Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306

WP:OWN violations and related behavior by User:SanAnMan

Hello. This is a continuation of a discussion that was archived before other editors and admins could weigh in. That discussion was begun as a complaint against me by User:SanAnMan. Later incorporated into it was a discussion that had originally begun on at Talk:Unfulfilled, but which was moved here by User:Softlavender. SanAnMan presented what he contended was evidence of inappropriate behavior on my part. I then presented evidence of SanAnMan's violations of WP:OWN, disruptive editing, including attempts to bully editors away from editing South Park episode articles, including outright deceptive statements on his part, which included fabricating non-existent consensuses that he falsely claimed I participated in, but because it was not sufficiently summarized (having been called a "wall of text"), I was asked to further summarize it. SanAnMan nonetheless offered a rebuttal, though he did not falsify, nor even address the evidence I presented of his behavior. What follows is a condensed version of the evidence of his behavior. I apologize if it's still longer than you would prefer; Illustrating patterns of behavior requires not only multiple examples, but some elaboration.

• SanAnMan frequently makes arbitrary changes to episode synopses, often without explaining how his versions are improvements, even when doing so creates grammatical errors. This is distinct from his perfectly legitimate fixing of my typos, repetitions of phrases, etc. which I genuinely appreciate.

For example, he once removed a series of commas from a passage I wrote, including an Oxford comma. [1] While use of Oxford commas is a question of personal choice, he did not write that passage, but again wishes to impose his personal preference upon articles in a unilateral manner. When he subsequently did this again, he attempted to justify this [2] by falsely citing MOS:COMMA. In fact, MOS:COMMA does not call for the removal of Oxford commas, but says they may be used if used consistently. Nothing in the article exhibited inconsistency. SanAnMan argued, “But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article.” There was no discussion or consensus on this.

He even removed non-Oxford commas from passages, despite the clear presence of pauses in speech in between the clauses of fragments of sentences. [3] [4] [5]

He removed ratings info from an episode article, something that is common in television articles when source info is available for it, but he claims that it “never” goes in an episode article, again without presenting any guideline, MOS or consensus: [6]

He’ll remove details from the synopses I write as being supposedly irrelevant, but insists on including those he prefers, even when they are trivia. He removed the name of a character because it’s “irrelevant”, even though the character’s interaction with a main character drove a plot point. [7] In another article, he removes the name of a character, Colin Brooks, whose death was the inciting incident of the plot, even though he left in a latter reference to “Brooks’ death” in the same synopsis. [8] Yet despite this, after I did a major fix to two paragraphs in another article featuring childhood vaping, including removing an incorrect claim about a minor detail [9], SanAnMan restored the mention of the detail even though it was trivial. [10]

In another instance, SanAnMan split hairs over a description of a character being a reference to a Star Trek alien, removing reference to this on account of a detail on the back of the character’s head [11], as if that detail somehow meant that the nature of the parody was not generally true, even though it was one of the major points of parody in the episode.

SanAnMan either does not understand or misrepresents the purpose of the Lead. The Lead (and for that matter the Infobox) are features of articles that summarize the article’s most salient points, which by definition, means that they repeat information found in the article body. He cited WP:OVERLINK as his rationale for this [12], when WP:OVERLINK says nothing about details in the Lead. When he removed the information again, he stated, “WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details.” Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. No MOS guideline says otherwise, and SanAnMan did not link to any that do.

• SanAnMan blanked the article for the South Park episode “Unfulfilled” (reverting it to a redirect) on an episode of South Park an hour and a half before it premiered, under the rationale that it had not yet aired, an inane rationale, given not only the time element, but the established practices of creating such articles prior to episode premieres, by various editors including himself ([13], [14], [15]) and the presence of articles on future films, novels, Olympics, elections, and other events throughout Wikipedia.

SanAnMan attempted to cite WP:DELAY for this, when that guideline is for subjects whose notability is in doubt. WP:CRYSTAL also corroborates this.

He also attempted to falsely claim that there was an “agreement” among the editors of those articles not to create such articles on the basis of press releases early in the season. Putting aside the fact that WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB do not restrict the citation of primary sources in an article as long as the article is not primarily supported by them; the fact that secondary cite-supported information on critical reception is always added to South Park episode articles within a day or two of the episode’s airing and the publication of critics’ reviews; and the fact that Wikipedia’s leans toward inclusion, and the practice of giving editors time to find sources before deleting articles, There was in fact no such “agreement” or discussion, as seen on all the relevant talk pages. When it was requested that he provide links to these discussions, he then attempted to claim that this “agreement” took place in the edit summaries, which is both absurd, and untrue, since no edit summaries show this. He even falsely claimed that I, of all people, was a part of this “process” he described. (I was not.) In addition, his claim is falsified by the continued practices of creating such articles on the most recent episodes, including the one that aired the week before the one in question, which he had not opposed. Presumably because he realized that he was caught in the middle of his lie, he abandoned it, because the following week, when I created the prelim article for that week’s episode ahead of its premiere, he offered no opposition, which he would not have done if he genuinely believed there had been a consensus, or “agreement,” among the editors to cease this practice.

• SanAnMan has reverted against two different editors ([16], [17], [18]), which is considered edit warring, and may be considered a blockable offense. In so doing, SanAnMan self-servingly declares that WP:OWN and 3RR violations are established on my part, but exempts himself from that assessment, even though he persistently reverted the article himself.

• SanAnMan presumes the authority to give “sole warnings” to me, when he is not an admin, and has no authority “sole warnings” to anyone, another presumption of unilateral authority that he does not have. Note also that when I point out what has happened in the past with serial policy violator and manipulators who tried to game the system like Asgardian—a perfectly legitimate warning—then all of a sudden, SanAnMan says, it’s “threat.” SanAnMan can issue sole “warnings”. But when I issue a valid warning based on my prior experience with similar editors, it’s a “threat” that is tantamount to in SanAnMan’s words, saying “I am going to get you blocked or banned,” (even though I don’t have the power to get anyone blocked or banned unless I have evidence of violations that warrant it), and a “personal attack.”

• When SanAnMan first began this discussion here December 9, he said of me, “He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing…” In fact, I never said that “any” edit SanAnMan makes exhibits such qualities, and the diff shows it. I have always distinguished between the solid edits he makes, and those presented here that are problematic.

• SanAnMan claimed here during the now-archived portion of this discussion that when he is told that his criticized for poor writing, or when he is told that his edits do not conform to Wikipedia policies, that this constitutes “bullying.” It does not. To argue that criticism, or pointing out when an editor is violating policy constitutes a “threat” or “intimidation” would mean that every time we address policy violations on Wikipedia, we are “bullying” the person doing so, which is ridiculous. WP:AAEW, which SanAnMan cites repeatedly, is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and its claims that pointing out policy violations is not a valid argument is obviously false. SanAnMan himself has no problem accusing other editors of violating policies, as indicated when he accused another editor of this in an ANI discussion just a few months ago [19].

CORRECTION: SanAnMan pointed out in this post that I denied reverting a wikilink, even though I did. In fact, I did revert the wikilink, but was under the impression that I had not done so when I denied doing this. I see now that I did revert it, and apologize for that error. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

In the archived discussion referenced above, admin User:Swarm specifically stated "we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point." He also stated that "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable" and "all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison." If the admins request that I refute this point-by-point I will, but until otherwise, I will wait. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

Both of these editors should be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing on the noticeboards and exhausting the patience of the community, the block duration to be determined by each editors' block history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Having just dealt with a editor/troll and stalker yesterday, my patience and mercy is at an all time low. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Here are the two users' block logs:
  • (change visibility) 18:30, 29 November 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment--see block log, specifically the block of 25 June 2011) (unblock | change block)
  • *(change visibility) 14:45, 20 June 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs | block) blocked SanAnMan (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block)
  • *(change visibility) 17:32, 6 December 2013 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Jessica Nigri) (unblock | change block)
  • *(change visibility) 10:45, 24 June 2011 Ironholds (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: you should know better) (unblock | change block)
  • (change visibility) 01:25, 18 July 2005 Khaosworks (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nightscream (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (3RR violation) (unblock | change block)
• An asterisk at the beginning of a line indicates that the block was removed before it expired. They actually have seven blocks between them, but I'm only showing those that matter: Nightscream was once unblocked by the blocking admin with a rationale that basically says "the edits that prompted the block were actually okay", and SanAnMan's first block was a case of {{User accidentally blocked}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• That their block logs are minimal doesn't surprise me - it's rare for admins to block on the basis of vexatious or tendentious reporting on the noticeboards, which is the loci of their disruption. Doesn't really matter as my proposal is obviously not gaining much traction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion; I'm not trying to say that they're too minimal to warrant further sanctions. Just wanted to provide data for your proposal. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "tendentious" about providing the copious evidence of an editor's behavior. It's simply that the "community" here just doesn't want to read it, their "patience" apparently too thin for anything that is longer than a soundbite or slogan. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you said something very similar to that on ANI when you provided even more text and chided the community in advance because you assumed (correctly) that it wasn't going to read it -- it's another part of your disruptive behavior. People don't get paid here, you know, given the choice between wading through your interminable prose (or that of SanAnMan, who's almost as bad), which would take quite a long time and involve a great deal of cross-checking and other research, or doing something that could help the encyclopedia or the project with immediate results, it's not at all surprising that they choose the latter.

Recall that saying that "Insanity is doing the exact same thing again and again and expecting different results"? Well, that's pretty much where you are: you could take the time and effort to boil down your concerns to an easily palatable meal which people could take in and digest, but instead you continue to serve up unappetizing 20-course feasts which no one wants to bother even getting started on. I believe Swarm said basically the same thing on that ANI complaint, and neither of you were able to comply -- nor do I think wither of you will ever be able to comply. That's why I proposed this block, which, unfortunately, is not going to happen.

Perhaps I should have suggested a topic ban from Wikipedia space, or from the noticeboards, or an IBan between the two of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Request: I would withdraw this proposal if another editor hadn't voted to support it - my understanding is that I can't because of that. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to close it due to lack of traction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Alternative suggestion

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe just archive the thread without further action. All has been said above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That may have to be. I did read through the sections above and previously read the older thread. There definitely are behavioral issues to be considered, but I for one do not know the best way to handle them. The thing I would want to look at is, are there similar interactions with other editors, or is this isolated? If this behavior occurs with other users, then I would be more concerned about an overall problem requiring some sort of admin intervention, but if it is just how two people interact with each other, then that may be all it is. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Then why not start there, with an IBan between the two of them?Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• The last thread was not archived before anyone "could" respond, it was archived because no one wanted to waste their time on the massive walls of text they were bludgeoning each other with, which I warned them against doing. I'm not offended by seeing another wall of text, but I am astounded by the lack of clue displayed by Nightscream in thinking that another massive wall of text was going to improve the situation. Smh.  Swarm  {talk}  03:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not a massive wall of text, except for those too lazy to read it, and whose apathy on such matters is precisely the huge crack in the system that historically, manipulators have exploited to game the system here on Wikipedia. User:Asgardian is one. User:AlanSohn is another.And now we have SanAnMan. The guy blanked another editor's article, then fabricated a consensus that never took place, even claiming that I agreed with him on this, and then, after he was caught in the middle of that lie, skulked away from it, and naturally, the revolving door here in ANI doesn't care because, "Oh, it isn't ongoing behavior." Like he has to do this multiple times a day on a daily basis in order for you decide that it needs to be addressed. The text above is the evidence presented for SanAnMan's pattern of behavior, and was greatly reduced in length from my previous presentation. It cannot be conveyed with non-annotated diffs alone. If I'm wrong, then by all means: Tell me what specific part or parts of it you would remove? Feel free to use the sandbox if you want. And if you can't answer this because you haven't read it, well then, how do you know that the essential information can be conveyed with diffs alone? Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you find it an effective strategy to insult the people you are asking to take action? Does that often work for you? When you call the cops because your neighbor's party is too loud, do you call the responding officers names and accuse them of being lazy and apathetic? Do you find that gets better results? And when they come, do you give the cops the history of every conflict you've had with that neighbor, from the time they moved into the neighborhood, instead of just telling them that the party is too loud and is annoying you?

Are you getting the point I'm trying to make? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you find it an effective strategy to label legitimate criticism with the spin-doctored term "insults" in order to evade giving actual consideration to the criticism because you lack the character to do so?

Funny you should ask. When I've called the cops to complain about the neighbors' noise, the cops did something truly astonishing.

THEY DID THEIR JOB. Are you getting that point? Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, an editor blanked a page, fabricated a consensus that did not exist, even falsely name-dropping other parties to this "agreement", and has not falsified all the evidence that clearly shows that this was an attempt a OWN-type behavior, or even addressed that evidence, and has also exhibited other examples that go to this pattern, but you and the others here have refused to respond to it. You know what that does? It sends the message to people like that that they can get away with that behavior until it reaches such a critical mass that one has to go through the task of ArbComa before they face consequences for it. And what's your excuse? "Oh, it's too long to read! Can you put it in the form of a soundbite or a tweet?. The problem is not "insults." The problem is that ANI is a paper tiger filled with people who have historically refused to address problems like this in an appropriate manner. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, even this ANI is getting nasty. Maybe a cooling off for the parties is needed. The blanking does sound egregious and probably deserves a closer looking at. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I read your massive wall of text, again, and you're literally just re-reporting the same thing. And these issues are exceptionally petty, and they have already been assessed to be unactionable by an administrator (me). You're not going to get better results beating the dead horse a month later. Even if you had a convincing case originally (which you didn't), the issue is stale now. When most people get into disputes, they seek out dispute resolution via community consensuses. If you want improved results, follow WP:BRD, seek third opinions, form local consensuses on the talk page, use content noticeboards when possible, and if all else fails, use RFCs liberally to form binding community decisions, even host them at a village pump or relevant Wikiproject to reach generalized decisions on things like comma usage or when a TV episode should be created, assuming there is no clear policy or consensus on these things already. If this comes back here, you're likely going to get an interaction ban and nothing else.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting undo of renaming of followed Article: 2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

FYI: Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

This article has been discussed and concluded to move and rename, to retain neutrality of article, from 'Korean Navy radar lock-on incident' to '2018 Japanese-Korean naval dispute', as user's consensus. But, afterwhile, someone moved and renamed the article arbitrarily, without any notice in the discussion page. I think this is unaccepted action, violating rules and ignoring user's consensus.

Hence, I requesting Undo renaming of the article suggested on the subject. Thanks. Funny365com (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This was done by Phoenix7777 who you forgot to notify. I'll go do so. The move was done under the grounds of WP:PRECISE. I don't see any abuse there, but other admins are free to disagree. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed at all. You requested a move, and someone moved it for you, not because a consensus was formed, but because it was uncontroversial. There is no consensus to speak of. Now it has been moved back, which is acceptable per WP:BRD. You can discuss further on the talk page if you disagree.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that I blocked Funny365com with a soft block as per WP:USERNAME. I expect they'll pick a new username and continue the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Yamla: I think you seem to have misunderstood something. User Funny365com's account name is not companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups name. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Yamla: Their home wiki is kowiki with over 200 contributions. Username violation or not, account creation should not be disabled, since I doubt they wish to rename globally. If this is a username violation, they probably will want to create a new account to contribute on enwiki. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

indefinite (account creation blocked) - it looks like some gremlin has converted a soft block into a hard block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding username, by the grandfather clause, this is the relevant version of the username policy. This is identical to current wording. Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page. Since the domain does not seem to have been registered at the time, nor is registered now, I don't think this is a good block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have converted it to a soft block. Making it a hard block was unintentional. Any admin is free to lift the block if they wish. At various times throughout the life of the account, funny365.com has been active and serving sponsored listings. As such, I believe it fails the "commercial web page" part of WP:USERNAME. funny365.com is not currently active, though, so if an admin believes my block should be overturned on that basis, please just do so. No need to further consult me. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on that and also that per WP:UPOL "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my name from funny365com to Bluepolarbear247. Thanks for noticing name rules to me. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like I misunderstood how wikipedia discussion system works. So, it's not consensus, and someone just move article for me, right? And I should discuss again to change its name. but Is it good to any wikipedia user change an name of article, without discussion, eventhough there was previous discussion related on renaming? (Anyway, I'll continue discussion about renaming in article above) - Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to have been some confusion over what happened here. Funny365com/Bluepolarbear247 never requested a move that happened without discussion. Actually they started a RM (didn't check if it was done completely properly). After 22 hours and 2 people supporting the proposal (including the initiator/Funny365com) and 2 other commentators who express no clear opinion, the move was actioned by a third party who had already been involved in the article [20] [21] [22] [23]. The page was then moved to a different title [24] with the reason given as WP:PRECISE. The new title was not the same as the original title, instead it had elements of both the old title and new one i.e. was a partial revert. IMO, the actions here are reasonable. The first move was almost a bold move, since there was only 20 hours allowed for discussion and only 2 or 3 (if the mover was also expressing their support) in support so could have been reverted as with all BOLD moves. Since Phoenix7777 I guess doesn't disagree with one element of the move, they only partly reverted. The new discussion can decide whether the current title or the original proposal are better, and both editors who expressed an opinion have already done so in the new discussion so it doesn't matter much whether it would have been better to reopen the older discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Softblock and a ticked box

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T213229

Example: [25]

I thought softerblock had "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (or just all boxes) unticked. This tick seems unchangeable. Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It may have been that Dlohcierekim ticked that box accidentally, or did it intentionally but didn't realize the block summary said "soft block". If that wasn't it, it may be a regression bug. I say this only because there has been a lot of code changes to how blocks work lately. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Err, actually I think that option isn't supposed to be there at all when blocking accounts, only IPs. So, probably a bug. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea is to block the problem account and allow account creation. TWINKLE did the box box-checking for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It won't let me change the block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, yes it is MediaWiki going insane. A fix will go out soon. Dlohcierekim made no error. It appears to be entirely a UI problem, too. It is not a hard-block, even though it may look like it when going to re-block. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) taken over in the Lightbreather case is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

Chiquibul Forest Reserve / The Chiquibul Forest Reserve

I don't have time to look into this much, but I believe a histmerge of some kind is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, a history merge would be a bad idea, since the histories overlap completely. Simply redirecting one to the other would work perfectly well, since they're virtually identical; if you replaced the current contents of Chiquibul with the current contents of The Chiquibul, you'd get these changes. I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Global ban discussion

Per the requirements, notice is given that a discussion concerning globally banning Til Eulenspiegel from all WMF projects is now taking place on Meta. This discussion can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel. Nick (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mailing lists - wikiEN-l shutdown and archive

At one time, this mailing list was an important policy discussion and decision-making venue. It has not seen more than a handful of forwarded posts in the last few years, and no significant discussion for the last ten, but its archives are an important historical record that include, among other things, early requests for adminship. I think we should formally close the mailing list to new posts, so that the archive will be static and fixed, and can be more readily preserved.

