) and votes are clear with their icon (Υπέρ=support, Κατά=Oppose). Which do you think is the prevailing proposal in this revision? - geraki ^(talk) 11:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It might be a better idea to post this on Meta Wiki and see if you can coax a Stewart to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Patrick, Kristen, or Jon? Fish+Karate 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Block request

Hello everyone. I would like to take an extended break from Wikipedia, as I have been discouraged and disengaged over the past several months. I would like to have a block placed on my account for an indefinite period to avoid any temptation of returning. Thank you in advance! I would greatly appreciate it. I am pinging @Xaosflux: as he answered the same request from me in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Create a new password for your account by mashing the keyboard. That should do. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Roxy the dog: Good idea! I am not sure why I did not think of that lol. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: If you like, I could block the account so you could return in the future. GAB^gab 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If you follow Roxy's suggestions, make sure you have a valid email first, in case you wish to reset the password and return. ansh666 17:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the prompt responses. I will just change my password and stay away voluntarily. I have been a part of Wikipedia since the start of 2016 so I think it is time for me to move on. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hey all, there are duplicate articles at Dwarkadheesh – Bhagwaan Shree Krishn and Dwarkadheesh Bhagwaan Shree Krishn. The latter seems to be the oldest. They appear to both have the same, or basically the same content, almost verbatim, so no real merge is required. What's the best thing to do here? Is this histmerge territory? That's a bit out of my knowledge zone, so any ideas on how to deal with this would be appreciated, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like one of the articles was copy-pasted to the other without proper attribution. No, we cannot histmerge here per WP:Parallel histories. Someone should make an attribution in whichever ends up the merge target and the other merged and redirected. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Izno Thanks, I'll take care of it. Just need to ask someone more familiar what they think the best article title is. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford

Just a suggestion, but you might want to keep your eye on Christine Blasey Ford during this week. Will be deeply in the news in a way that makes it prone for conflict.Casprings (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It's extended-confirmed protected until 18 October, so hopefully there won't be too much disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There is some pretty silly stuff going on over at her high school too. Holton-Arms School. It's semi protected, but there's non constructive foruming going on from an IP at the talk and I expect it will all start up again once protection lifts later this week. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Brett Kavanaugh is also worth watching (and my request for ECP there was declined). This whole area is likely to be worse than WP:ARBAPDS normally is for the next week, admins be warned: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  What's the circle of Hell for POV-pushers, edit warrers and BLP violators? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Of course, this entire suite of Kavanaugh related articles are subject to high levels of disruptive editing right now. That is why we have various levels of protection. Once the controversy is settled, one way or another, the politically motivated edits will recede, and the actual encyclopedists among us will clean up all these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fucking hell. Why do people feel the need to write "biographies" about people in the news? Half of this article is about the Kavanaugh nomination and of course the article was only started this week. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Because if they don't the appeals to lack of critical thinking that are at the heart of the manipulation of American Politics do not work. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Because the article clearly meets WP:N and I wanted to. Do you not want an encyclopedia that is up to date? Moreover, the article seems both useful in WP:10YT and a lot easier to "clean up" then starting from nothing.Casprings (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on proposed deletion policy

For anyone who's interested, I have opened a request for comments on some recent changes and proposed changes to the WP:PROD policy. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Proposed deletion policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with history-merging

• See Category:Candidates for history merging. At 22:10, 23 September 2018 I did a batch of 8 Gaelic football-related history merges which someone dropped on me. Now someone has dropped 18 more on me. Help would be appreciated. 16:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)

Um. There seem to be some WP:PARALLELHISTORIES issues with these drafts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89 you know that if you become an admin you'll be able to do these by yourself :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Galobtter: Examining the first 4 shows that the first 3 (2015 Galway Senior Football Championship, 2015 Longford Senior Football Championship, 2015 Monaghan Senior Football Championship) shows that for each :: most of the edits are in the draft; User:Nobberclog10 (and see User talk:Nobberclog10 and Special:Contributions/Nobberclog10) cut-and-blanked-and-pasted it to mainspace, where 2 or 3 or so more edits were made; and User:SQL reverted the draft to text, where 2 more edits were made. The 4th (2016 Armagh Senior Football Championship) was a plain copy-and-paste. In all 4 cases the result was a history-fork. The question is: to histmerge, or to plain move the draft to mainspace? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  I think either is fine. I don't think there are significant changes from the drafts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• There are 21 of them now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Done. More importantly, is there a reason not to block Nobberclog as a straightforward CIR case? (Swarm ♠ talk) 08:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: I would support a block. Multiple warnings for disruption and nary an edit outside of draft or mainspace to respond to those warnings and concerns. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Thanks. (To readers: see WP:CIR.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks Swarm and Anthony. Support blocking indefinately for not cummunicating and Boleyn's reasoning in the previous ANI since NeilN's block didn't resolve the issue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User blocked indef. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Unusual request: reblock a role-account