If there is a reason to keep the list open to new posts, we should identify some new list administrators, since most of the current list administrators are not presently active participants in the project. UninvitedCompany 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing a shutdown, or are you merely asking that people sign up to be list admins? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested eyes at some AfD weirdness

Would someone mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model (pinging nominator, Anthony Appleyard)? I asked AA, but didn't understand the response – he said he deleted it, but the page log doesn't show it being deleted yet). There was maybe some sort of COPYVIO question, but wouldn't that be more appropriate through CSD, where it was originally, or at least removal of offending text? The claimed source isn't accessible for me right now, so I can't even check on that much. In any case, there doesn't seem to be an actual AfD rationale there, so there's nothing to discuss. Apologies in advance if I shouldn't be bringing this here (the notice says specific help requests should go to ANI, but ANI says it's for urgent problems, and this doesn't seem urgent, so I dunno), but the whole thing is just kind of strange. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Deacon Vorbis: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete Binary Independence Model (speedy delete tagged for copyvio) after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfD is now closed, so the discussion here can be, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh, so we're closing all the discussions? We need to reopen the AFD, unless the page gets deleted some other way (hasn't yet happened) or we come to some resolution here (also hasn't happened). Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Article doesn't look like a copyvio to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

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

---

The bot that updates the table is broke. Can anyone make repairs.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Cyberpower678 Hhkohh (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I know it's not ideal but as an interim solution if you go to the unblock template page and choose "what links here" and filter it to transclusions you'll have an up-to-date list. SITH (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: Thanks. Hadn't thought of that. I've been just looking at the one's my browser says I haven't been to before.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikidata help

Hello! I need someone's help: this and this link are basicallly the same, people who are born in Kikinda. Also, this category in Polish isn't needed because i moved the other one on the right place. I am asking someone to delete this polish category and merge those two wikidata links, thank you very much, regards, SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• SimplyFreddie, they're not precisely the same. One appears to be for people born there, and the other for people associated with the location. Compare the two non-overlapping entries for pl.wiki. All of the entries in Category:People born in Kikinda (Q8738600) specify birth, not just the Polish one, while none of the entries in Category:People from Kikinda (Q30337582) specify birth. GMG^talk 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree, but they lead to the same category i.e. they are members of the same category. If they are associated with the location then it's just that one polish category (that isn't linked with others) that contains category with people born in Kikinda. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

One is a combination of person related to this place (Q19660746) and Kikinda (Q309355), while the other is a combination of place of birth (Q1322263) and Kikinda (Q309355), the main difference being that place of birth has single-value constraint (Q19474404), because you can be associated with more than one place, but not born in more than one. What makes things confusing is that some projects (like this one) don't specifically have categories for place of birth, but only for association, which includes place of birth. If someone was born in Ontario but spent their life and career mainly in Paris, then they can be in both Category:People from Ontario (Q9075333) and Category:People from Paris (Q8964470). But en.wiki has no Category:People born in Ontario. Some projects (apparently Polish) has categories for both association and birth, while others seem to have one or the other. GMG^talk 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how this should be followed up

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

---

This edit. I am not sure how this should be handled, but mainly I don't have the time anyway. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 2:34 pm, Today (UTC+13)

It's best to foward such things to WP:EMERGENCY and let them handle it. I'll do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

I am new here and need help

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fault in the page mover

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T210739

• I am an admin. Whenever I try to move a page, while e.g. obeying a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves, to move (e.g. page A to name B), and it first needs a pre-existing page at B to be deleted, it displays "[XDiHjApAAD0AADw86AoAAADQ] 2019-01-11 12:09:48: Fatal exception of type "MWException"" in red and refuses, unless I delete the old page B manually first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a known problem, I have seen it mentioned a few different places. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a ticket open for this fault at the moment, as you say until it's fixed you need to get round it by deleting the target page first. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Block

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

---

I have chosen to retire, and I would greatly appreciate a block on the account. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me for finding my way here through your contributions. Have you read about the WikiBreak Enforcer script? I used to use it back in the day when I would need breaks from here. I think using these is better than a block so that these self-requested blocks do not cloud up your block log. Given the history, I think you will reconsider this decision and eventually come back, so it might be better not to have to bother an admin again.--NØ 12:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion. I was unaware of that tool, and I will use it according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Can't create talk page

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

---

I can't create the talk page for the recently created article ..... sofferte onde serene .... The action https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:....._sofferte_onde_serene_...&action=edit produces a "Permission error" which mentions that the name has fallen foul of blacklists. The message then advises to post a request here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just created a blank talk page. Please put something there when it's convenient for you, so nobody comes along and marks it for speedy deletion :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Notice of accidental block

Hi, just a note that I blocked Special:Contributions/90.241.4.206 while thinking I was looking at Meta. I realized right away when I noticed that the wiki logo was different and undid the action, but wanted to leave a note here in case anyone was concerned. Related, the IP might be worth blocking if it continues. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, don't worry; nobody's going to object if you quickly self-undo a bad block. My only objection is that you shouldn't have undone the block; although you were at a different project, the IP in question deserved a block here, too, so I've reverted your self-reversion and re-blocked for a week. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajr: Install User:Quentinv57/HideButtonsFromNonGsProjects.js to your global.js and you will know if you are trying to do nasty things on big wikis where you aren't local sysop. (It still allows you to do the job, contrary to the name 'hide'.) — regards, Revi 05:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @-revi: I figured there must be a tool for that. I've never done this before in 5 years of stewarding, but the script could still be helpful. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• This could all be fixed with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ajraddatz. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahllam

I have a request for admins to please revisit the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahllam (Iranian singer) as I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12. TnksReza Amper (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reza Amper, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place for this. If your best argument is to repeat the argument you've already made in the discussion then you would probably be wasting everybody's time. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ahllam_(singer).-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unban request for Thepoliticsexpert

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

---

Thepoliticsexpert (talk · contribs) has requested that their ban be lifted. Here's their statement:

I hereby humbly craft an unban request on my own talk page further to the guidance received from administrator @Just Chilling: on 9.7.19 that “Check User has raised no objection to your appeal moving to the next stage. In order to be unbanned your appeal will need to be taken to the Community for a full discussion and there would need to be Community consensus that you should be unbanned.” I therefore humbly ask that the reviewing admin take my unban request to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN for community discussion along with the following text could be put to the community as my grounds for unban: ‘ I have gone over 6 months now without any sockpuppets - I have not used any Wikis for editing/contributing in any way in this time - and would like to apologise for all my previous actions which I regret. I would like to request an unblock because I want to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia again. I was previously unemployed (hence I had time to sockpuppet). I'm now in full time employment so my contributions would be small but of high quality and would do so in my free time but don't worry - I wouldn't have time to sockpuppet! I now understand what sock puppetry is, and so know how to avoid it. I think all the former accounts I created when sockpuppeting have been blocked anyway, but can confirm I have no account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. I will only use this sole account to edit Wikipedia if unbanned, if i’m not unbanned (if I don't receive a consensus from the community for the unban) I will continue to respect the ban by simply not contributing'. Thank you in advance to the admin reviewing this unblock request for your kind assistance with this matter, as well as to Just Chilling and the checker for your help too. Yours sincerely, thepoliticsexpert 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation is available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thepoliticsexpert/Archive and there's a rather long list of sockpuppet accounts at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thepoliticsexpert. Yunshui states: "There is a not-inconsiderable amount of activity on the IP range from which this appeal was sent (which appears to correspond to a range previously used by thepoliticsexpert) but given the breadth of that range, this isn't surprising. There's no definitive evidence that any of those users are thepoliticsexpert, but if he told the truth at 1 it's entirely plausible. "Consent" (or the denial of such) was not intended to be implied; I was simply providing additional information which wasn't available to the previous reviewer." (source: User_talk:Thepoliticsexpert) The block was made by Bbb23, who I will notify. I noted that the block became a ban under WP:3X, based on WP:SPI evidence of repeated sockpuppetry and block evasion. At least two of the sockpuppet accounts were based on my username, so I'm unsure if this makes me involved. I take no current position on whether this user should be unbanned and unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thepoliticsexpert and Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert in mind before making any decisions or conclusions anyone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm all right with letting someone back in after a "normal" first block, but with this massive history of disruption, I say no. More than eighty disruptive accounts! Maybe after one or two disruptive sockpuppets, but this many accounts, I don't think we can ever trust the operator. One of the SPIs pointed to User:5.69.92.250, a Sky UK Limited IP that geolocates to western London; if this is the kind of IPs that Thepoliticsexpert has routinely used, I don't see any problems with the activity, since there are lots and lots of people in western London who use a major telecommunications company. However, even if we assume that he's telling the truth there, and that all 10 extended-confirmed accounts and all 60 autoconfirmed accounts (not to mention the other 1,930 or more accounts) have been blocked or forgotten about to the point that he'll never be able to access them, his history of disruption is too extensive. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per Nyttend. Their track record is far too egregious for an unblock this soon. Come back in two years. If there is no evidence of socking, I'd be willing to talk about an unblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The community cannot unblock a CU-blocked user unless a CheckUser consents. As far as I know, that has not happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui is a checkuser. As Bbb23 points out, Yunshui has not consented to an unblock here, but did provide some information, included above. --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have often provided information based on an unblock request; that does not translate into consent unless I expressly say so. This discussion should be closed and TPE advised to appeal to the Committee.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support immediate close per Bbb23 and WP:SNOW. Even w/o the CU issue, it is inconceivable that the community would agree to unblock this editor after only six months. Seriously. If they want to pursue this they can take it to ARBCOM, but I believe it would be a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly no chance of an unban or an unblock here. I also agree that ARBCOM would be a waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I support a WP:SNOW close on this (but believe it would be inappropriate for me to close off the thread). --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yamla, thank you for being careful, but that's actually not something inappropriate. Any time you propose something and then change your mind, you're free to close it as "withdrawn" if it's gotten no input or if the proposal's only been opposed. I've closed it in that way. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

TheGracefulSlick

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

---

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

On 5 August 2018 TheGracefulSlick was indef blocked for socking. On 23 November 2018 they made an unblock request which was discussed at AN: here which was accepted since the appeal was truly a model form of WP:GAB. In their appeal, TheGracefulSlick outlined their future editing plans (historical subjects, albums by the Doors, content on women and specifically Women in Green). They also specifically said that: "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator.".

However, their editing following their unblock on 28 November 2018 has not followed this editing plan. Specifically, they made they a series of edits to controversial political subjects: Charlottesville car attack (4 December 2018), Talk:List of cities in Israel (8 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringsted terror plot (8 December), Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape (8 December).

This was then discussed with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, with the participation of User:Cullen328, User:Sir Joseph, User:TonyBallioni. Per TheGracefulSlick their statement was "a self-restriction made on a voluntary basis for my health. I wouldn’t be disregarding it if it were mandatory", a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable, that: "TGS: you gave your word that you would avoid controversial areas. You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do".

Following their discussion on their talk page, TheGracefulSlick continued editing political entries - e.g. Rashida Tlaib (10 Jan, 8 Jan, 8 Jan), Ilhan Omar (10 Jan) as well as Palestinians (5 Jan), Lifta (4 Jan), Military occupation (2 Jan), Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph (18 December), Herbert Lee (activist) (15 December), Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 December, Charlottesville car attack (11 December).

This was further discussed on 10 January (initiated by User:Icewhiz, responded by users above and User:Bbb23, expressing their disappointment on the one hand but on the other hand noting this is a community matter) with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, to which they responded that they saw this as "settled in December and I am not interested in a continuation of it". They subsequently blanked the talk page section with the edit summary "Enough already please". They have subsequently continued editing political topics, e.g.: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 January).

TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim? Should a TBAN (AP2, ARBPIA, terrorism) be placed to enforce the commitment? Should the indef block be reinstated given the serious misrepresentation in the unblock request? -- Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my “cautious support” of an unblock, deceptively making “textbook” unblock requests is already something TGS has proved capable of doing (along with a high degree of other deceptive and malicious behavior), and the people who were so impressed by the unblock request were being naive to not question its sincerity. Here we see their special treatment was bought with empty words, and TGS has nothing to offer but more empty words to rationalize why they shouldn’t be held to their own promises. TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice, and the blanking of the users trying to hold them to account shows an active and aggressive disrespect for the community. This turn of events should be surprising, but sadly, it isn’t. @TheGracefulSlick: You could be one of the most respected, beloved members of this community. It’s sad to see you continually self-destruct like this.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

TGS was unblocked with the clear understanding that they’re on extremely thin ice - Fascinating that you should say this. I had considered leaving them a comment myself. I had intended part of it to read along the lines of: "In effect, TGS, you may as well have promised not to go skating on the iced over river, before immediately putting on a pair of ice-skates and proceeding to go skating on the river. It's unlikely that anybody is going to take an action to stop you; but if the ice cracks, nobody is likely to do anything to save you either." Seems the ice may have cracked sooner than I had anticipated... which is my fault really it was a blistering 34° out here this very morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything actually wrong with the edits to the polticial topics? GiantSnowman 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of his edits where WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Swarm I asked the blocking admin in December whether I was bond to any editing restrictions. Here and here they say no, so long as I am not being disruptive, but make a recommendation that I do not edit politics. I even asked if there should be formal restrictions, but Tony told me to just use my judgement. Shrike was aware of these diffs back in December.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: if you promised not to edit politics, and the blocking admin advised you not to edit politics, why are you now editing politics? GiantSnowman 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman because Tony stated I interpreted it as you describing how you would act. I don’t think a formal restriction on “controversial” things would work because that’s essentially anything on Wikipedia and has no easy definition. I think my close was clear that if you were disruptive you’d likely be blocked again, but it’s not a topic ban from controversy or anything of that sort; he was accurate in that interpretation and I regrettably was too ambiguous in my unblock appeal. However, as I have already stated, I will gladly accept formal restrictions. I just need to know them so we can avoid more of this unnecessary drama.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to introduce formal restrictions until we can actually trust you. Going back on your word so soon is incredibly disappointing. GiantSnowman 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I had no issue with restrictions in December and I have none now. I never went back on my word, I merely followed the interpretation of the admin who unblocked me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you have gone back on your word. You said that "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months" - and yet you're editing present-day politics areas! Either you don't realise that you have gone back on your word, or you are lying (poorly); I don't know which is worse. GiantSnowman 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I’ll agree I went back on my word; I am not really here to argue the point. I will readily accept any formal restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) restrictions as I was a month ago.

• In case anyone is wondering about any good I am doing, I did recently nominate Gunther von Kluge for GA review after helping expand it considerably. I created the article on Herbert Lee, soon to be a DYK. I created Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis and also expanded Hereditary. Granted, my editing has gone down lately on account of my academics, but I am doing the best I can in a limited timeframe.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This editor voluntarily made a firm and clearcut commitment to the community as part of their successful effort to get unblocked well before the usual six months had passed. They promised to refrain from editing controversial topic areas such as politics for six months, and to seek adminstrator review of their behavior before beginning to edit articles of this type. They promptly broke their commitment and have persisted despite several editors and adminstrators expressing grave concern. This is a collaborative project and it is important that each of us do our best to keep the promises we make, especially if the promise is made during an effort to persuade the community to lift a sanction. I believe that the sanction should be reimposed, because I cannot believe anything this person says anymore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

While disappointing, these actions of TheGracefulSlick are not surprising (disclosure: I did not support the unblock in November); a firm commitment was made "to apply the lessons the editors at WikiNews taught me. I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." None of these actions were taken. While it is excellent that the user is doing "good", it really doesn't negate or counterbalance the fact that the community was lied to and deceived. I do not necessarily think that they should be reblocked as Cullen328 suggests, though i would not oppose it, but at a minimum the commitment TheGracefulSlick made should be formalised and made clear to them ~ as if they didn't already understand it. They should be very definitely banned from any "controversial topic areas" for an absolute minimum of six months, and then their actions reviewed. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not happy at all with this development. During the unblock discussion I offered a weak support, accepting their promised self imposed editing restrictions as a condition of their being unblocked. My trust in this editor, already weak given their previous behavior, has been severely damaged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd support formal restrictions. GiantSnowman 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• If someone can show me one problematic edit that has been made since the ban was lifted I will support restrictions. Otherwise, we are placing restrictions for solely punitive reasons, and we should not be doing that. Neutral until then. Fish+Karate 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I explained before some of his edits were indeed disruptive WP:NINJA reverts for example Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December),Lifta (4 Jan),Military occupation (2 Jan) but that beside the point because as I read it he did promise to stay out of those topics in his unblock request if he hadn't promised these the community might had evaluated his unblock otherwise. --Shrike (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is not disruptive, removing a list of dead is entirely in line with WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
• This does not seem disruptive to me, adding a single sourced sentence.
• This does not either, making an edit once about the presence (or not) of an image, which was reverted, and no further editing.

I appreciate the point that the user said they would to stay out of such topics, but again, I would have to see evidence of problematic editing before I could support restrictions. I'm not opposing, just neutral. I imagine I'll be in the minority here, but there we are. Fish+Karate 13:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the issue for me, too. Yes, it may well have been underhanded to promise this to the community and then go back on it - but unless reimposing the restrictions can be shown to be actually preventing disruption, they shouldn't be reimposed. I'm not a fan of users taking advantage of the community's trust in this way, but sanctions have to be preventative. GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Drive by reverting, with no discussion, is aggressive. But the greater issue here is making a commitment to the community to get unblocked, and then choosing no to abide by it (almost immediately) - which is disruptive. The commitment to avoid controversial topics such as politics has context - TheGracefulSlick's 2018 sockpuppet double-voted at a terrorism related AfD(TGS's original vote diff) - they were promising to avoid a topic area that got them in serious trouble previously. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm curious to see what TonyBallioni has to say about this matter as the unblocking admin. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I really did not want to get involved. But I have followed this situation from a distance. Here it is really clear in my opinion that TonyBallioni unblocked TGS in good faith and with restrictions to certain topics that was agreed upon by both parties. If then the editor in question quite fast starts ignoring the agreed restrictions and edits certain articles anyway within weeks then that in my opinion is a breach of the agreed rules concerning the editors unblock. Bbb23 did not support unblocking TGS before the 6 months had gone by, Tony gave TGS the benefit of the doubt. I see a breach of trust here. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• The question is: would the unblocking admin have unblocked TGS without such assurances having been made... ——SerialNumber54129 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: The community consensus was to unblock TGS. Tony assessed consensus. The key question is whether the community's decision was influenced by TGS's later broken promise. I revisited the discussion and I didn't see any editors who supported unblocking expressly saying that the promise influenced their support vote. Of course, that doesn't mean it didn't. For me, personally, by socking TGS breached the trust of the community. The broken promise is another example of such a breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb23; trust is fundamental, of course. And if it's been breached twice—well. ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to pings: as Bbb23 pointed out, there was community consensus to unblock: I only assessed. I’ve already stated my view that I don’t think “controversial topics” is defined enough to be a formal sanction, which is why I didn’t log it. I read it as a good faith promise that the community or other admins were free to look to in assessing future sanctions if there was disruption. If the community feels it appropriate to formalize sanctions to specific topic areas, that is fine by me, but I’ll leave it to another admin to assess consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• I want to bring up the intensity of TGF's record problematic political editing, including a few ecamples that did not, I think, come up in the discussion leading to the recent suspension. These include:

• Undiscussed blanking and redirect of 2013 Bat Yam bus bombing, here: [26].
• Undiscussed blank and redirect of 2011 Tel Aviv truck attack, here: [27]
• Other pages GracfulSlick peremptorily blanked are discussed at Talk:2011 Tel Aviv truck attack. These include 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, and Ramat Eshkol bus bombing.
• She improperly closed an AfD, and was admonished on it at Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack .
• In addition, she re-nominated a terrorist attack for deletion only 9 weeks after the 1st nomination closed as KEEP Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination), accusing editors who had iVoted Keep the 1st time of "ignorance" and "ignor(ing) policy."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, I am disappointed with TheGracefulSlick (=TGS) here, I thought he would show more maturity that to dive straight back into WP:ARBPIA territory, when he said (in his unblock request) that he would not. Just not....very clever. To be blunt: TGS needs to grow up, if he wants to continue edit wp. (From what I understand: he is not an old guy, ie there should be room for an improvement). TGS should know by now that when you edit ARBPIA topics someone will monitor your every edit. However, I think it would be a great loss to Wikipedia to ban him indefinitely: I have seen some of the very fine work he has done. 6 months imposed topic ban seem about right, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope the editors !voting for Option 2 realises that TGS already has recieved a second chance by being unblocked early. And in good faith being given the opportunity to follow an agreed upon standard set of rules to stay away from certain topics. Failing to do so within days of being unblocked, and continuing to decieve the community. Secondly TGS has retired indefinitly today. Also, TGS will have the same opportunity like everyone else to appeal his ban in 6 months time, though I think a year would be the best for the editor to wait. BabbaQ (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote

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

---

OK lets asses the community consensus here is a three proposals that where raised during preliminary discussion(users may add other options or tweak existent)

1. As the unblock was granted based on a statement subsequently found to contain material misrepresentations, restore the indefinite block.
2. As TheGracefulSlick is not abiding to their voluntary commitment to avoid the topic area for six months (and "honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator" prior to returning), convert the voluntary commitment to a WP:TBAN from WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, and terrorist attacks. TheGracefulSlick may appeal the TBAN in six months time at AN or to closing administrator that will evaluate his progress
3. The ban should be seen as voluntary and vacated

• Support option 2 as first choice per my arguments before and option 1 as a second choice--Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• After reading the discussion I am more inclined to option 1 but I still think the user may be helpful so option 2 is still a second choice --Shrike (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 2 - After reading the above discussion I think TGS may do a better job at avoiding the editing area after the restriction is formally logged and the boundaries are better defined.--NØ 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am changing this to support indef block due to Swarm's comment below. Most of this user's contributions are to controversial topics so a topic ban from them is only gonna lead to another violation, and the umbrella of that topic is too wide to pin down and will probably lead to more WP:GAMING of the system.--NØ 05:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• A voluntary ban is voluntary and may be broken or rescinded at any time. If the community seeks a full sanction they should enact one. As no logged sanction here is being violated I would say no action is needed. There was a thread here awhile ago about enforcing voluntary sanctions but of course I can’t find it now. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 2 - It is evident per the unblock request and approval of said unblock that TGS had a clear agreement with the admin concerning restrictions/ban of certain topics. A voluntary ban is still a ban from these topics.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 2 as the best outcome since there is is little support for option 1, and option 3 rewards deception. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Due to Swarm's statement below and emerging consensus, I now Support indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 2 as their promise to stay away from these areas was a major factor in them being unblocked in the first place.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 Changing to Support Indef, as per Swarm Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, oppose option 2 Noting that to pledge to stay away from political topics, and immediately nominate the Toledo synagogue attack plot for deletion was a remarkable demonstration of bad faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, oppose option 2 - Option 2 has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is not the need to enforce the broken promise. The problem isn't disruptive editing in controversial topic areas, that's not even the point. TGS is not, and never has been, a bad content worker, in fact, they're a good one. They don't need a TBAN. The issue is the continued manipulative and deceptive behavior, which quite simply means that we can't trust anything they said in their supposed good-faith unblock request, which everyone was so impressed by. This is exactly what myself and several other editors were worried about, and something that has been a problem going back years (not only did they subsequently ignore the unblock condition imposed on that account, but they continued to pretend to be friends with the user they were harassing with that sock). We can see that obviously they haven't changed, and obviously we were wrong to believe in their unblock request, and they don't even take the concerns about the community's destroyed trust seriously. The indef should be reinstated. A TBAN has nothing to do with the problem. Either we let this deceptive behavior slide, again, and decide to trust them, again, because TGS is a "good editor", or we actually draw a line and reinstate the indef. I don't think we have any reason to continue to trust TGS either way, but I would rather see TGS free to edit than slapped with a pointless TBAN that's completely unrelated to the actual problem.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, oppose option 2 - I also had to change my !vote. This is clear deception as Cullen328 stated. And option 2 will most likely only give TGS another opportunity to be deceptive at this point. I think that the editor recieved a huge straw with the good faith decision of Tony to unblock, sadly TGS did not take this opportunity. BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef - TGS does a lot of useful work but like I said previously, the unblock was premature and their rationale was incomplete and as evident now, rather deceptive. It appears that they are helplessly drawn to controversial topic areas with all of their problematic editing behaviours intact, and I think the proposed topic ban scope would only delay the inevitable. Alex Shih (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support 6 months topic ban, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. Since at least December 2015 (if not before and merely unnoticed), TGS has engaged in a clear and frankly outrageous pattern of deception and also harassment [28], [29]. The fact that he is a prolific content creator and also a commentator at noticeboards blinded many people to this side of him. But it's as clear as day that he is not going to stop this pattern (he is still playing hifalutin' games with the admins calling him out on his talkpage), and that no matter how many restrictions or TBans or IBans are placed on him, he will still find a way to be both deceptive and disruptive. It simply seems to be part of his nature, unfortunately. We can't allow such a liability to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support re-imposition of indef block, oppose option 2 - Three things: (1) TheGracefulSlick has an absolutely fabulous user name. (2) I was at first inclined towards option 2, but I'm convinced by Swarm's argument. (3) I do not agree with those who wish to give TGS a free pass because their pledge was voluntary: for the most part, voluntary pledges are promulgated to avoid community sanctions -- sometimes harsher ones -- from being applied. "Voluntary" in this context does not mean "not mandatory", it simply means that, for whatever reason, the editor has decided to short-circuit the community discussion and accept on their own limitations on their editing. In my view, voluntary topic or interaction bans are as enforceable as those imposed by the community, and should have the same repercussions as violating a community-imposed sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'll add (4) I agree with Swarm's argument below that whether TGS's edits were "disruptive" or not is irrelevant. It's TGS's behavior -- promising to the community that they would not do X and then going ahead and doing X -- that is disruptive. The community cannot possible police every promise made to it by our thousands of editors (nor would we want it to be able to), so it must trust that people will do what they say they will do -- that's part and parcel of WP:AGF. When editors break those promises, especially when they do so in an egregious manner, the system of cooperation, collegiality, trust and good faith is undermined, which is not beneficial to any of us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Option 2. I think this case shows the vulnerability of verbal promises that are not anchored in editing restrictions. I am also leery of an informal restriction as ill-defined as "controversial" which could cast a net covering tens of thousands of topics as could the subject of "politics". Even our politics discretionary sanctions are specifically worded to pertain to a specific time period. I think TGS should be subject to clearly defined editing restrictions. If that is violated, I'm all for another indefinite block. But I think Tony's decision was more of a suggestion than an admin laying down the law, so to speak, and I think that a redo is called for with a formal editing restriction rather than a "promise". This isn't giving TGS a free pass, it's just adding clarity to what I view as a fuzzy agreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Option 2, weak support for indef (option 1), but prefer option 2. A formal TBAN makes clear the community takes promises seriously, and gives TGS a chance to regain trust. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef Their refusal to communicate with the complainants says it all[30]. Kraose (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef per Swarm. If not, then we need a topic ban at the very least. GiantSnowman 08:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. His failure to pussyfoot is extremely alarming.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef per Swarm above, to which I have no answer. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef Based on all the evidence presented here, it's very hard not to support this cause of action. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for Option 3 Based on the statement from the unblocking admin I don't see any grounds for sanction at this time. There's no evidence that TGS is currently engaged in any problematic editing in these areas, and this whole thread reads somewhat like an attempt to vote an opponent off the island. That said, it does appear that TGS has dramatically misread the tone of the room regarding how welcome their edits in this area are, and I would suggest that they should consider voluntarily curtailing that practice and making some uncontroversial edits for a while to show they aren't likely to go back to socking, etc. However if the decision of the community that this is more than just sour grapes from the reporting and antagonistic editors, then I'd suggest Option 2 is far more appropriate than an indef. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. Support option 3. IF the self imposed ban edits were non problematic. Restrictions are not supposed to be punitive. If there was no disruption beyond breaking their word there is no need.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Switch to indef per Swarm's eloquent rebuttal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Still in opposition to a block/ban until I see any actual evidence of disruption. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Fish+Karate 14:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the argument for reinstating the indef is not active "disruptive editing" in "controversial subject areas". The problem is that their "word" was a deceptive unblock request that overturned an indefinite block, which is something that fits right into a long-term behavioral pattern of deceiving the community and making disingenuous unblock requests. That's not even mentioning the fact that they appear to be constructive at face value while maliciously operating socks. This isn't a one-time fluke. It's long term disruptive editing. The community cautiously granted this user a last chance, with no remaining rope, but that was with the assumption that the user had changed. But now we are seeing in hindsight that the unblock request itself was just more deception and manipulation. We were deceived, not just into unblocking them, but into making an exception to the standard offer. TGS' attempt to shift the focus onto their conduct in this topic area is a misleading distraction from the real issue, and, I would argue, continued willful deception. Direct proof that a user is continuing a pattern of malicious conduct is more than a sufficient preventative reason to reinstate an indef.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support indef. As far as Fish and karate's point about prevention not punishment, this block is to prevent the community being lied to and deceived, again, in the future, nothing to do with punishment. This also speaks to Dlohcierekim's "no disruption" statement: The disruption consists of the breaking their word and deceiving us. We are building an encyclopaedia, yes; but the way we are doing it, as a community, is also important, and cannot be ignored by anyone who wishes to participate. It may be that as encyclopaedia-builders it doesn't matter if we are lied to; as a community of people working together, it does. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC
• Support Indef I haven't posted much to ANI since I'm trying to wean myself off contributing to this page. Some have said that the restrictions were voluntary so the community can't sanction TGS for not holding to it. However, I see it this way. Community restrictions are the community's way of saying "you've been bad, so we are going to restrict you in this way and will sanction you if you violate these restrictions". A voluntary restriction is the editor saying "I've been bad so I will hold myself to this behaviour. If I violate them, then you can sanction me" and not "If I say I will do this, you won't sanction me, right?". Well, here is the sanction for violating those restrictions. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, no comment on other proposals. Saying what you think others want to hear to get yourself unblocked and then immediately going back on your promises is shockingly appalling behaviour from an editor wanting to participate in a collaborative environment, especially one who was on thin ice in the first place. Per Swarm, mostly. I'm bookmarking these two threads as a very good example of why we should not accept voluntary unblock conditions, rather only exchange blocks for specific formal sanctions that can be enforced by reinstating the block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Option 2: the unblock conditions were somewhat ambiguous. The community, perhaps rightly, interpreted them as a self-imposed topic ban, while the close was not as specific. TGS (whether in good or bad faith) interpreted them differently. The formal topic bans as proposed would remove the ambiguity. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef on the grounds that, frankly, we don't need this shit. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef as there is no reason to waste the community’s time any further. Clearly any apologies have been proven to be empty words and deceitful. Ultimately a self-destructive liar (as shown by his sockpuppetry, which some seem to overlook). XavierItzm (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, with sadness. There's nothing ambiguous about the "present-day politics" part of "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." When someone makes an apparently sincere unblock request and is unblocked based on it (and, more, has the SO period shortened because of the quality of the request), then fails to stick to the commitments made in the request (and remains stubborn even when reminded of them), the unblock should be annulled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

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

---

2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a general appeal for admins to watch the page 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. There's been quite a lot of edit-warring over the past few days, as candidates are finally starting to announce. I don't feel that IP editors are behaving worse than extended-confirmed editors overall, but there are several very new accounts advocating for Andrew Yang (entrepreneur). I am extremely involved and don't want to make any specific recommendations as to actions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The decision to segment declared candidates into major and other seems like WP:SYNTH to me. But then I haven't met a Wikipedia list of X that wasn't a SYNTH violation on wheels. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How else would you know who the Wikipedia-endorsed candidates are? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a checkuser could sort the partisans for us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Context-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad the AN knows about the misconduct of several hooligans on this page who are attempting to keep Andrew Yang from the major declared candidates section in spite of clear consensus that he belongs in this section. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@AndInFirstPlace: - You are starting to look more and more like a point of view-pushing single purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is in fact the opposite. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Combine "Declared major candidates" with "Other declared candidates" into "Declared candidates". That's how it's done at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I like that option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are *we* determining the criteria for who is a "major candidiate"?

• Now that I think of it, concerning both of these articles (Dem & Rep), why are we determining who is and isn't a "major candidate". What gives us, as a neutral encyclopedia, the right to set up a criteria and declare that it determines who is a major candidate? I know of no dispensation from the necessity of verifying information by way of citations from reliable sources, so the determination of who is a "major" candidate and who is not should be made completely on the basis of citations from reliable sources, just as with every other fact in the encyclopedia. Yes, that will make organizing the page more difficult, but that's not a reasonable excuse to throw WP:V and WP:RS out the window.
  I suggest that both of these articles be totally re-organized on the proper Wikipedian basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should take this to the talk page. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone actually involved in editing the article should do the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump is an incumbent President. The Republican National Committee is controlled by his people. Iowa and South Carolina have already cancelled their primaries (the Republican caucus is basically a staw poll) and in most states the Secretary of State compiles a list as to who gets on. So there is only one. The Democratic race is a free-for-all, and while one or two of the "vanity" candidates (Michelle Williamson for example) may actually get into the June debate, none of the "hobbyists" will be allowed to get delegates (as happened in 2012). It's best to keep things as they are until the DNC announces their formal criteria later in the month or early February.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Iowa and South Carolina have not cancelled their caucus & primary. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There are over 100 "declared" candidates for president. Many of them are not the subject of substantial coverage by secondary sources (and have no chance of being elected or running a relevant campaign). It would be inappropriate to cover them all equally - this is why the "major candidate" distinction exists. How to do such a separation is the locus of the dispute, and should be discussed on that talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Cover everybody in proportion to their news coverage, but ignore anybody who is only getting fringe coverage. The article might say that there are 50 more candidates who have no significant news coverage and then link to a place that lists them. Wikipedia should not be deciding who is "major" and "minor". That is WP:OR, a violation of a pillar policy. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin help needed with error message

I had a problem which I discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cannot log on through TOR. My problem was fixed, but in the process we identified a place where we could improve one of our error messages. One suggestion was:

A local version of MediaWiki:Sessionfailure can be created and edited by administrators. It could link Help:Logging in.

Could someone read the thread and look into creating such a page? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of BAG nomination

I am just writing this to inform AN that I have requested to join the Bot Approvals Group (BAG). I invite your thoughts on the nomination subpage, which is located here. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Prong$31 Edit Warring

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

---

• User:Prong$31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Greetings! There is a user Prong$31 who has blocked me on hiwiki without any reason. He keeps on reverting my edits on Wikimedia commons as well as on enwiki. There is a conversation going on the Chris Gayle Talk page between me and Spike'em. And he reverted an edit of mine before I can answer Spike'em the reason of my edit on the Chris Gayle page. I request the respected administrators to block Prong$31.I even gave the warning of a possible block on his talk page but he deleted it. Now I have wrote the warning again. Dr Samkiv Kumar (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dr Samkiv Kumar: You are required to notify users of reports here. I have done so. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dr Samkiv Kumar: Do you really know what is edit warring?-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Site ban appeal from Catflap08

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

---

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Catflap08 is appealing a site ban. For context, see User talk:Catflap08 and the site ban discussion at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my ban. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner.

• The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the near future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should, for the time being, stay in place.
• Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice about the situation in general.
• In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do deeply care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
• Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren. Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing respective article(s) won’t do much good. I would need advice from experienced editors and community consensus on this one. I believe some of those articles should be slimmed down considerably and be protected for the time being … BUT that decision is not up to me.
• In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have never run into any major problems [31]. There was one exception when a conflict that originated in en.wikipedia was dragged into de.wikipedia – this was quickly dealt with though. Since my watchlist over there is more or less the same as it is here, I for most parts look out for reviewing pending changes. (Please note that since 2008 in the German Wikipedia all edits by new or not registered users need to be reviewed by, generally speaking, the community of registered and “confirmed” editors)
• I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [32] [33] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment – it looks like the IBAN referred above is no longer in place. (I could not find any other IBANs noted in WP:Editing restrictions.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the IBAN was lifted at Hijiri88's request, on the premise that it was no longer necessary since Catflap08 was site banned. If that site ban is lifted, I believe that the IBAN should be reinstated (and actually should not have been removed in the first place, for this very reason).
  As for the request for Catflap08's site ban to be lifted, I believe it is obvious from the request itself that Catflap08 has strong views on the subject ("Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased..."), which is likely to lead to edits intended to "unbias" articles, which history tells us are usually non-neutral in nature. It is also likely to lead to conflicts with other editors. On the whole, it does not seem to me that lifting the site ban is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the linked discussion where the interaction ban was rescinded, you supported removing the ban, and said "If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored..." I appreciate that over time, editors can reach new conclusions. In addition to the reasons you listed, is there any additional consideration that has led you to change your mind regarding the interaction ban? isaacl (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is that really the case? Well, all I can say is that I remember it differently. Perhaps I began with the thought that the IBan should stay in place, and for some reason -- now not remembered -- I changed my mind. Or maybe I was recalling some other IBan situation. In any case, now I think that removing IBans with retired or site banned editors is not a good idea, since (it seems) nothing on Wikipedia is forever, and it's quite probable that the status quo will be reverted at some future time.
  Still, whether I said at the time that it should be lifted or not, it was lifted, and I would still argue that if Catflap08 is un-site banned, it should be re-instated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Isaacl: Could you post a link to the discussion you were referring to? I can't seem to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Appeal of my interaction ban with Catflap08 — FlyingAce linked to it. isaacl (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, I didn't see FlyingAce's link. I guess all I can do is agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson:

  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do ... Speak what you think in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. Self-Reliance (1841)

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• The editor has been almost entirely absent from the site for 3 years and I have no direct experience with them. If they want to edit other topics than those where they previously had problems (such as German towns) and will wait at least 6 months to appeal the TBAN, I see no reason to oppose this. They certainly shouldn't be unblocked to combat "increasingly biased" articles in the area they were TBAN-ed from; the topic-ban on at least Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism should be an indef one with any unblock. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• I have to say I find the timing a little too coincidental, given that Hijiri88 posted a etirement notice less than a day ago and has just started a self-requested block, so they won't be able to comment here. I haven't looked much deeper than that so i won't support or oppose at thsi time but that doesn't fill me with confidence in their proposed return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, I was unaware of Hijiri's retirement when I commented above. In that context, this seems very much like "When the cat's away..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Until Catflap08 gives a full accounting of any socking while blocked. Concerns were expressed here including by someone besides Hijiri88 that Catflap08 was still editing using IPs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catflap08/Archive. While these edits seem to be more than 6 months old, the nature of the editing made tracking difficult and reporting often pointless anyway plus socking in April and June could easily make a difference to people.

  I also note that Catflap08 has emailed Hijiri88 in the past, emails which were apparently unwelcome, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?. While I obviously haven't see the emails, I'm concerned by their descriptions. Catflap08 is a native speaker of English [34] so I don't know why they asked Hijiri88 to not accuse them of being a sock when they didn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?. (Hijiri88 obviously has accused Catflap08 of socking in the past, but they clearly weren't then.) I'm of the opinion Hijiri88 possibly mentions people they've had disputes with including Catflap08 too much but from the description, Catflap08 wasn't even sending a general 'can you stop mentioning me' but was annoyed about that particular mention.

  More importantly, there's still the other email even if it's over a year ago, I'd like some comment on their part. (I'd note that while the iban was lifted that was mostly because it's dumb when one party is blocked [35] and besides of which, I question if it's appropriate for a site banned editor to be emailing someone they've had extensive disputes with. I mean if the person welcomes it then fine, but if the person doesn't welcome it then no. And they don't need to tell the editor beforehand. It would probably have been better for Catflap08 to go through an admin if they really felt there was an issue.)