Hey'all! This is gonna be a bit of a weird one, but would any admin be willing to reblock Newname? It means you'll get an echo notification everytime a malformed request is posted on WP:CHUU and I won't anymore. Your sacrifice will surely lead to golden karma or something. ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternativaly if someone has time and motivation to fix the CHU/U system not to link to the roleaccount so AnomieBot stops pinging the roleaccount's blocking admin, I'm sure that'd be a net improvement anyways :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Send an instant karma to me, initial it with loving caaaaaare Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I was looking through the terribly designed {{Usurp}} template system (really? are 5 templates needed to handle it?) to see if I could make it not link to Newname, but then I realized that one could just unblock the account, which was fine not being blocked until Salv blocked it in 2014; alternatively AnomieBOT could smartly clerk such requests by explaining to the user that their request is malformed and that they need to specify a target username. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, both fixing the template or the Bot would solve the underlying cause of the issue but either require more than a few clicks so the simpler solution to reassign the symptom to a willing volunteer seemed more approachable. I agree that in theory the account doesn't need to be blocked but our policy/precedent is that role/test accounts are blocked and that's what I enforced in 2014 (I seem to recall there was some discussion about non-blocked roleaccounts and the outcome was to block them). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't you just go into Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and mute notifications from AnomieBot? Fish+Karate 09:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize you could mute notifs from specific users and now I feel like a right proper idiot. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Writ Keeper just in case that's news to them, too.

Omar Kadar

Hello,

Omar Kadar is listed as a Canadian Solider. He (Redacted)

Can we please fix this incorrect information.

Best,

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:F44E:D5CC:400E:DD6F:AB1D:2AAA (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For anyone interested in responding, this refers to Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen infamously detained in Guantanamo Bay from age 16. I find nowhere in the article where he is described as a "Canadian soldier", and the two uses of the wording "child soldier" are cited directly as opinions and not as general statements of fact. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Omar Khadr#Ohar Khadr wrongly labeled Canadian soldier, this is probably referring to the same thing. The description has since been removed from the Knowledge Graph in the search results. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A user came into en-help on IRC with this complaint. The Google Knowledge panel does list him as a Canadian soldier. I recommend the user contact Google using their feedback button and made clear that was not Wikipedia content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We get questions of this sort regularly at en-help, because they assume that Google's Knowledge Graph updates at the same time as edits to the Wikipedia article are made. My usual responce to them is to wait it out, since Google takes time to update stuff that's been cached and the Wikipedia page itself has almost always already been edited to correct it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Vaibhav Global

Vaibhav Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created back in October 2015 by Gauravsinghgehlot who was subsequently indef'd for WP:SOCK per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vkdutta4u. I stumbled across it because someone was using the infobox logo in User:Mcseladana/sandbox which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Anyway, the article was self-assessd by Gauravsinghgehlot as "B" class with "mid" importance. In principle, it seems wrong to self-assess articles you create, but I realize these assessments are not such a big deal. My concern though is whether the article itself should be kept at all per WP:EVADE and WP:G5. The primary contributor appears to be Gauravsinghgehlot and some IPs. Others have edited the article, but this seems to be for mainly maintenance purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The community seems to think that G5 should not apply to articles created before the spammer's first account is blocked. If you can link this to an account blocked prior to article creation then G5 would apply, otherwise it's PROD or AfD. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that would be the current consensus, if is obviously the same individual. I think some admins have used G5 in this situation, so we may want to revisit this. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

G5 would be advised; they recreated the AfD'ed Shop LC (their American teleshopping channel) under its former Liquidation Channel name which had been previously speedied under the account HarjinderSB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) two years ago; thankfully I got it early and watchlisted it to keep it from turning into an ad. I figured they wouldn't give up easily. The info in the VG article is easily confined to (and already in) the Shop LC and The Jewellery Channel articles. As-is, the article is basically their financials and a bunch of glow quotes, which when removed hollows out the body considerably. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Request to close

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Breitbart
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Occupy Democrats

Both have been open for three weeks and are attracting few new !votes. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Both closed. Fish+Karate 10:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate:, thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible conflict of wording on two different policy and guideline pages that may need fixing?

Hi everyone! While assisting someone who asked for instructions regarding how one would inquire or appeal a CheckUser block, I became aware that there are two Wikipedia pages that potentially provide two different instructions as to how to do this. If editors here agree that this is indeed the case, the instructions between the two pages should be fixed or clarified in order to consistently provide the same (and correct) instructions. This may resolve potential confusion by editors and lower the amount of incorrect steps that are taken in order to do this.

When providing assistance, I initially told the user that CheckUser blocks must be appealed by contacting the Arbitration Committee - this is what I've known to be correct and have told others for some time when asked this question. However, I became aware that Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states that if you are concerned that a checkuser block has been made in error, you should refer the block promptly to the functionaries team, who will carefully review the checkuser evidence. Checkuser blocks may subsequently be appealed, as a matter of last resort, to the Arbitration Committee. Bearing this in mind, if you now refer to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Checkuser and Oversight blocks, it states (in bold letters) that ...in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. It of course says immediately afterwards that Administrators who believe there's an issue with a CU block should try to talk to the CheckUser who applied it first (as we all know), then it concludes the sentence with if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, [the administrator] should email the committee.