  As a minor point, I don't understand why Catflap08 of getting their talk page courtesy blanked via OTRS if they were going to appeal so soon, especially given they didn't need to use OTRS. (Yet ironically the fact they did use OTRS raises the question even more of why they were emailing Hijiri88 directly.) BTW, although I too find the timing of this suspicious, it should be noted that Catflap08 did try to get unblocked back in December but it was ignored [36]

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  I asked User:SA 13 Bro if they have any comment [37] as their name shows up in the SPI. I didn't bother with User:L235/Kevin as their knowledge only seems to come from the case so I suspect they have nothing more to add. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  BTW, I'd also agree with a minimum of 6 months before any appeal of the tban. You need to demonstrate you can edit without significant problem in less contentious areas first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@JimRenge: You got any opinion to indicate? I am unable to determine on the appealing request conclusion. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I received an email from Catflap08 but I have not yet read it. One more comment, since the socking was via IPs, I understand Catflap08 may not want to publicly link their IP/s to their account and in any case may not remember them all and I'm not asking for this. But I think some info on when they last socked, how often they socked, and an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing (i.e. if they socked and any wrong actions they took while socking such as harassing Hiriji88) is a minimum we should expect. If they deny they ever edited via an IP or otherwise socked, that's okay too, the community will obviously consider this denial against the evidence. Their initial statement above didn't seem to mention the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I find it incredibly suspicious (and it appears I am not the only one) that this request is so close on Hijiri taking a break. Given the previous IBan has been removed, there is nothing to prevent Catflap from returning to their previous behaviour. I wouldnt consider unblocking even with the iban reinstated AND a topic ban from the areas they were problematic in previously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• If we remove the community ban, an idea on which I don't have an opinion, we have to restore Catflap's interaction ban. No re-banning Hijiri merely because Catflap wants to come back, however: we should never sanction someone without evidence of problems on his own part, and the potential return of his arbitration opponent isn't a problem by Hijiri. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would support lifting the ban if there is some sort of parole period (6 months - 1 year?) that if previous behavior is repeated then the indef block would be reinstated. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe I formally said so before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Another comment – Catflap08 has posted replies in their talk page – do they need to be copied here by an admin, or can any editor do it? –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that anyone can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones

Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.

Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:

• [38] reverts [39] and [40] reverts [41]
• [42] reverts [43] and [44] reverts [45]
• [46] reverts [47] and [48] reverts [49]
• [50] reverts [51] and [52] reverts [53]

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [54]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [55] a revert of [56]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
• So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
• Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
• Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse." - In other words, Smallbones claims that since he perceives that other editors don't behave as he wants them to, he feels authorized to violate the active community sanctions. That is what I do not find acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.

"The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An Ip (72.69.98.176) has twice attempted to close this discussion. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me and appears to be some kind of provocation or trolling.

I would however request that this be closed. The edit I originally made has been reinserted by another editor and stayed in the article for 4 days now. The discussion at Talk:Bitcoin#Price_movements_citing_Coinbase now supports the edit (look at the bottom) as factual.

Others should feel free to make additional comments here, but if they are just accusing me of WP:TE, RightingGreatWrongs, or accusing me of being the reason Wikipedia losing contributors, then I'd like them to present serious evidence in a serious discussion. Otherwise, they should get the boomerang. After all is said and done here, I made a simple factual edit to the article and several editors went ballistic over it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't sock. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years and made 40,000+ edits and nobody has ever credibly accused me of socking. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of socking, but I don't think that anybody who knows me here would ever take such an accusation seriously. If they do, please take it to SPI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed WP:FOWLPLAY. And as Smallbones points out, nothing will change as he knows where to be careful of the rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see it being Smallbones. If Smallbones were to sock (indeed any experienced editor), it would not be something so transparent (and quickly reverted) as closing a AN discussion. It's much more likely to be an LTA with a grudge against Smallbones (or just plain vanilla trolling), trying to make it look like Smallbones socking. IMHO. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

• Moved to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ECP Question

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

---

Why is Semiramis Hotel bombing on ECP indefinitely? The other ECP'd articles in the table have the protection expire reasonably soon. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Every I/P article is supposed to be under permanent ECP now? Wow that is intense. Thanks. I wonder how many articles it is. That much conflict in articles usually means the articles are useless anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Wiki3310

I WP:DUCK blocked Wiki3310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to re-creation of Natty Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a G5 deleted spam article by an earlier ban-evading sock, part of the FFHypeTeam sockfarm. The new article is only slightly different from the deleted version. The master is stale so can't be CU verified but the article focus - creation of articles previously created by socks - plus non-newbie familiarity from day 1 strongly suggests this is yet another one. Pinging @SamHolt6: who is familiar with this LTA. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy, would you mind moving or duplicating your comments here? Thanks —DoRD (talk)​ 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes - the "new" version and the previously deleted version are not quite identical, but they are so similar in wording that they would have to be the work of the same person, as they couldn't have viewed the deleted version otherwise. So, good block. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for partial history deletion on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch

There is a page, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, that was made on November 16, 2018 by Favre1fan93, regarding the in-development series. The series itself was announced as "Vision and the Scarlet Witch" by a Deadline Hollywood source (which later removed the title), while the current title, "The Vision and Scarlet Witch", was announced with a report from The Hollywood Reporter. Robberey1705 created a separate page after The Hollywood Reporter report under the name "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" and further worked on the page despite a more-developed article, Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch, having already been made. I proposed a deletion request of the Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch so the Draft:Vision and Scarlet Witch page could be renamed and moved to that title, as it was the first draft article made. RHaworth acted upon my request by merging the history of Robberey1705's Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch into the history of Favre1fan93's Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch. Since merging the history of the two pages was not my request, I'd like to see if the revisions from Robberey1705's draft were deleted from the page as it was from a separate page that doesn't need to exist, and should not have been made in the first place. The selected revisions to be deleted are starting from this revision (the first by Robberey1705 on his own draft) up until this revision by RHaworth of him merging the histories together with a rename to the proper title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be very little point in doing this. What benefits would be gained? Fish+Karate 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If these are all about a single subject, I think we should leave the edit history intact unless (a) revisions contain(s) copyvios.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My main complaint with this is that the original page should not have the history of the page, that wasn't meant to even exist, be apart of it's history. The new page's history is compiled with two different page histories with the history of the new page being completely unnecessary. The page along with it's history should've been deleted rather than merged. I'm simply requesting that the history from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page is deleted from the page as it never should've been merged into the article into the first place. I had just requested that original page was to be deleted and for the original Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch to be renamed to "Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch" to maintain the earliest amount of the page's history, rather than having the history of both pages be merged into one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:PRUNE, I am suggesting that the revisions from the original Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch page are pruned from the page as they don't contribute to the main page as a whole and a simply unnecessary clutter left behind from a history merge that was not requested by me in the first place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New editor having serious problems

Would an admin my taking a look at Special:diff/Jurita Kalite/878691877 and perhaps try to help this new editor out without throwing the book at her? I think this editor is frustrated about some photo possibly being deleted from Commons and doesn't understand why she cannot get her profile/page published on Wikipedia. Also from reading her posts, it seems safe to assume that English is not really her first language; so, she might be having some difficulty understanding comments left by those who have tried to help her so far. Her last post seems to be an obvious problem per WP:NLT, but I don't think she would understand it if {{uw-legal}} or some other threatening sounding message was posted on her user talk page. I also realize that I should notify her of this post here, but I'm not going to do so at the moment because I don't think she'd understand {{AfD-notice}}, and it just might confuse her even more. She's posting in Russian on her user talk page; so, just wondering if by the off chance there's a Russian speaking admin who might be able to communicate with her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, would you have a chance to look at this? Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a blatant legal threat, and although she has language difficulties, what she's saying is clearly expressed in English. I've therefore indeffed. I also note that she's currently blocked on Commons for a few days for intimidation/harassment. If Ymblanter wants to talk to her about her issues, that's fine, but unless she retracts the threat and behaves appropriately here, she must remain blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Without yet having looked at the page, which I will do now). I came across this user on Commons, and she clearly had very little understanding of the local policies and generally the copyright issues. Someone mentioned in the discussion that ten years ago the user was indefinitely blocked on the Russian Wikipedia under a different name (I believe it was User:JuKa or smth) for persistent disruptive editing, also somehow related to copyright issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I left on her talk page a message in Russian. The first point of the message is that she must retract the legal threat, otherwise she remains blocked. I am not very hopeful, but I added her talk page on my wacthlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Did we remove any images on which she asserts WP:COPYVIO? Or did I misunderstand the assertion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion on Commons at commons:User talk: Jurita Kalite. Most of it is in Russian, but Google translate will give you the flavour of the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Two images were deleted on Commons. I did not check, but apparently the metadata of the images mentions copyright by Sergey Stepovoy (no ide who this is). She first said she does not know what metadata is, and now she says that this Sergey Stepovoy has stolen her pictures (which she herself uploaded).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to every one who responded, particularly to Ymblanter for trying to communicate with this editor in Russian. I just assumed she was a total newbie having issues on Commons and Wikipedia; I didn't think this might have been more of a long-term issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Contentious Deletion Discussions of EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell and User:Mohamed Ouda

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

---

We have a messy situation involving a company of questionable notability, plausible claims of paid editing, two parallel deletion discussions, and an indefinite block on the English Wikipedia of an editor who appears to be an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. Additional administrator attention and possibly the attention of stewards are in order. The two pages about the company are EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell, and there are deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. The first version of the page, now in draft space, was created in article space by User:Neerajmadhuria72014 and has been draftified three times by User:GSS, moved back to article space by User:Neerajmadhuria72014, and nominated for deletion in draft space. This was one of three drafts by Neera that I nominated for deletion; they have admitted to a conflict of interest on LD Sharma. The second version of the page, now in article space, was created in article space by User:Mohamed Ouda, who is shown as an administrator on the Arabic Wikipedia. It was then, after discussion, nominated for deletion. The user talk page User talk: Mohamed Ouda shows contentious editing and the repeated creation of deleted pages, especially Kelly Hyman (lawyer). Mohamed Ouda has now been blocked by User:Yunshui. The block is shown as being for sockpupppetry, which is a very strange and serious allegation against an administrator on another Wikipedia. In my own opinion, they are quacking like a paid editor on the English Wikipedia, but not like a sockpuppet.

Administrative and probably steward attention is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Second the motion. It is very likely WP:UPE and WP:MEAT. It is undoubtedly a huge mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• This paid editing stuff is a complete mess. I advised Neerajmadhuria72014 to use draftspace, and also asked him to disclose paid editing but each time he came up with a different story. When asked about EverlyWell, he first claimed on my talk page that I am from Health Industry and see I have revealed my identity. I am pharmacist and dietitian and EverlyWell is notable in health Industry after being listed by Forbes and then on his talk page he claimed I posted the article because of message of a one of their employer on my FB page. The same story happened with Draft:Kartikeya Sharma ‎, he first claimed I know him because of his connection with ITV network, that I only knew because of working over wikipedia and then I know him because he has come to our college for a shoot, I was coordinating with them with my teachers. He was desperately moving Draft:EverlyWell to mainspace like he was under pressure to do so and when I get it to move protected Mohamed Ouda came up from nowhere and posted it in mainspace and failed to disclose paid editing. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'd argue that if the AfD closes delete (which it's likely to do) the page should be salted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• ​ Hello, can you please write what happened in simple way (probably points) to see how I can help? --Alaa :)..! 18:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Yunshui: can you please put CU data on CUwiki, then I can see what happened actually? --Alaa :)..! 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Mohamed Ouda has been editing on the English Wikipedia since 2008. As I understand the policies and guidelines about sockpuppetry, they are not a sockpuppet unless there is another older account that has the same human behind it. They may be a sockpuppeteer; I don't know that they are, and to say that, without evidence, would be a personal attack. They clearly have been engaged in disruptive editing by gaming the system with regard to article names. The most likely explanation is undisclosed paid editing, but, as I said on their talk page, if they have not been getting paid, they are being disruptive for no personal gain, which is not much better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In short, User:Mohamed Ouda should have been blocked, and has been blocked, but the reason for the block certainly appears to be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies for the slightly long posting, but this needs to be seen. On 7 August 2018, User:Mohamed Ouda created Tres Birds Workshop, an article which still existed until today and was tagged as having been created by a paid editor. This article was also previously created in draft (Draft:Tres Birds Workshop) by another user - User:DemodexFolicolorium, since CU blocked as a sock of banned editor User:Ubuntuforum. The draft article was deleted on 18 July 2018 as being purely promotional. However, the version created by Mohamed Ouda, whilst much shorter, duplicates parts of that deleted version exactly. Since Mohamed Ouda is not an administrator here and cannot see deleted content, there is an obvious off-wiki link in this example as well. Note: I have deleted Tres Birds Workshop as the creation of a banned editor, since Mohamed Ouda copied the text from the sock.
  • Ouda also created Kelly Hyman (lawyer) on 29 August 2018. The article (as Kelly Hyman (attorney)) had previously been deleted by AfD. However - guess who originally created the draft for the latter article? Yep. you got it - User:DemodexFolicolorium.
  • And then we have Stevie Thomas (restauranteur). This one's even more interesting. Originally created in draft by a 4-edit editor in March 2018, this was expanded three-fold by DemodexFolicolorium before being moved into mainspace by Mohamed Ouda link - despite the draft having been rejected as promotional. It was moved straight back again the next day by User:Anachronist with a message chiding Ouda for moving it. This is where it gets more interesting. The draft was then edited by User:Brio and User:Experio2018 (both since checkuser-blocked as abusive sockpuppets) before being deleted as being created by a banned user. But there's more ...
  • Have a guess what else is in User:Experio2018's deleted edits? Well what a surprise - Kelly Hyman (attorney). And User:Brio is even more interesting. The last article they edited before being blocked as a sock was Paul G. Hyman Jr. - Kelly's husband! And in their deleted contribs - there's Kelly again.
  • As an aside, Ouda has also created other articles on random subjects that have since been deleted - for example Joel Goldstein (American business consultant), Norman Grace (South African film maker), for which I can't find any link to other editors.
  • So to sum up, Ouda has form for pushing articles into mainspace that have been created by a sockpuppet of a banned editor (I don't know who Brio and Experio2018 were socks of - pinging @BU Rob13: who blocked them), and fairly obvious paid editors. I would not be unblocking them any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, Ouda has certainly created articles for payment in the past - I was just reminded of Right to Succeed which was created in response to a freelancer.com advert, more than seven years ago. (Well, I am 98.5% certain that it was created in response to that advert even though it doesn't mention the nonprofit's name, since the timing coincided exactly.) I have just nominated it for AfD, since I am unable to find any secondary sources about it. WP:PAID did not exist back then, but there is no doubt in my mind that this editor has been a paid editor without ever admitting to it. --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's just implausible that Ouda is/was not in UPE.

Ouda has contributed a lot of spammy rubbish over Christos Cotsakos (it can be safely G5-ed) and removed valid tags despite being reverted by Bonadea and Drmies. That article's other major contributor has been Righini68 who was copy-pasting press-releases.

Righini is another interesting character, who had got a history of classic-UPE-creations but somehow evaded being blocked. He had once tried a lot to create Meyer Malka, which got deleted, before the current version of the article was created by a sock of an UPE-ring.∯WBG^converse 10:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• The rabbit hole just gets deeper. Ouda is not only a sysop at arwiki, they are a bureaucrat. Fortunately, arwiki has several crats, but I expect Steward attention will be required due to global policy on paid editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  I've brought this to the stewards' attention, m:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Mohamed_Ouda_and_paid_editing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Bellezzasolo, Bonadea, and Black Kite:, he has been also featured over the Wikimedia Blog. ∯WBG^converse 04:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some comments here as I have declined the unblock request but I think a lot of context is missing and that we’re moving too quickly at a noticeboard: I’ve talked to Alaa privately about this situation and he believes Mohamed Ouda’s story right now, having talked to him offline about this. For those who are unaware, Alaa is one of the single most dedicated users to fighting cross-wiki paid editing and socking. He and I have worked very closely together on several other cases, including Ciphers, when an ar.wiki CU was caught socking on en, so I am doubtful he is just covering for a friend.
  To the matter at hand: Mohamed Ouda‘s explanation is that in these situations he was acting on behalf of friends on social media. As I said in my unblock decline, this is a violation of WP:PROXYING, as per Black Kite’s evidence the “friends” appear to be blocked socks. That being said, knowing the culture of the Arabic Wikipedia, this explanation might actually be true. The community there is very tight-knit and off-wiki social media contact using real life social media profiles is much more the norm on ar.wiki than it is on en.wiki. This makes the explanation we would normally laugh at here plausible.
  That being said, Mohamed Ouda has a lot to explain: the direct copying of prose and overlap with socks is pretty damning and I would have made this block myself. At the same time, I do think he should be given a chance to explain and that we shouldn’t be setting up a site ban of a trusted user on another project that who’s current explanation, while against policy and not enough for an unblock, is very plausible given the culture of his home project. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, have you seen this and the subsequent creation of Right to Succeed? What was he doing over there or was it one of his "friend(s)" ? And, which of the multiple socks, (he has overlapped with), are any active at ar.wiki? From the sample of "friend(s)" over here, it seems that ar.wiki might be highly infested with editors acting in nefarious purposes. Is that true?

  If we are believing in Ouda's explanations, we might as well shut down COIN...... ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I was unaware of that (also for those wondering, that specific link has been public for 8 years.) I agree that it doesn't look good, and that he's likely continued editing for pay on en.wiki. In general, I believe in letting people who have been around for a while have a chance to explain themselves, but I'd agree that there is a lot to explain here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  As per his profile on freelancer.com the most recent job he completed is only four days old and I strongly believe it was for EverlyWell which he created on 16 January. He was an active paid editor since 2008 and completed 17 paid wiki jobs including Right to Succeed and Black Media Month which was later created by Black maaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under Black Online News Network but he (Ouda) never bothered to disclose even when he was asked, but he removed the warning. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ouda was also reported at COIN in 2010 for spamming please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#BONN. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Site-Ban

Mohamed Ouda has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I think that the reason for the block is wrong but the block is right. My opinion is that the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, and that no one should be blocked for meatpuppetry. However, the rules against undisclosed paid editing and against general disruptive editing are clear enough. This editor has engaged in various types of disruptive editing, including move-warring and name-gaming. (We know what name-gaming is, the changing of the title of an article to avoid salt.) Just to ensure that he doesn't play nice with one admin and persuade them to give him rope, I propose that the indefinite block be confirmed as a site ban in the English Wikipedia. (As the stewards have noted, each language Wikipedia has its own community, and this action will have no effect on his status in the Arabic Wikipedia or Commons.)