Is there a conflict with the wording on these two pages regarding what users should do and who they should contact in order to address or appeal CU blocks? One page reads to me (putting myself in the shoes as a new, novice, or even maybe an average user) to state that the first point of contact for users to appeal or express concerns with a CU block is the functionaries team (which then states that "as a last resort", ArbCom can be subsequently contacted), while the other states that it's the Arbitration Committee. Do you believe that the information may be unclear and could or should be improved to be more clear? Or... are the instructions provided between these two pages referring to "concerns" and "appeals" as two entirely separate things (which I agree - a "concern" and an actual "block appeal" mean two completely different things to me) and hence two entirely different processes and instructions exist for each avenue to be pursued? If anything, these pages might be unclear when it comes to editors and IPs, CheckUser blocks, and how to correctly contact the right people regarding them. What are your thoughts? Comments, input, feedback, or information I may have missed would be greatly appreciated. I just want to share what I found in order to address and fix any potential problems or conflicts (if such exist), and make sure that the Wikipedia pages we use to address policies and point users to are consistent and correct. Thanks everyone :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think clearly the guide (which is a supplement) needs to be updated in accord with the guideline/policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izno (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really see this as that big a deal or necessarily contradictory. If someone has been CU blocked on-wiki they make an appeal, and often another admin will ping a 2nd CU to confirm the findings. At that point, both agree with the block, ArbCom is the best avenue of appeal. They can consult the functionaries team if they want or review it themselves. This is also what the blocking policy would have us do: ArbCom handles appeals from CU blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your statement here regarding CU block appeals and who to contact... that's what I've always understood as the proper process. The reason I started this discussion was regarding how the two pages word this process and information; I think it would make more sense if this is explained on both pages and in a more clear manner, and I wanted to see how others feel and if they agree here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I pretty much agree that the instructions should make an effort to be consistent, but I don't think this is really too big a deal. Arbitrators are themselves functionaries, so contacting either group gets you in touch with the people who you should be in touch with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gee, with the exception of one editor, all who have commented here are candidates for CU. Based on the comments, I think administrators need more guidance on how to handle unblock requests from CU-blocked users than the users.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Speaking as a long-term member of the functionaries team, unblocking isn’t really what we do, but we do provide support and commentary to the committee. If we receive such a request, often one or two team members will review the block and comment on what they saw, but that’s about it. There’s no harm in sending us such a request for our feedback but normally the decision to actually unblock or not sits with the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible doxing attempt at Han Chinese

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

---

It looks like an IP editor tried to dox somebody on [REDACTED - Oshwah] - it might be wise to suppress some edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223, I don't generally get myself involved at dramaboards, but, if you think something should be suppressed, please make a private request over at WP:Oversight; this type of thing—if I infer Wikipedia policies and guidelines correctly—may lead to further unwarranted attention and will defeat the whole point of requesting oversight. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be doxxing or outing of someone's personal information, nothing that would rise to the level of needing suppression... it just looks like typical vandalism to me. Regardless, Simonm223 - if you suspect doxxing or outing of any kind, please do not add or post any diffs, links, urls, descriptions, details, or locations to such information to pages or noticeboards on Wikipedia. These are public places, and doing so increases the attention that's drawn to it as well as the number of people who will view the potentially sensitive information. You need to contact the Oversight team privately with this information so that it can be looked into and handled properly. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was trying to do the right thing here, sorry if I made a hash of it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 - No worries; I got you covered and no harm was done. Nobody is perfect and everyone messes up; it's a normal part of learning and growing here and nobody will hold good faith mistakes against you. If it makes you feel better, I make mistakes all the damn time and (if I recall correctly) I first learned about oversight and suppression and where to report outting and doxxing many years ago by doing the same thing ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Chuck Grassley

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

---

Chuck Grassley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple editors are violating Wikipedia rules by posting information from biased sources without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.178.144 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This is also being discussed at WP:AN3#User:24.243.178.144 reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: ), so perhaps this thread should be closed and things resolved there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

CU/OS activity standards motion proposed: Community comments invited

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion to amend the standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity. The proposed change is given below:

Original: Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; or holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

and:

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

• Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
• Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
• Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Replaced with:

Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the Checkuser or Oversight OTRS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to Checkuser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

and:

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

• Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
• Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
• Reply within seven days to email communications from the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Community comments on the change are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: CU/OS activity standards

IAdmin access request for Ritchie333

A request for Interface administrator access under the stop-gap process for User:Ritchie333 is currently open at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#IAdmin_temporary_access_request_for_User:Pharos. Community commentary on the request is welcome at that page. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)