• Status of XFDs- The MFD discussion was started on 9 January 2019 and so is eligible for closure, but has not yet been closed. I suggest that it be tied into the AFD, which should govern. The AFD discussion was started on 16 January 2019 and scheduled to run until 23 January 2019. I suggest that the MFD be rolled into it. The AFD is running toward deletion, but I don't suggest checking the weather forecast in North America (or Europe), even though snow is forecast in many places in the next three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Review of JohnThorne topic ban

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

---

More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.220 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@67.68.28.220: The main issues were my mistakes in editing not following the Wikipedia standards, such as copying from from unreliable sources, copying without attribution/plagiarism, and original research. To date, I have learned to copy from verifiable sources with neutral point of view, make sure to respect copyrights, always include proper attributions, and avoid original research. I plan to keep doing these practices as long as I contribute to Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @JohnThorne: What is your understanding of when and how public domain material can be used in Wikipedia articles? How do your current views differ from those you held at the time you were topic banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that is adequate, and I endorse the suggestions made below by Guy and DGG (i.e. new articles to Draft and try a starter article first). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with lifting the ban, ion the understanding that people will watch and likely reimpose the ban or some other restriction if you edit tendentiously or fail to defer to others who remove contested material. Pinging DGG and Doug Weller who made particularly thoughtful contributions to that debate. Maybe we should require new articles to go through Draft first and be reviewed? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• I would very pleased if JohnThorpe were to return to editing on the Bible, if he were to do it properly. The current state of the articles since he left them is very unsatisfactory, for nobody has done even the most basiccleanup. I hope JT understands the problems well enough tofirst do that, and then to try to add sources from a wide range of viewpoints. As I said in earlier discussion, a traditional religious POV can be used as a starting point , although it cannot be presented as the only view or even the curren academic consensus. I would however strongly urge JT that in articles about the OT it would be more logical to start with the traditional Jewish POV, for which there are many out of copyright online sources, and continue with the traditional Christian POV. (This is especially relevant in many of these articles because the material in them is at the core of the Christian reinterpretation of the prophecies to refer to Jesus and any good modern (or even older) Christian presentation will also make clear the key differences). People have killed each other for centuries over the interpretation of some of these verses, and writing a NPOV article is a serious responsibility. As a practical matter, I would suggest working on one or two of the articles, and then asking those of us who have commented here on this if we think it's a reasonable start. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I'm ok with this, but I'd like to hear from User:Alephb first. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been working on clean-up of some of those articles even this week, as has User:Wallingfordtoday. There's still a long way to go on all of them, and I don't think anyone as far as I know has volunteered to do the large quantity of work required to get these articles up to snuff. If JohnThorne is willing to take the guidance of the community and policies and guidelines on board in a serious and careful way, he may have something useful to contribute. I hope no one would object if I and any other interested users were to "follow" their edits for a while and provide feedback as the community works out whether things are going to work out here. I would strongly encourage them to focus his editing on existing Bible-chapter articles rather the formation of new ones, though, at least at first.

My biggest concern is the hundreds of times, in the past, that the claims made in the text were not backed by the sources cited, or that material from fringe sources was taken at face value. I hope, if he is allowed back, that JohnThorne will be patient and responsive with us all if we have questions where we would like to verify some things. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that me and Aleph have done quite a bit of cleanup on those articles, mostly in the last month. The "number" of fixes I've done is in the hundreds or thousands (mostly removing unreliable sources and grammar editing -- I've had to remove over 20,000 characters from Isaiah 52 alone). However, there's thousands to go and there are many other pages on biblical chapters that need creation. If JohnThorne can continue working with people following his edits to making sure the same problems aren't repeated, I'd say his effort would be well appreciated. I'm in support of removing the topc ban.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

An issue that has not yet been addressed is whether all these articles should even exist. There is, for example, no wikipedia article on 2 Chronicles. It redirects to Books of Chronicles because "1 Chronicles" and "2 Chronicles" are essentially artificial divisions of a single work. Well, chapters are much smaller artificial divisions, introduced in the middle ages, and other than in the case of Psalms and some special cases, not reflective of any actual structure to the books. This is why even enormously comprehensive biblical encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Biblica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which go much farther than Wikipedia by including every little proper name in the Bible under its own entry, don't have articles on individual chapters. It would be a little bit like having articles on individual pages of Shakespeare's works. I don't know if there's some appropriate forum for discussing the notability of Bible chapters as a whole, but it should probably be done somewhere, especially if JohnThorne will be getting back into the game. I think the unsuitability of chapter articles for Wikipedia articles is probably a root cause of why the Wikipedia community hasn't, to my knowledge, been able or willing to replace the current copy-pasted articles with real Wikipedia-style articles (except in special cases like "Isaiah 53" or individual Psalms, which are actual "topics" of conversation). Alephb (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it given the amount of work I've done cleaning up those articles, I think aleph is right. Besides aleph's points of notability, there are some other points to consider on whether or not these pages should even exist. 1) Despite the work that's already been done, unreliable sources are still referenced hundreds, if not thousands of times in all these biblical chapter pages. 2) There is at least 1 grammar mistake on every single one of these pages (as each page is essentially copied and pasted, the same mistake was taken to all of them, making it horribly tedious to remove them all). 3) The vast majority of the subsections of each chapter is just a quotation of this or that verse in the chapter without any discussion or reliable sources referenced at all. 4) Almost all biblical quotations are from the KJV or NKJV, which are non-scholarly biblical translations. In other words, to completely clean up all these pages, the many thousands of quotations in these pages would have to be replaced or deleted. 5) Quite frankly, another point to consider is the sheer impossibility to regulate all these pages in the first place. There are hundreds of them, and as history shows, random users have been able to go to them and add any sources they want with no one noticing or removing them. They simply have too little notability for any group of Wiki editors to quickly revert bad edits.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a similar thought (and I haven't put a ton of work into these articles). It's a discussion to have (or search for, maybe it's been had), I don't know if there exists some sort of WP:GEOLAND for Bible-chapters. Start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Bible, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Close?

There appears to be a consensus to vacate this topic ban, with a few proposals being made that are unclear whether or not they are binding (are we requiring or suggesting JohnThorne to using the draft space for the first couple Bible-related entries that they are planning to create? Also is participating in general notability discussions for Bible chapters something that is being proposed as part of a successful appeal?). The rest of the discussion appears to be about asking JohnThorne to work closely with Bible project members and make sure the same issues are not repeated, which has already been addressed by JohnThorne in their follow up comments. I suppose we can close this discussion if JohnThorne can address on whether or not they are fine with these Bible project members working closely with their Bible-related edits for a while? Alex Shih (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am definitely happy to work closely with other Bible project members and have no objection for other users to closely review my edits. For a start, I will only work with a few limited articles on the topic related to the Bible, to improve them to meet the standard, and to see how it is accepted by the community. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, since I brought up the notability thing, I'm not asking for JohnThorne's participation in such a conversation to be made a condition for the appeal. I thought it was worth bringing up just because it was the first time in over a year I'd seen a significant number of people who I knew to be interested in the Bible-chapter issues in one place. My apologies if that caused any confusion. As far as I am concerned (though I do think the other editors would join me in this), I'd like to welcome JohnThorne back, and wish him a successful editing future. I'd also like to thank JohnThorne for being a model of civility. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit War on "Batman and Harley Quinn" Page

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

---

Due to the mixed reception of the film, there are users who keep deleting sourced information from the "canonicity" section of the page in order to paint a picture that the film isn't part of the DCAU franchise. One editor in particular, Mabromov, has reached out to me on another message board specifically stating he was aware his deletions would be causing an edit war with those interested in keeping all pertinent information intact. Is there anything that can be done to stop this from being a recurring thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.37.163 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

all quiet now. I would seek consensus building, dispute resolution, and page protection if it starts up aagin.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

IP hopper targeting Reichstag (Nazi Germany)

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

---

An IP hopping vandal reinserted their "Adolf Hitler's monarchy" instead of the correct "Adolf Hitler's dictatorship". Hitler was not a monarch. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not an IP hopper – unless it hopped to a different continent. Just warn the vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Or request page protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes a regular occurence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

am Reichstag nichts Neues. I've taken the liberty of adding pending changes to better watch for things.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No further edits. If no objection, I guess I could archive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:

• Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
• The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019)

Edits to Pakol

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

---

Ahmadjansadat2 (talk · contribs) has added "Afghan Cap" to the mentioned page as an alternate name for it with a source that is from elsewhere in the page meant for other information in the lede. The source does not refer to it as "Afghan cap". It is a blatant misuse of the source, obviously using it for OR. I have reverted these edits 4 times.(1 time it was reverted by LouisAragon (talk · contribs)).) I gave a final warning twice, reverted the edits, explaining why, and the user added the content 2 more times since. Here is [my removal on 1 Jan], [4th addition], [5th addition].- R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User has added the content again, a sixth time. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked X 36 hours by Oshwah.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

and the edit in question has been repeated.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

indus.ai

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

---

Hi, can someone please create a wiki page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/indus.ai so we can list our company and what we do on Wikipedia?

Thanks, Babak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babsal (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This probably isn't a matter for admins, I suggest asking the teahouse. However, your use of "our company" concerns me. Is your account operated by multiple people? Wikipedia accounts are only allowed to be operated by one person. You may also wish to read WP:PAID and WP:COI. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries deux

I've PC protected this due to some unfortunate recent events. I would appreciate it if others could keep an eye out for further problems/disruption/socking. If the PC is too vexatious, please feel free to remove it. Please see the following for background:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#false_claim
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AndInFirstPlace
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000#Jonathunder
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkullKnight1189284

Cheers, and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

God, they're another year down the pike :-). Thanks, Dlohcierekim. Miniapolis 22:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Bidhan Singh vandalizer

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

---

WHY won't administrators 'range block' or whatever is done, the mobile editor who keeps disrupting India-related articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone ever asked? According to the SPI, there are at least 4,951,760,157,141,521,099,596,496,896 IP addresses to range block, with, obviously, potential collateral to good faith editors. Actually, looking at your recent contributions I suspect it's going to be many multiples of that number. That's probably going to be a reason. If you want to point to a collection of facts about the ranges used, articles edited, and edits made, there's a chance it may help in cobbling together some suggestions. Realistically that may potentially involve edit filters or semi-protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking, now. Administrators do something. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think an edit filter specifically to check for addition the string Bidhan singh and/or addition of arbitrary newlines by IP editors in India related articles would go a long way to curb this sort of mindless vandalism. Semi-protecting an indeterminate amount of pages for short periods isn't a solution for somebody who is single mindedly focused on vandalising Wikipedia.  << FR ^(mobileUndo) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Inviting @LiberatorG:, @Shellwood:, @General Ization:, @Cptmrmcmillan: and @Fylindfotberserk:, who've also recently reverted disruptive edits by the 'mobile editor(s)-in-question'. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• GoodDay, you're an experienced editor, you should know better than to take this issue simultaneously to ANI and AN. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

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

Move Page

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

---

Hi. I am trying to move Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard/Ask an Admin to User:Thegooduser/Ask an Admin to salvage the page before it gets deleted. But it won't let me. How Can I move it? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser, there's nothing stopping you from moving the page that I can see. What sort of error/notice are you encountering? Primefac (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

"You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error." Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser, my guess is that you didn't remove the "Wikipedia" prefix when selecting the "User" namespace. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks, Beyond My Ken, and Primefac! (If you are wondering why I did not ping Primefac, it's because his signature says not to) Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin close needed...

Resolved

... at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_JohnThorne_topic_ban a few sections above. Thanks! –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

On it. Fish+Karate 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fish+Karate 15:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I know WP:ANRFC is transcluded at the top of the page, and there's no harm in adding a request like this here, but I wonder if it might be worth putting a notice about "requests to close" (since we get about one per week for various subjects). Primefac (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it's long been overused, to the point that it's basically useless. Right now there are 27 requests for closure, far more than we ever had before that section was created, and 13 of them were added by the same user. If it really is important to get something closed (more important than a WP:RDN discussion about a funding website), it's quite reasonable to make this kind of request. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to review U1 (big)deletion request

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

---

Hello English Wikipedia Administrators:

Stewards received a deletion request of a page greater than 5000 revisions (so you cannot delete it), but the request comes from the community banned user. I'm not comfortable proceeding without confirmation from English Wikipedia administrators (who have a final word about deletion on English Wikipedia), so please review m:SRM#Deleting my sandboxes and comment there.

Thanks! — regards, Revi 08:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to @Fish and karate, GoldenRing, and Amorymeltzer: for commenting. It's done (so others don't need to click the link and discover it's done). — regards, Revi 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Revi. Fish+Karate 13:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

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

---

Has a substantial backlog. Whispering^(t) 18:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

issue in male kpop idol's wikipedia page

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

---

hello wikipedia Administrators, As question I have an issue regarding double standard in some wikipedia article's posts, i see there are many wikipedia page like Liza Soberano and Yael Shelbia that included beauty ranking that are based public votes in their bio section and public image section, now i did this for kpop idol Kim Seok-jin too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Seok-jin&oldid=879690354 i added source too but it seems that kpop fans keep undoing these edites, they continiusly undoing this and write their own reviews as visual ranking should not be in wikipedia or public vote ranking does not count, if its true why these public vote based ranking are in other articles like female celebrities? as an korean language user i saw many of these posts in korean wikipedia, is en.wikipedia different than ko.wikipedia? if yes why these female celebrities's en.wikipedia page is like them but we can not write this for male celebrities? or users User:Snowflake91 and User:Ukiss2ne14lyfe Sabotaging with their own fangirl-boy views? can you check Kim Seok-jin history? i can not see any problem in adding public image in that article with relatable sources? i stop editing that articleto not doing editing-war instead i ask you to help edit: i have naver source too, naver is the most relatable source that many wikipedia users including them in korean articles source: http://entertain.naver.com/now/read?oid=468&aid=0000356402 thanks for reading my notice (Shin hi (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

It's good that you stopped edit warring. I agree with other editors that this content does not belong in the article. Please discuss on Talk:Kim Seok-jin rather than edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• • thanks for answering but i asked admin not regular users, because i want to know whats the difference between male and female celebrities and if i missed something about this, thanks for reading (Shin hi (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

  Well then that's another mistake of yours. Administrators opinions are not special. If you are going to ignore opinions because they are not from administrators you're liable to get yourself in trouble. As for your question there is nothing automaticity different between female and male celebrities. The content suitable for articles should be decided by coverage in reliable sources and editorial judgement. It's also a mistake to try to always follow other articles especially when you don't know if the other articles are even doing it right per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nil Einne (talk)

  BTW while emphasising again it doesn't matter, MSGJ is an administrator although I am not. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • mistake? i did not do any mistake,next? also its Administrators' noticeboard so i only want hear them, bye (Shin hi (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC))
• I like to think we are all special in our own special ways. I respect Nil Einne's knowledge and clarity of thought over my own. Decisions here are made by community consensus; admins enforce consensus. I think this discussion belongs on Talk:Kim Seok-jin. One of the special things about admins is we get to block people. I hope no one here needs blocking. Though I do enjoy the work.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• (we should all have tiny mops in our sigs so others may b. . . Oh never mind.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for answering i asked before from other admin too and i asked here now because i want to hear other admins point too, thanks for answering (Shin hi (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC))

There is usually more participation here from non-administrators so it's good you are satisfied with the answer to your question. But, yeah, when it comes to evaluating content, all editors are equal. Except some are smarter than others amd have better arguments. But what the hell is beauty ranking? Sounds like a publicity scam. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the OP has a point that this sort of stuff is very common, especially in articles on female celebrities e.g. the examples they gave Liza Soberano In August 2015, she was included in The Philippine Star Lifestyle "29 Most Bright & Beautiful" list and Yael Shelbia She was listed by TC CANDLER in 2018 as the 3rd most beautiful face in the world,[5] ahead in Israel of Gal Gadot.

A quick search finds Hazal Kaya with both The website World's Most Beautifuls ranked her fifth on the list of 10 most beautiful women of 2016 and Ayaklıgazete.com Awards - The Most Beautiful Actress and Margarita Muñoz She is ranked as one of the most beautiful young actresses and international revelations. She has been chosen several times by the magazine TV y Novelas publishing group Televisa as one of the most beautiful famous of Colombian television. and Ali Landry She was named by People magazine as one of the 50 most beautiful people in the world in 1998.[6] Her house was featured on E!'s celebrity homes and on MTV's Cribs. She has been listed as one of FHM magazine's 100 Sexiest Women in the World numerous times. She was twice named on Stuff Magazine's 100 Sexiest Women list. Askmen.com has named her one of the 50 Most Beautiful Women and 99 Most Desirable Women in the World. and Kadambari Kadam Kadambari is known for her excellent comic timing as well as she is known as one of the most beautiful actress in Marathi Film Industry. and Thylane Blondeau In December of 2018, Thylane placed 1st in the annual "Independent Critics List of the 100 Most Beautiful Faces of 2018". It was her 5th consecutive appearance on the prestigious global list, having been 84th in 2014, 28th in 2015, 5th in 2016, and 2nd in 2017.

But as I said, the fact these examples exist doesn't mean they are correct, the suitability of each case will need to be decided considering the merits. I suspect there would be consensus for something like Sandra Bullock People's 2015 Most Beautiful Woman, whether in the lead as now or something else but some of the other ones, I'm not so sure.

And it's not like this articles on men never have them e.g. Idris Elba Elba was selected as one of People's annual 100 Most Beautiful People in the World in May 2007.[73] He was named Essence's annual 2013 Sexiest Man of the Year[74] and was also ranked No. 2 in People's annual Sexiest Man Alive in 2013.[75] On 5 November 2018 it was announced he had been named People's Sexiest Man alive via The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.[76] and Bradley Cooper Cooper's sex appeal has been noted by several media outlets including People magazine, which named him Sexiest Man Alive in 2011.[165] He was initially uncomfortable with the accolade, but later found it funny.[6] Also in 2011, he was dubbed International Man of the Year by GQ and appeared in AskMen's 49 most influential men.[166][167] He ranked tenth on Empire's list of the 100 Sexiest Movie Stars in 2013. and Ranbir Kapoor Kapoor has been cited as one of the most attractive Indian celebrities by the media.[149] He has featured on The Times of India's listing of the 'Most Desirable Man' from 2010 to 2015, ranking among the top ten each year.[150] In 2009 People magazine listed him as the "Sexiest Man Alive" in India,[151] and in 2013 he topped Filmfare's poll of the "Most Stylish Young Actor".[152] Also in 2013, he was one of the recipients of the "People of the Year" award by the Limca Book of Records.[153] In 2010, he was voted the "Sexiest Asian Man" in a poll conducted by the magazine Eastern Eye.[154]

The nature of the wording and frequency would be significantly influenced by the reality of the world we live in. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if there is a systemic bias we need to counter in people too readily adding that stuff, and us just leave it there, but the solution would likely be to cut out some of the crap in articles on female celebrities not allow people to add it to male ones. Note that this isn't intended to comment on the specific case as I have not looked at the sourcing etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Questionable email

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

---

I received a very questionable email from a user, and I am not really sure what to make of it. Best case scenario, he was trying to discourage me from editing a page. Worst case, it was a thinly veiled threat. I would have contacted an administrator directly, but I don't know of any particular ones, so I would appreciate if someone could tell me how to proceed. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, it wasn't a threat or anything, just something for you to keep an eye on. That is all. Also, when you start a thread about someone, it's common courtesy to let that person know, and considering that people can see your editing history, you can't say that you were not talking about me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to start a thread about you. I just didn't know what I should do, so I was requesting advice on how to proceed. Anyway, it's in the past now, and I am willing to admit that your email was not sent with intent to threaten me as much as it was simply a case of extreme oversight, so I will leave it at that. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Blatant self-promotion and sockpuppetry at The Laundromat (film)

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

---

An extra in this film is using Wikipedia to push his own career as outlined here. On top of his rotating IPs and existing account (User:Kim2212), he has now begun making the exact same edits via the five-year-old, similarly named (but never used) User:Kimroh. We're dealing with a WP:NOTHERE, single-purpose user who is promo-ing for himself using sockpuppetry. Requesting indefinite blocks of both accounts per WP:DUCK (there are probably others given the age of Kimroh, but whatever). Thanks. Lebrandze (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Kimroh (talk · contribs) blocked as clear DUCK sock; The Laundromat (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) semi-protected for 2 weeks; and I'll leave a note for Kim2212 (talk · contribs) shortly. GiantSnowman 16:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A confirmed LTA reporting possible socking. Ain't life grand?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

About idbi bank page or article

Moved to Talk:IDBI_Bank#About_idbi_bank_page_or_article (diff) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Oreratile1207

I request that an uninvolved adminstrator take a look at the personal attacks against me on this editor's talk page, and take appropriate action. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have revoked the talk page access and removed harassment from their talk page. I was considering reblocking them indef (they are currently blocked for three months, which roughly equals the time they have been editing), but decided to give them the last piece of rope. In my statement, I made it clear that the next block, for whatever reason, will be of an indefinite duration. If anybody observes problematic behavior of this user in three months from now, please let me know, I will block them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think Ymblanter is an optimist, but you never know. User needs to undertake The_Wikipedia_Adventure once the block expires, as was suggested. Maybe a BAN from editing till they do that? Not sure how they can contribute if the don't know how to cite sources. And the edit warring is a problem. I do think they owe Cullen an apology. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a review of my protection

Earlier today, I reacted on a request at WP:RFPP and fully protected Mann Gulch fire because of edit-warring and content dispute. One of the edit-warring users, CerroFerro, was apparently upset about the protection. They left me a talk page message accusing me in "hijacking the page" and suggesting that I should be blocked, without actually giving a link so that I could not understand what they were talking about [57]. When I asked them what the fuck they were talking about, they called me a "foulmouthed" administrator [58], and when I asked that they crossed this out they instead suggested that I should refer to myself "Mr. What the fuck" [59]. Since my administratve actions seldome cause such an expressive reaction, it is possible that I have done something wrong before asking what the fuck they were referring to (which is a pretty much common expression, but apparently they have taken in as offence, which I did not mean it to be). Therefore I request an independent review of my protection of this page. May be indeed I hijacked the page and should be blocked, I do not know. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A small correction: I capitalized the "F" in the proposed moniker. CerroFerro (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

why can't we ever protect the right one?

You obviously protected the wrong version, you clod. Seriously though, CerroFerro, you might want to contemplate what other options an admin has in such cases (like blocking you for edit warring) and reconsider your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• No issues with the protection. CerroFerro has clearly put some effort into that article, but they need to focus on reaching consensus for all or a part of the content they wish to add, rather than continuing to edit-war over the exact change that they made, which is only likely to end in escalating blocks. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  In fact, having reviewed all of this exchange, if CerroFerro doesn't moderate their tone the next time they log in, I for one am willing to issue an immediate civility block; this was completely unacceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  Is that the Wrong Link? That diff is about changing a f to a F. Fish+Karate 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with Vanamonde's 22:25 comment] I saw that RFPP request earlier, and I wasn't at all interested in handling it at the time, because I really did consider it the wrong version. At 2042, Montanabw reverts to his preferred version with a rationale of "edit-warring", and then at 2043 requests protection on edit-warring grounds and requests a reversion to status quo ante bellum. (1) When a page has had recent edits from only two individuals, and neither one's been doing blatant vandalism or anything comparable, either nobody's been edit-warring, or both editors are guilty of it. (2) Reverting for the mere reason of "edit-warring" isn't generally a good idea, and it's definitely not if you're one of the parties. (3) Protecting and then reverting to status quo ante bellum, when one party's preferred version is what that party calls status quo ante bellum, is definitely picking sides. (4) Had this request come when the other party's preferred version was active, things would be different ("anything is better than edit-warring, so let's stick with the bad version instead of fighting"), but given the fact that protection was requested immediately after reversion, this sounds solidly like "please protect my version", especially as days were passing between reversions, so there was no significant chance of CerroFerro making any edits before someone saw it at RFPP. (5) Consequently, I consider both parties to have acted improperly, and the only way I'd consider protection appropriate is if CerroFerro's version is displayed until protection ends. [This is not a comment on Ymblanter, who probably didn't notice most of the items I raise.] I'm not sure what to do, but we can't treat this as if CerroFerro's the only one to blame. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I agree that Montanabw's edit summary was sub-par, but I think you've to look at the whole history of the dispute, including the stuff on the talk page. CerroFerro's version was based on a source that wasn't 100% verifiable. When Montanabw reverted on 6th January, she also left a talk page comment (see this discussion). CerroFerro reverted before even replying there, two days later, and when they did reply, they included the snarky aside "Please use standard English on this site. "Gotta say" should be "I have to say"." A second editor also raised objections to CerroFerro's content, to which CerroFerro's reply included "How many sockpuppets are you currently operating, pal?" That second account is a tad suspicious, but not exactly WP:DUCK material. Montanabw reverts again soon after, and leaves a talk page comment. MONGO replies to said comment, with a fairly nuanced suggestion about the new content. Some hours later, Acroterion warns both CerroFerro and Yankeepapa13, reminding the former about the need for consensus. Despite now having objections to their edits from three different editors, and a reminder from an uninvolved admin, CerroFerro reverts again (with the summary "see talk page"), and their subsequent reply misses the point of Acroterion's comment completely. It's at that point that Montanabw reverts again, and Ymblanter protects the article, after which CerroFerro goes a little off the rails, posting warnings or notifications article hijacking to four user talk pages (including that of Yankeepapa13, who hadn't even edited the article during this kerfuffle), and doubles down on his incivility here. Montana could have made one fewer revert, but this is not a symmetrical situation. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• You refer to several edit summaries, so I guess I should note that I don't remember paying attention to edit summaries, except for the ones associated with the diffs I provided. Thank you for the details, because I've missed some of this; somehow I thought that there hadn't been any discussion at talk, aside from stuff these two had written. The fact that Montanabw was reverting primarily on the basis of agreement with Yankeepapa13 completely changes the dynamic and invalidates my statements above. I'm sorry. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• No worries; at first glance, that was my conclusion too. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I indeed looked at the talk page and the edit summaries and decided that the article would benefit for a short period of full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• As an aside, I'm sure it's a difference of culture and situation, but I struggle to think of a real life situation in my life where someone could ask "what the fuck" another person is talking about without offence being given. I realise that for some people this is everyday language, but those people need to consider that for other people it isn't, and err on the side of not stirring up needless trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that societies differ about appropriate language even within a culture. I have never heard someone say "fuck" within my family or friends so it is always kind of a shock to encounter it online. Also, I think it's important to remember that we have editors from all nations, faiths, areas of society and, most importantly, ages. I'm not talking about this particular situation but we have admins & editors who started editing at 12 or 13 and I hope we wouldn't use offensive or disparaging language towards editors that age. I'm not talking about sheltering children from life but Wikipedia is an educational resource, not some message board where anything goes. I hope we have higher standards here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, point taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring for the moment the language that was used on either side, there's nothing wrong with protecting the article so that discussion can take place, and Ymblanter didn't hijack anything in doing so. Neither did Montanabw (who is female, by the way) in reverting to the status quo ante, nor did Yankeepapa13 for commenting on the talkpage, but they all got warned by CerroFerro for "hijacking" [60] [61] [62], along with this sparkling complaint about the Cabal and an unscrupulous administrator [63]. This follows this exchange by a now-blocked IP on my talkpage [64] [65] [66] complaining about Yankeepapa13, echoing this by CerroFerro [67] and this [68], MONGO is trying to work things through on the talkpage, and nobody has done anything to deserve the bile displayed by CerroFerro. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  I say give a day or three and see if CerroFerreo helps out on the chitty chat page where we can draw up some suitable bargain. Too funny...I saw the notice to my talkpage that my name was here and I expected to once again be the deer standing in the headlights wondering how I was gonna talk my way out of the latest hole I'd dug for myself! Whew...--MONGO (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  @MONGO: My apologies if I didn't make that clear; I was required to notify you, but I didn't want to go and say "you can ignore this if you want" because that's not really the point, is it? As you can see, no criticism was intended, I only linked your edits above to provide some context. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  No worries and thanks!--MONGO (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I see my name also appeared on this. Yup, I asked for full protection of the WP:WRONG version, and I am sad that Ymblanter took the heat for an entirely appropriate action. The issue is pretty clearly laid out at the talkpage and the now-blocked editor in question pretty much treated Ymblanter the way that individual has treated everyone else... attack when criticized. I alerted members of the appropriate wikiproject to take a look at the article and as far as I am concerned, there should now be 3 or 4 people with some expertise who can review the content and move forward as needed. Looks like this is one to close, nothing more to be said. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Aside form trying not to protect copyvios, defamation, and negative unsourced BLP's, it is not the Admin's job to decide which version is right or wrong. We protect the page to stop disruption and to encourage users to decide the correct version on the talk page. Someone will almost always think we protected the wrong version.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't even know we had a special {{uw-hijacking}} warning template. That's a pretty far-fetched choice for complaining about protection, and without even saying which article it's about, yet. CerroFerro, please don't post random warning templates, as you did here. If you have a complaint, please use humanspeak (your own words) and try to say what the issue is. Some new users have the impression that templates are somehow more "formal", and thereby more powerful, but they're not. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC).

  Or in my case "MONGOspeak"...consists of single syllable words of a very basic nature...meat, bone, club, whack, blah, ugh.--MONGO (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ahem, @CerroFerro: hijacking is not changing article in ways you do not like. it is "when an existing page is changed from one subject to another." Placing such a thing on an admin's talk page after PP a page to stop an edit war is way over the top. You might want to look at WP:Don't template the regulars. Also, I see no discussion on the article talk page from you from the 14th. Am I missing something?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Noting no edits from CerroFerro since "small correction" here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Interfacts block and topic ban appeal

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

I have issued a:

• topic ban for promotional editing (e.g. [69][70])
• and an indefinite block, first year under special provisions, for failing to declare a conflict of interest and violating WP:COI by directly editing mainspace. This is likely financial - even though he says he isn't paid, he may own some of the cryptocurrency concerned.

The user has since lodged an appeal:

Im being blocked in retaliation for challenging (on talk pages!) wikipedia's unfairness and bias. This is grossly unfair. I am not a paid promoter for anything and a review of my brief history since 2016 shows that my topics are not cryptocurrency focused or even commercial. Ive created and edited articles about deceased people. I am the author of solidus bond and was asked to create backlinks to strengthen the article. I did so in good faith less than 24 hours ago... and within hours I was hounded, had all my work undone and then when I complained on talk pages, my account was blocked! Who are you people? You are discrediting wikipedia. I never got paid a dime and now you try to censor me. This is outrageous. I am a journalist and will speak publicly about this. Interfacts (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As these sanctions were made under WP:GS/Crypto provisions, they must be reviewed here. MER-C 21:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• The editor doesn't understand what they're blocked for. That indicates that they would go on to promote the Solidus Bond and/or its creator throughout Wikipedia. And no, those are not "good-faith backlinks". They shouldn't be unblocked at this time. Huon (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Good TB and block. Miniapolis 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Interfacts: Please be sure to mention that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertsing cryptocurrencies. Please confine that activity to your journalistic endeavors. Those edits mentioned above look promotional to me. Please stay tuned to this thread as the discussion unfolds.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Good TBAN and block. This is blatant promotion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Does anyone else feel the 'I am a journalist and will speak publicly about this' bit is fairly inappropriate? To be fair, I'm not saying it's wrong for people to write or speak publicly about their experiences, especially when their comments are fair and aren't targeting particular editors. But writing about it like that seems to me like that come across as trying to create a chilling effect. (To be fair, it's fairly lame as these things go.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I get that feeling too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• While this user does seem to have a keen interest in crypto and a broadly promotional tone, I think an indef tban and indef block is pretty harsh at this stage. What does the block accomplish that the ban doesn't? I would unblock and allow an appeal to AN after six months; this at least gives the editor the chance to be productive in other areas. If they never come back then no harm is done; if they're productive in other areas, we win. If they can't let it go, well, blocks are cheap and easy. I don't think this was admin abuse or way outside the bounds of what is reasonable, but it isn't what I would have done. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Failing to declare a conflict of interest in this topic area destroys any confidence in the trustworthiness of the editor. Securities and other fraud, including pump and dump schemes, is very common in the cryptocurrency space outside of Wikipedia (see e.g. [71][72][73][74]). Creating a promotional article about your cryptocurrency/crypto bond (in this case) when you own some in order to profit from any resulting price increase is unquestionably not what Wikipedia is for. Paid, undisclosed promotion of financial securities is illegal. MER-C 13:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely, yes. Even "honest" cryptocurrency dealings are fraught with danger, but there has also been massively escalating fraudulent activity over the past 12 months as the bubble has been bursting. Now, I'm certainly not accusing anyone of fraud in the current case, but we should require total honesty and openness about conflicts of interest surrounding this subject, and totally neutral writing with no hint of promotion. Anyone not complying with that should be shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with just about everything said here, but still don't see why an indefinite TBAN from everything cryptocurrency-related isn't sufficient to prevent disruption. The same or similar things could all be said about lots of editors in lots of topics (eg American politics generates lots of intense POV-pushing; the motive is political rather than financial but the intensity of motivation is similar) and our standard response is a TBAN from those topics. GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with block and ban. Any unblock should be conditional on broad crypto currency TBAN. Any creations should be via AFC.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) @Interfacts: should have to acknowledge that calling comments "fake news" as seen at the ongoing Solidus Bond AfD and multiple times at WP:Articles for deletion/SwiftCoin is unhelpful. Џ 09:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for approval to edit ‪page "Umakant Pandey Purush Ya.....?"

I tried to Edit this recently created page please approve to get the rights to edit this page to my account.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReelingMedia (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username and the fact that they seem to want to promote their films. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Venlafaxine

Have just received legal threats by email from 2607:FEA8:3C9F:E82A:3DA7:998A:5982:3622 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have therefore blocked them for two weeks and protected the article in question. If anyone wishes to see the email in question or have concerns with these actions let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• James sent me the email and I acted before I saw this. I've blocked the /64 for a month, which should prevent the IP from hoping and also be limited enough to not have collateral damage. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• I note there's also a legal threat in their edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • They have now sent a few emails to my university. They have moved to this account User:Mwiner which I have also blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• What's the point of editing anonymously if the Foundation hands out our real life identities on request?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Dlohcierekim not sure what you mean? No private data was used in any of the actions here.
  • If you are referring to Mwiner finding out what university I work for, well that is on my talk page.
  • If you are referring to Mwinder being the same as the IP well that is simply obvious from the edits the accounts have made.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a relief. Have a real problem with unreasonable people harassing users off-wiki. Hope this individual is not troubling you too much. On the other hand, can the Foundation undertake to cause a halt to their vexatious behavior?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've declined their unblock request and told them to withdraw the legal threat. Doc James They have also revealed your True Nmae while c/o doxxing them. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • May real name is avaliable on Wikipedia. Yes having someone email ones work to ask ones work to fire you is annoying but not too big of a deal.
  • I do not think the foundation can do much at this point. Likely best to simple ignore them going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Dlohcierekim, Doc James' userpage says "In real life I go by James Heilman", and his userpage and that article use the same image. Heilman is a clinical assistant professor at the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia, to quote that article, and universities generally place contact information for their professors online. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How can a IP address email i thought you needed a Wikipedia account to email a user Abote2 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My email address is easy to find with a little googling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on admin inactivity standards

There is currently a request for comment on admin inactivity standards at Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards, all are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bannination

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

---

Put in place an initially voluntary structure to manage discussions on bans and editing restrictions, as follows:

1. A templated header (using mandatory SUBST and date substitution like deletion templates) which sets an expectation that an ANI debate on a named sanction will run for at least 7 days, with, as always, the possibility of an early close per WP:SNOW, but a strong expectation that this would normally only happen when the proposal is rejected. The offset to this would be...
2. An optional "temporary injunction" which enacts the requested sanction immediately without prejudice during the debate - thus an IBAN, TBAN or block would be put in place until the debate is concluded, then either lifted without implication of wrongdoing or made permanent depending on the outcome. This would be requested by the filing party and then reviewed by an uninvolved admin, as with arbitration sanctions

So, run ANI block/ban discussions much more on the lines of AE, but with ANI's bigger audience. 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as proposer, obvs. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose rarely do we need to discuss an edit restriction for 7 days before a consensus is reached. Natureium (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not fond of this for a ban discussion; we shouldn't impose any community sanctions without consensus, and that includes things like preliminary injunctions. People object to current process on kangaroo-court grounds, as you note, but why would they not object to something where one aggrieved user and one admin can immediately impose sanctions without discussion? But the biggest difficulty, in my mind, is your wording run ANI block/ban discussions like this. Why must all block discussions have to wait so long? Many blocks don't need discussion, e.g. "I'm edit-warring with a vandal: I keep reporting them at WP:AIV and they keep removing the report" or "This user just threatened to sue me". And even if a discussion is needed, sometimes it's really obvious that a block is needed before even a day passes. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This gets us nowhere! AndInFirstPlace 01:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)

• @AndInFirstPlace: With all due respect, you have not been here long enough to know what effects it will or will not have. Your own affairs are in a terrible mess, with two badly mistaken AN/I filed by you, and EWN report closed with no action, and an AN/I and an AE about you. You are coming off a block for disruptive editing. You've been here for five days. I suggest that you concentrate yourself on learning more about how Wikipedia works (i.e. a few days ago, you thought that administrators were assigned to each article, and filed an RFA with no chance of passing) before you start participating in discussions such as this one. In any event, NOTE TO CLOSER, this editor's opinion should be discounted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - one size does not fit all. ansh666 02:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - see comments below, but essentially per Ansh666. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, we really should not have to codify everything. Fish+Karate 10:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as above, we don't need this level of bureaucracy. GiantSnowman 10:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - These decisions would be better made on an individual case-by-case basis.--NØ 12:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - CBAN discussions already have a mandatory length of 24 hours. That's enough BURO. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as Ansh states one size does not fit all. The amount of damage that can be done in 7 days by bad faith editors does not bear thinking about. MarnetteD|Talk 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd support extending it from the current 24 hours but a week is too long. Most discussions will likely be dead some time before that. Hut 8.5 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion

I know, more bureaucracy. A lot of bannination and other restriction decisions seem to be made in undue haste, usually for the very good reason that there is thought to be a pressing problem to fix. Even I, as a card-carrying nasty suspicious bastard, think we are in danger of being a kangaroo court some of the time, and it would be nice to be able to separate the immediate Wiki-on-fire aspect of an ANI discussion from the more measured question of what to do in the long term about a specific editor. There's a lot of noise out there about us being hasty, and while in most cases it appears to be for perfectly sound protect-the-wiki reasons, it is a fair criticism. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this Rfc take place on the talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've changed numbering to bullets; numbers don't make much sense when support and oppose are in the same section. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: Obvious bans are obvious. I am referring to cases that run for maybe 24h with a dozen !votes. That seems a thin basis for a permanent sanction to me. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If you go to WP:ANI and request that I be indeffed for not-instantly-obvious reasons (i.e. discussion is useful), and after a couple of days of discussions, it becomes obvious that I'm seriously detrimental to the project and am unlikely ever to stop harming the project if nobody stops me, why should five more days pass? I understand your concerns regarding bans, but if an uninvolved admin reviews the evidence you present and reads the arguments given by those who vote, and your proposal to "block Nyttend indefinitely" is clearly the best choice, the wait-seven-days rule on the block request is preventing the reviewing admin from improving or maintaining Wikipedia and should be ignored, even if it's not a case of WP:SNOW. This is hardly a rare situation at ANI. We shouldn't be setting up a rule if IAR-warranted cases are likely to arise reasonably often: any rule that should often be ignored in non-emergency situations is flawed, and I think we're better off without it. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• What if you went at it from a different angle, and made a {hold} that an admin (or maybe any editor) could put on a section that would indicate a desire to let the thread stay open for 24–72hrs before any action is taken? In a complicated non-emergency situation, this would allow time for discussion before !vote, for the target to respond, for people who haven't participated to participate, and for those who have !voted to sleep on it and reconsider. It would also be a signal that there is no need to rush and !vote, and that the matter is complicated or should receive broad input. But rather than requiring it for every post, make it an optional thing that can be used only for those threads that would benefit from it. Like, a {complicated} or {norush} tag. ^Leviv_ich? ! 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think for blocks this is a bad idea; most blocks at AN/ANI are not done on the basis of consensus but on the basis of obviousness (I don't have any data to back this up but it's my general feeling). I'd have somewhat more sympathy for the proposal if it was restricted to ban discussions only, but I see a number of problems with that:

• For some discussions, seven days is too long (see eg this discussion where the ban proposal did run for seven days, but was plainly ripe for closing several days earlier);
• Some discussions create significant disruption and need to be shut down long before seven days pass, and SNOW is still a fairly high bar to clear to do this;
• Some discussions need to run past seven days and this proposal will create an expectation that such discussions should be closed after seven days.

In the end, these discussions end on the basis of consensus and if someone thinks time hasn't been given to allow consensus to develop, they are welcome to request review of the close. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• !Votes before evidence is more of an issue - the bigger issue is that an accusation, with some suitable diffs, is raised. Particularly when it's someone the community doesn't particularly like, we can end up with a dozen !votes before a response can actually be made. It's unlikely that all, even most, reconsider their !votes in light of any new evidence presented. This is like a jury voting after hearing just the prosecution's side. Obviously we can't await for a long time, let alone permanently, but the current system gives a significant advantage towards the accusing side. I can see the benefit of a 24hr discussion, no !votes, pause in all but the most obvious cases (clock to set to 0 immediately upon a response by the accused party). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is part of the problem I want to address. There is a tendency to go for early action to protect the project when actually sitting back and thinking about it may be a better idea. The issue I am trying to get to here is that there is no consensus way of stopping someone form doing something while the administrati consider whether that person should be doing that thing. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Scan/check for unprotected high risk modules?

Resolved

 – See also #Bot proposal: automatically protect high-risk templates and modules. --Izno (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My memory is faulty and I cannot remember who worked on the last sweep for unprotected high risk templates/modules. Module:Complex date was vandalized today and affected at least 3K articles before being fixed, with over 700k total transclusions, as its in a lot of infoboxes and Commons category. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• A previous discussion at October 2017 had some useful information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Module:Calendar needs protection although I'm not sure how many articles it appears in (I just reverted what looked like junk). Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Protected along with another that RexxS found. Same guy, hopping IPs each time. Another huge transclusion one. -- ferret (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Recent changes: template edits by IPs + module edits by anyone. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going through them now. This process of protecting high-risk templates/modules needs to be fully automated. Occasionally a low-risk template will get transcluded on a high-risk one and it goes unnoticed. If you are in favour of a bot automatically protecting these pages, let me know. I'd be happy to implement one! Module:WikidataIB/sandbox by the way is being used in the mainspace... pinging recent contributor RexxS. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

   Done All modules and templates with 500-999 transclusions were semi-protected, 1000-9999 EC-protected, and >= 10000 were template-protected. I'm going to start a bot proposal shortly :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  @MusikAnimal: Thanks for spotting the leftover sandbox usage. I've now removed it from Template:Commons category-inline and Template:Medical resources and once the pages in Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:WikidataIB/sandbox have been "touched", I think that will clear the issue, and I'll check later. As I'm often the author of the related modules, but unfortunately not an admin, I would very much appreciate a bot that automatically protected these pages. Thanks for your efforts. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  We were thinking on Discord that highly-used templates and modules should be auto-protected. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Definitely in support of automating this, @MusikAnimal: -- ferret (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Odd closure

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

---

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL was closed as "keep" but implemented as restoring to the previous target based on recentness of the prior RFD, whereas the debate appears to me to be evenly split between the previous target and some new target that takes into account the new RfC after the previous RfD closed and combines the two. I'm not confident this close actually addresses the question being asked, especially since "keep" is in the context of nobody advocating deletion. It was only ever about the target. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, is this about me or the close? I presume the latter since I wasn't notified of this, but if you have an issue with my close I would think WP:DRV would be the better venue, not to mention my talk page. If you'd indeed rather have this conversation here, I'd be happy to further explain my rationale. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thje close, my bad, I meant to ping you as well. Please accept my apologies. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

An RfD was closed three weeks prior, where there was a good consensus to point this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC. One week after that close, you changed the target. The redirect had never been tagged for that discussion — although the talkpage was upon closure — but you were given that link before reverting again. When Guy Macon nominated it again at RfD, they also restored the target of the redirect to the noticeboard archive per consensus at the previous RfD, but used Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail as the target in the RfD template. That obviously led to some confusion, and I suspect is why many participants just said retarget for both options. I think the two paragraphs of my close summarize well enough my rationale, but I probably should have noted that my keep was treating the noticeboard as the original/current link, both per the status of the page and the previous RfD. I tried to imply that when I said I find the arguments for keeping/retargeting to the noticeboard archive to be stronger but I've clarified my intent more directly now. Keep in this context was as opposed to changing the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

On 14:00, 3 January 2019 a first redirect RfD for WP:DAILYMAIL closed with a result of Redirect all to the RfC[75]

On 14:49, 25 January 2019, a second redirect RfD for WP:DAILYMAIL closed with a result of keep at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC.[76]

From 13:33, 8 February 2018 to 19:19, 2 October 2018[77] and again from 03:24, 26 December 2018 to today,[78] Wikipedia:Dailymail has redirected to the first Daily Mail RfC.

From 13:14, 10 December 2017 to 19:19, 2 October 2018[79] and again from 14:00, 3 January 2019 to today[80] Wikipedia:Daily Mail has redirected to the first Daily Mail RfC.

From 00:58, 12 August 2017 to 19:18, 2 October 2018[81] and again from 14:00, 3 January 2019 to today,[82] Wikipedia:DAILY MAIL has redirected to the first Daily Mail RfC.

From 14:54, 18 December 2018 to 16:34, 10 January 2019,[83] Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirected to the first Daily Mail RfC.

On 16:34, 10 January 2019 JzG retargeted Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL to the perennial page.[84]

On 00:41, 11 January 2019 I reverted Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL back to first Daily Mail RfC, citing the second redirect RfD that had closed on 14:49, 25 January 2019.[85]

On 08:40, 11 January 2019 JzG Reverted Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL back to the perennial page despite the decision made in the RfC, arguing that doing this "made obvious sense".[86].

I could have re-reverted as is usual when an editor fails to abide by the decision of an RfD, but I chose not to edit war, and thus it stayed a redirect to the perennial page until Amorymeltzer changed it back on 25 January 2019[87]

Instead of edit warring, I posted a new RfD on 14:12, 11 January 2019[88] Note that I posted this new RfD just four days after the last RfD was closed.

The result of this second redirect RfD, closed on 14:49, 25 January 2019, was keep at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC.[89] (the first Daily Mail RfC).

On 13:23, 11 January 2019 I added a link to the second Daily Mail RfC to the top of the first Daily Mail RfC to make it easier for the reader to find both.[90]

So we have two RfDs with two different closers,[91][92] one right after the other, with the same conclusion.

We have a policy for anyone who wishes to challenge the close of either of the RfDs. That policy is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The steps (which do not start with posting to AN) are:

[1] Deletion review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly

[2] Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review

[3] Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions to list the closing for review.

I suggest that this AN report be closed until the above steps are completed without resolving the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

While we are at it, someone should correct that "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator" language. Not all RfD closes are performed by administrators, and indeed only one of the two closers discussed above is an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Putting aside the fact that JzG failed to discuss the closure with the closing administrator before taking this to AN, I consider the discussion closure to be reasonable. I probably would have closed this RfD discussion as "no consensus", in which case the redirect should fall back to the target which has reached a consensus at the first RfD, i.e. the 2017 RfC. Regardless of whether the closure is described as "keep", "retarget" or "no consensus", the result would be the same. feminist (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• In the close, Amory clearly articulates that there is a lack of consensus, and that normally, a relist would be ideal. They even point out that the previous RfD does not hold much weight as it was procedurally incorrect. However, they simultaneously declared a consensus to "keep", without citing any policy implications that would have favored the "keep" side. This does not add up, and in a DRV, I would vote to relist. However, I do not think this can be discussed here when DRV is the obviously-correct venue.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Steward election nominations closing soon

Hello everyone! The 2019 steward elections are currently in the nomination phase, with a day left before nominations close. We don't have many candidates so far. If you're interested, have experience working on multiple wikis, or have experience with advanced permissions here (preferably CU/OS but not a rule) then please consider helping out. Some general information on what stewards are and what they do can be found at the Meta page. I'm also happy to answer any questions relating to the election or the role. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion during a merger discussion

Hi all. What is your opinion on whether it is inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion while there is an active merger discussion with multiple comments already on record? What would you do about such a situation? Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fine. Resolve both. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's fine. AfD (CSD wouldn't be fine) isn't quickly moving and so long as the merge discussion is mentioned there, then it can incorporate it.

OTOH, any changes to the article(s) in Mainspace should wait until a discussion about them (Talk: or Afd) have concluded. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Andy. The AfD can work collaboratively with the merge. Not knowing the situation, is it feasible for the merged page to become a dab or redirect? If the issue involves editors who don't want their hard work deleted, is a "copy paste/credit the author" an option that might help settle it? Lots of variables. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Whle I agree with the above, I do think one has to consider if the AFD is POINTy too. For example if the merge has 20 -to-0 supports, to a point that SNOW is reasonable, and some user goes to AFD the topic and is clearly bitter about something, that's where I'd snow close the AFD. But that's only where SNOW would apply. If there's clear disagreement,then let both run as noted. --Masem (t) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's unlikely that there wouldn't be an argument for a redirect if a merge discussion is open; but if the nominator doesn't feel that redirect is appropriate I see no reason why an AfD wouldn't be acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you to all for your thoughts. We discussed one such situation and agreed to ask for the merge discussion to close, merge and preserve the edit histories, and then rigorously prune out all the garbage. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Jehochman, please see WP:MAD if you're not already aware of it. If the merger happens, deletion is outright inappropriate unless the target gets deleted or one of a few appropriate workaround approaches is taken. If the page getting AFDd has an improper title, some of those workarounds will resolve that problem entirely. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've discovered this referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal - as the merge discussion had been open for OVER A YEAR and has significant objections, there's no reasonable argument the discussion should prevent an AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to resolve both

Basically, there are nothing much going on at Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Root analogue dental implant. I suggest to close the discussion by NOT deleting. Instead, I suggest replacing the Root analogue dental implant with #redirect[[Dental implant]]. That would be the best of both worlds. The merged Dental implant has improved readability. People who still want more RAI content can dig up the old versions. Moreover, I already created a page at Commons:Root analogue dental implant that links to Root analogue dental implant. If deleted, the commons-page might link to nothing. Tony85poon (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis

Hello Wikipedia-Community, my name is Robert Wintermeyer and I am currently conducting surveys in various social media platforms as part of my master's thesis. The focus is on the community guidelines of the respective social platform and the acceptance by its users. Of course, the data provided will not be passed on to anybody and will only be used for the master's thesis. All responses are confidential. I would start my survey by asking users for their participation by posting on their talk pages with information similar to the suggested text in the Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia article. I also provided further information on my user page. I would be thankful for any feedback on how I may conduct my research or if my suggested approach would be okay.
Thank you very much for your time!
Kind regards,
Robert Wintermeyer--Rwinterm (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rwinterm: I think you are, unfortunately, under a misapprehension; Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, and not social media. (This thread will probably be moved or removed soon, for much the same reason.) ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the distinction, SerialNumber, whatever Wikipedia is or isn't, it is most certainly a medium with an integral social component. So while you are idiomatically correct, if one is being literal, it's certainly a fit. However Mr. Wintermeyer wishes to define things for his research is obviously his business! Though I might suggest that this is probably the wrong board for this. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia also is an integral part of the social media platforms I want to research Serial Number. I just wanted to approach the community before I start my research. So far I discovered that each Wiki has its own way of dealing with research. Therefore, I wanted to ask before I just go ahead. Like I mentioned I already read the articles about research and just wanted to ask if it's okay before I start. And thank you Dumuzid! --Rwinterm (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Rwinterm is here following discussions at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis and Cunard's talk page. By Wikipedia he means the Wikipedia community. He is proposing to ask selected editors, by way of a message at their talk page, to fill out an online questionnaire (see the link at his user page). He is also doing this at the German Wikipedia with a different questionnaire since practices at the two Wikipedias vary in interesting ways. I believe he wants to make sure that this will be acceptable here. I don't see that there is a problem with him doing this. I am not clear how well the study is structured, but that is an issue between him and his faculty advisor. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:LAB would suggest that this be done at Village Pump. Perhaps the Ethical Guide should include that information from the policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrator needed

...at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting topic ban for User:Merphee regarding edits on The Australian

It's been a few days and we haven't had an administrator to deal with the intractable issue of a persistent editor making constantly disruptive edits. Prompt attention would be greatly appreciated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, now two administrators have commented. I don't think it's what you were after, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing What we need is for the topic ban to be established. Is there no intention of this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: That is up to the community. Bans are not placed by administrators but by consensus (well, assuming no discretionary sanctions are relevant, which here they aren't). If you think a topic ban is necessary, you need to build community consensus for it. I see no consensus for such a ban at this point, in fact no support for it outside those on one side of the dispute, so no, it seems unlikely that one will be enacted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Autofill with personal attacks

A user contacted me by email asking if there is a way for me or other admins to prevent a situation where the Wikimedia software is autofilling a dialog box with personal attacks. The situation occurs when a harasser creates a new username that directly attacks an existing user. On pages such as Special:Contributions when you start typing a username into the user dialog box, it automatically makes suggestions. So if there is a User:Example and someone creates a user "User:Example sucks!", then the Wikimedia software will helpfully suggest "Example sucks!" whenever you start to type "Example" into a dialog box. If that's not clear, here is what it looks like for my username: example. Is there a way this can be prevented or remedied? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Edgar181, oversighters can hide usernames from dropdowns and stewards can do that globally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will suggest that they email Wikipedia:Oversight. To me, this seems like something that ideally administrators should be able to address though.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Since usernames are global now (i.e. unified across all Wikimedia projects), if you see an attack username, my understanding is that you should request a global hideuser, which only stewards can do. This can be requested at three places:

• On-wiki at meta:SRG
• On IRC at #wikimedia-stewards ^connect
• By email to stewardswikimedia.org

Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Coincidentally, I've just had experience of getting a blocked, but nevertheless visible and very offensive username removed which had been visible for 4 years. I only discovered it when it, too, was offered to me as an autofill option for Cullen328, who is an administrator himself. (I think he'd forgotten all about its existence.) It was a very simple job to email the oversight team at WP:OS, pointing out that account removal fell within bullet point 4 of their oversight policy. The account was removed (or hidden) the very next day, and I was encouraged to report to them any other harassment account names I might find. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

Thank you, Nick Moyes, for helping to remove that little bit of ugliness. I knew about that nasty troll account four years ago but forgot about it when it was blocked. Honestly, it never occurred to me that it would show up in searches for my account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

190.25.222.2, proxy, LTA

I just dropped a short block on this IP, but I see in the log that in the past it's been blocked as a proxy. Can one of you maybe look into that, and/or into the range? And I know we have an LTA who makes a-holish vandal edits like this, with some harassment thrown in (I'm about to revdel it)--and maybe you know which one this is, and whether there is something you can do. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not where I can look closely, but the IP is certainly a proxy, so I've extended the block. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And the LTA is MRY. Don't hold your breath but there's probably a filter around here somewhere. It's not going to be totally effective however, so semi-protection should be considered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, that one. I have a hard time telling them apart, it's all so nonsensical. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lonely talk page

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

---

Talk:Arceus (3) appears to have gotten left behind during some type of move of its parent page. I believe it may need a history merge with Talk:Arceus, though I'm not positive. Anyhow, can someone locate the correct location for it and move/merge it there. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Robert McClenon and RHaworth: the nominator and deleter, respectively. Now...the old history of Arceus (at Arceus (3)) goes back over a thousand edits and 13 years. While the new version doesn't have any shared history, would it be worthwhile to do a history merge? ansh666 22:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've done. I think it's all sorted now, whole history is at Talk:Arceus, and I've deleted the superfluous Talk:Arceus (3). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see... I fixed the talk page hist merge, but you're saying the article should be hist merged too. I agree. That's something I would likely screw up, though, so I'll leave it for others, but Ansh666 is right, I believe. Deleted history at Arceus (3) should be merged into history of Arceus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Holy-moley: Creating Arceus (3) View or restore 1,383 deleted edits?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Next question: What happened is that there was a draft that was ready for acceptance in AFC, and a redirect to a parent article. The usual procedure, if the reviewer does not have the Page Mover privilege, is to request an administrator to move the draft into article space, "on top of" the redirect. If the reviewer has the Page Mover privilege, the reviewer can move the redirect into neverland, and then accept the draft by moving it into article space, and the reviewer/mover then tags the redirect as G6 for housekeeping deletion. Should I be checking the redirect for history to see if it was previously an article, and then should I be requesting a histmerge of the article? Advice, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah. That should do it. I'll be starting the restore soon. gotta use my desk top.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Good news- resotred deleted revisions. bad news-- software won't let me move to new location-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Closure needed for Wikipedians by philosophy CfD

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

---

on a side note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_15#Wikipedians_by_philosophy also needs closure. -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done GoldenRing (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Steward needed for a history merge that needs a delete and undelete of more than 5000 edits: Psilocybin mushroom

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

---

• In Category:Candidates for history merging, page Magic mushroom needs to be history-merged into page Psilocybin mushroom. I cannot use the old type of history-merge, as that would need deleting and undeleting page Psilocybin mushroom, which has much over 5000 edits. I cannot use Special:MergeHistory, as it would need first deleting and undeleting page Psilocybin mushroom to get rid of 2 early redirect edits (16:26, 24 September 2003‎ by Jimfbleak, and 16:20, 24 September 2003‎ by Liftarn). (As a complication, Psilocybin mushroom has 2 deleted edits already (19:35, 13 May 2010 by Giftiger wunsch, and 00:02, 28 March 2007 by Peter G Werner).) (This shows that ability to selectively delete edits is needed.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The request needs to go to m:SRM not here. --Rschen7754 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Anthony Appleyard: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

• • • • I've copypasted the request over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion, returning religious statistics vandal

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Religion in... statistics vandalism for the background, and Scgonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This vandal, who subtly vandalises cited religious statistics, has returned, this time as 83.45.202.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). History shews he will jump IP addresses as we block his latest ones. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72h by HJ Mitchell--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The editing restrictions placed on Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) as unban conditions in March 2014 and modified by motion in September 2016 are modified as follows:

• Ferahgo the Assassin's topic ban from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed, is rescinded.
• All restrictions on Ferahgo the Assassin's participation in dispute resolution are rescinded.
• The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci (talk · contribs) remains in force.

These modifications will be subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the former editing restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the above modifications are to be considered permanently enacted.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this

impersonation

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

---

Blocked Special:CentralAuth/Dlohciereklm for impersonating me. Can't remember how to request a global block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: see meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Roger Stone

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

---

• Roger Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On April 13, 2017, Coffee imposed discretionary sanctions on this page]. Although required, they did not create an editnotice. As far as I can tell, they did not log their action. Although I'm not an expert at jumping around ArbCom's decisions/modifications, I believe that such sanctions may be kept in place for only one year. The guidelines for when to restrict pages are, as one might expect, mushy, leaving it pretty much up to the administrator.

I'm bringing this here because I have recently edited the article and am therefore not an "uninvolved administrator". The initial question in my view is simply should the page be so restricted. If yes, then it should be updated, logged, and an editnotice created. It's not important that the procedural niceties were not followed by Coffee (they are self-blocked and no longer an admin).

Hopefully someone who is uninvolved and better at this than I will address this. Editors are currently being accused of violating 1RR, and I seriously doubt that each revert is followed by a discussion initiated by the reverter on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: the article was put under a revised editing restriction by Awilley on December 18, 2018. [93] - MrX 🖋 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A quick look at the page tells me it still needs DS and that they need to be enforced.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My 300th mistake this morning and counting. There's also an edit notice, but I could swear that when I edited the entire page, there was no notice (it wasn't today but it was since December). Nothing I said above is right. Someone can please close this thread and put me out of my misery. I need a long nap.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: I routinely miss edit notices. For some reason my browser automatically scrolls down to the editing window whenever I click "edit" and I'd have to manually scroll up to see the notice. When I do scroll up I get two sets of each notice...something to do with wikiEd I think. ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Bath head coaches

Hello, I am an admin on Commons; by mistake I moved Category:Bath Rugby head coaches to Category:Coaches of Bath Rugby. I apologise for the mistake, didn't notice i was on en.wiki. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved back. A very easy fix :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

JGaines1997

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

---

JGaines1997 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Can someone please change this to a permanent block? The user is a blatantly obvious sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs), a long term country music vandal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Xymmax switched it to indefinite three minutes after placing the initial block. Fish+Karate 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warrior 71.245.242.138

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

---

Please stop the edit warring on the page for Michelle Alexander by IP 71.245.242.138. Thank you Lindenfall (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lindenfall: Did you mean to report this to the edit warring noticeboard? I see you left such a notice in the IP talk page, but could not find any report there. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@FlyingAce:Yes, hello!, and thank you very much for letting me know... I'd though I had. I'm an amateur at this sort of thing. (And I'm not enjoying playing cop, of late, I might add.) Would you mind checking that I've done it right, now? (And, please delete from here, if that is allowed). Lindenfall (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Bot proposal: automatically protect high-risk templates and modules

See #Scan/check for unprotected high risk modules? for the latest incident. High-risk templates and modules are huge attack vector for vandalism. To mitigate this, we often procedurally protect such pages, but this usually only happens after the damage has been done. There are some resources out there to identify such high-risk pages so that we can preemptively protect them, but this still requires that admins regularly review them. At any given moment, a low-risk template could get transcluded on a high-risk template, and then it inherently is high-risk, too. Days, weeks, even months go by before someone notices. Meanwhile, we have vandals that specifically target these high-risk pages. Occasionally, myself and a few other admins will do a check for unprotected templates/modules and mass-protect them. As far as I know this practice has been well-received (see this October 2017 discussion).

I think it's time we automate this process. I propose we create a bot (User:MusikBot II would happily oblige) that will automatically protect these pages to keep this attack vector sealed. You just shouldn't be able to vandalize thousands of pages with a single edit.

The bot will need to be configurable. Some templates may have many transclusions, but unconfirmed users regularly edit them constructively, and the pages that templates are on have very few pageviews. In this case protection may not make sense.

I propose a JSON configuration page (similar to User:MusikBot/PermClerk/config) that has the following options:

• Template-protection threshold -- this is the number of transclusions at which a page should be template-protected. My instinct is to set this at around 10,000.
• Extended-confirmed threshold -- I'd suggest 1,000.
• Semi-protection threshold -- I'd suggest 500.
• Excluded pages -- raw list of pages that the bot should ignore.
• Any other things...?

We can add a full-protection threshold too, if it makes sense to do so.

Of course, the number of transclusions a template has can increase over time. So a template that's only semi-protected may later be better off template-protected. Would it make sense to have the bot go through all templates and modules, and change protection levels according to the configured thresholds? I suspect this might be pretty expensive to do, so I can't promise this functionality will be added, but it's worth a try. Similarly, the bot could lower protection levels based on the transclusion count, too.

From my initial tests, the necessary SQL queries are fairly fast, so I think the bot could run daily.

Does this sound like a good idea? Are there any edge cases that am overlooking? Is there any other functionality or configuration that'd you like to have?

It's a delicate balance -- preventing mass disruption, and only protecting pages when necessary. I know this proposal is probably going to be controversial, but I also know many of you share my concern that our current, manual system is insufficient. Hopefully we can find a compromise.

Thanks for your feedback! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, Any idea approximately how many protections we're looking at in a first run, using the numbers you mention above? SQL^{Query me!} 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: Zero! I did a manual run today. More at #Scan/check for unprotected high risk modules?. The last time I did this was about a month ago. Since then, there were about 200 templates/modules that had qualified for protection under my criteria (which we will debate here :). At least two modules had more than 100,000 transclusions but weren't even semi-protected! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, Ah, that's not a ton then. I was thinking that if there was a lot of them, it might make more sense to write a mediawiki extension. Sounds like if we kept up on it regularly, it might only be a dozen or so a day tops.

What about unprotecting / downgrading protection as templates pass into lower brackets? Say, as a template passes below 90% of the bracket (e.g. template only has 449 transclusions, bot unprotects). Might be a lot more work than it's worth however. SQL^{Query me!} 23:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – We've had security through obscurity in this area of Wikipedia for a long time now, but it's high time we close that up. Every so often, an account gets compromised and vandalizes some article. At the risk of violating WP:BEANS... the fact of the matter is that the mainspace is an incredibly naive target for vandals. Templates are where it's at. A vandal editing an unprotected template has the potential to propagate their edits across thousands upon thousands of pages at the click of one button, and due to caching, our readers may see the bad edits even after the edits are reverted (most of you have probably had to use the WP:PURGE function to update a page at some point in your wiki-careers). In my view, this kind of bot is long overdue. Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: may need some anti wheel-warring protections in your code. Examples: Never lower the existing protection level, don't change the protection level if it has been configured in the last X days maybe? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Good point. This can definitely be done, and we can make that X configurable too! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Exact details can be discussed, but the modules hit last night, at least 4 of them had over 750K tranclusions each and were hit by an IP hopper on multiple ranges. Where to cut off, whether it should include SP, EC, or just go straight to TE, I'm not particularly concerned about, as long as we get some automation in place to get the really dangerous ones covered. Agree with Xaos that the automation should not downgrade existing protection levels. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Absolute support pending details; I suggested this a while back. ansh666 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Perfect and thanks MusikAnimal for taking this on, and for the thoughtful write-up. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think that the extended confirmed protection proposed here is compliant with the protection policy which says that EC protection may not be applied pre-emptively. And I am not going to endorse any exception to this, EC protection is one of these things that were originally meant to serve a narrow purpose but now seems to spill out unchecked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• The proposal was Template-protection (TP) if 10,000 transclusions, Extended-confirmed (EC) if 1,000, Semi-protection (SP) if 500. Any thoughts about a proposal if EC is omitted? It would be very undesirable to allow four-day old accounts to edit any template or module with up to 9,999 transclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• While it may go against the word of protection policy, that's why IAR exists. Semi-protection is easily gamed, Template protection is very prohibitive, so there's clearly space for ECP here. Generally with articles, no protection should be preemptive, but high risk templates are a completely different issue. The consideration of giving experienced editors priority over less experienced editors? Desirable in this instance, and TP would be more restrictive. We have a tool here that can protect medium-risk templates. We may as well use it. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, but I think we need more than that to IAR on the protection policy given that it's not actually clear if ECP would help here relative to no protection or other kinds of protection. Especially if it encourages more overuse of ECP, which was never invented to be a general feature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I think WP:5P5 wins here... where the "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". ECP began as a ArbCom enforcement thing, then later it was expanded to be for when semi-protection has proven ineffective. Today in practice it seems to be used like any other form of protection, entirely up to the admin's judgement. Save that debate for another discussion, though :) For the purposes of the bot, the option to use ECP will be there, but if the community doesn't want to use it they can just set the threshold to null in the config. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  ​​There was an RfC in 2016 that specifically rejected using preemptive ECP on high-risk templates. I believe the community has an issue defining high-risk template, and not having clearer lines complicates discussions like that RfC, where a lot of the opposition noted that TE protection was a viable alternative. I disagree with that premise: while I likewise dislike (broadening the use of) ECP, the fact remains that it fills a large gap. If we don't utilize ECP protection in this scheme, we will jump straight from semi protection to TE-protection, where the former is a trifle to obtain and the latter one of the more serious and trusted permissions available. In that scenario, many templates will be out of bounds for anyone not a template editor, which I think will likely lower the threshold for obtaining the TE userright. That in turn will likewise reduce the high-end value of TE-protection, where full protection will probably be substituted at a far lower level than it might be currently (noting that there is already disagreement on where that beings). In short, I think ECP is useful specifically in the template realm to bridge the gap between autoconfirmed and templateeditor and maintain the value and trust the community places in template editors. Not using ECP on risky templates will likely degrade the value of TE protection. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I guess here we're talking more about "medium-risk" templates. I'll note the vandals have worked their way to autoconfirmed to vandalize templates before... kind of hard to not preemptively protect without going the more serious route of using template-protection. I'll also reiterate that I won't own the bot configuration nor would I need to be consulted before changing it. Since there are some reservations about ECP, to start with we can just leave it out, but it will still be available as an option should we change our mind. That said, without ECP I'm going to have recommend the template-protection threshold be lower, maybe 5,000 transclusions? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  That's exactly why I think ECP should be utilized here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh great. I read you as being on the other side of the debate. I see now I actually was in the oppose column on that RfC! Though, I did suggest ECP was okay if it made sense to use it (basically meaning medium-risk templates). Anyway, it seems using ECP preemptively in this case is probably going to need a formal RfC. If individual admins do it, fine (I think it's fine), but a bot probably shouldn't directly go against consensus :) I'm going to give this discussion another day or two then summarize what everyone has said and get a final OK on the implementation details. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Amorymeltzer and MusikAnimal:, reading that discussion, it looks like the standards for Template Editor have been somewhat raised. In that RfC, people were saying that it's essentially equivalent to ECP, but you have to show some interest in templates first. That's definitely no longer the case - higher edit requirements, and the move to drop a large number of templates from full protection to template protection (most notably {{Infobox}}) makes template editor these days a far more sensitive permission. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I also think ECP serves a useful purpose here; it's about how much we trust a user, and that generally correlates with how much trustworthiness they've shown. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think EC has anything to do with the trustworthiness a user has shown. It's automatically given based on being around for a relatively short amount of time and making a certain number of edits. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Nonetheless, number-of-edits-without-being-indeffed is commonly used as a (rough) proxy for amount-that-we-trust-you-not-to-cause-trouble. What else is the purpose of autoconfirmed and extended-confirmed protection? GoldenRing (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm not very concerned with the number of transclusions, but the general idea is a good one. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• support indeed Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but that should be understood to refer to article text, not to the machinery behind the curtain. Heavily transcluded templates and modules frankly shouldn't even be edited by regular editors until they develop a facility for working in those spaces. bd2412 T 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - great idea. GiantSnowman 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support including the provision for ECP. SD0001 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I see no reason to not automate protection of templates and modules. —DoRD (talk)​ 19:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support & thank you for monitoring. In a module, are frame:expandTemplate calls also included in the called template's transclusion count? If so, great. If not, can the bot be made to include this during its calculation step?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Tom.Reding: That's a question for one of the Lua magicians... I'm going to pick on RexxS again. Perhaps you know? :) Transclusions are recorded in the mw:Manual:templatelinks table, and this is what I've been going off of. We could do a quick test by using the expandTemplate syntax in a test module, and see if the count for the relevant template goes up using toolforge:templatecount. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  It's likely that frame:expandTemplate adds to the template's transclusion count because Module:Television episode short description calls {{short description}} and previewing an edit at, for example, Marty (teleplay) shows the template as being used despite it not appearing in the wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Tom.Reding, MusikAnimal, and Johnuniq: Yes, I'm certain that calling frame:expandTemplate in a module adds to the transclusion count for that template. I just made a test call in User:RexxS/sandbox/templatetest to a module that expands {{cslist}} (which is quite new so has few transclusions). You can see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cslist now has my test sandbox page in its list, and marked as a transclusion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support with modification The freshhold for template protection should be lower in my opinion (5000 perhaps), and I don't think we should automatically ECP protect templates. (That level is normally only used in rare cases when the main contributor of a very high-risk template is not a template editor). Vandalism is not the only reason why templates are protected, good-faith mistakes by inexperienced editors can do just as much damage as intentional vandalism. funplussmart (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per all the above--NØ 18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the original 500/1000/10k - I think this one balances the mix of problems that come from deliberate issues and accidental issues. Additionally, if we lower TE too low, then it becomes quite hard for anyone new to start the process of template experience Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support 500/1000/10k, although I personally think that 1000 transclusions is an extremely high threshold for ECP already. 100/1000/10k is another scheme I would get behind, or my personal favorite would be 50/500/5000. Regarding attaining requirements for TE, most of the recent failed PERM requests I've seen recently have failed not because of a lack of template space edits, but rather a lack of sandbox edits and edit requests. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support including the ECP (we may need to change the policy if necessary). A couple of things to consider: should we restrict the transclusion counts to certain namespaces? Some templates have high transclusion counts as a result of being used on talk pages which have very low visibility and aren't likely to be worth protecting. It may also be worth looking at how we unprotect these templates when the transclusion counts fall. I've had a few people approach me over the years asking me to unprotect a template I protected a long time ago because the transclusion count has fallen so much that it's not worth protecting any more. Hut 8.5 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: We can restrict by namespace, but I don't think we've been doing it this way thus far. I wouldn't want to outright exclude talk namespaces; for instance {{re}}, which was vandalized in October 2017. For now, I think any exclusions should be handled on a case-by-case basis, simply adding them to the bot configuration (editable by admins) so that they are ignored.

  I mentioned in my proposal about automatically lowering protection levels, but a few others in this thread seem to oppose this. It would certainly be easier and more efficient for the bot to focus just on unprotected templates/modules, so I'm hoping this will be sufficient for our first iteration. — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, with explicit exclusion to anything at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which includes the noedit flag, each with the precise scope and protection level set by other flags. Additionally, maintain an admin-editable page of exclusions; there may be a legitimate reason to not protect some template which meets the technical criteria for this list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Template and module vandalism can be a major problem, especially if they have hundreds of thousands of transclusions like these did. We can't rely on humans to make sure that at every minute every single high-risk template or module is protected. This proposal a sensible idea and I can't think of any major issues it would cause.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support concept. Details of threshholds can be adjusted later if necessary. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Final proposal for initial implementation

Thanks for the feedback and the unwavering support! I'm going to attempt to summarize everything into a final proposal for the first iteration of the bot:

See User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector for the documentation of available functionality. The configuration page itself will live at User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector/config, editable only by interface administrators (as is the case with any JSON page in the user namespace).

• The thresholds option specifies what protection level should be applied for what transclusion count. For now, the proposed configuration is 500 transclusions for semi-protection (autoconfirmed), and 5000 for template protection. extendedconfirmed and sysop are available as options but for now will be left null (unused). Several people supported the idea of using EC protection, specifically, but there is a 2016 RfC that explicitly disallows this practice. A new RfC should be started if we want the bot to use EC protection. Until then, we'll apply template-protection after 5000 transclusions instead of ECP, since semi-protection would otherwise be too lax.
• The exclusions option is a list of pages that the bot will ignore entirely. The keys are the full page titles (including namespace), and the values are an optional space to leave a comment summarizing why the page was excluded. It being JSON, such comments show up as raw wikitext. Not ideal but this is the best idea I had for a log that could easily be referenced.

  At a later time, and if we feel it would be beneficial, we could add more features such as supporting regular expressions.

• The ignore_offset option specifies the number of days the bot should wait after a previous protection change (by another admin) before taking further action. We didn't discuss an exact duration, but barring opposition I will go with 7 days. It's important that the bot be able to intervene after some time, as at any given moment the transclusion count could jump from a few hundred to a few thousand. If the protection needs to remain at a specific level, the page should be added to the exclusions.
• The bot will not lower the protection level. I'd like to implement this functionality at some point -- keeping the protection levels of all templates/modules in line with our "thresholds" configuration -- but I don't think it is necessary short-term. Let's start a follow-up proposal for this. It may affect a significant amount of pages on the first run.
• The bot will ignore any page specified at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which includes the noedit flag. This is easy thanks to the action=titleblacklist API.

I think the thresholds in particular could use more discussion (ECP and sysop), but I'd like to move forward with an acceptable configuration. The community can change the thresholds later as consensus changes.

Does that sound like a plan? — MusikAnimal ^talk 09:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: (Non-administrator comment) actually, any administrator can also edit a json page in the user namespace (search for edituserjson in Special:ListGroupRights). Just an FYI, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Even better! Thanks for pointing this out — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: For json pages like that, a good place to place the page directions is in an edit notice for the page (since json doesn't like comment code). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Will do. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a long overdue. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• BRFA filed — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was rather surprised to find out ECP had been so firmly refuted in 2016 (not 2006) for high-risk templates. Though the opposes seemed split between "don't limit editor pool", "don't complicated it" & "lower template-protect instead", which was an interesting ideological mix. I suspect a narrower case for 2000-5000 could probably be made, but it'd need to go through WP:VPI first. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding User:SilvianaX

The story so far:

• Silviana creates a draft for Dyekho, a non-notable musician. The draft doesn't get accepted as part of articles for creation.
• The user moves the draft to mainspace anyway, the only difference being a "google search for dyekho" and an amazon link added as references.
• ( As expected the article is moved back into draft state by another user.
• Silviana moves it back into mainspace.) Happened thrice.
• After draftifying it myself, I nominated two more associated pages Paradise 94 and King EP, both with no independent or reliable sources.
• I assumed the article will be moved again, and nominated the dyekho page for CSD under A7.
• The user removes the CSD templates from 2 of the pages, deletes the talk page with my complaint of the article, and gives a reason saying that I am promoting chaos by damaging their articles.

I'm not sure how to proceed further with this,other than handing out warnings for each CSD removal and eventually getting them banned. That might be a bit extreme, so could someone with a bit more experience look into it. Daiyusha (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How can this editor delete a talk page if he is not an administrtor? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:1D9A:7850:A048:F792 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Daiyusha could have been more precise by saying that SilvianaX blanked the talk page. Talk:Dyekho existed from its creation by Daiyusha (several hours ago) until a few minutes ago, when it was deleted under G8 because its associated article had also been deleted. Also, "The draft doesn't get accepted as part of articles for creation." could mean that it didn't go through the AFC process at all, or that it got rejected; the latter is the case, as it was twice rejected: by Pythoncoder on 5 December and by CoolSkittle on 29 January. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

PS, involved users so far are RHaworth (who speedy deleted it a few minutes ago), CoolSkittle, and Pythoncoder. For future reference, Daiyusha, if someone's persistently removing a speedy tag and you don't want to request sanctions, I'd say the best route is to ask an admin privately to delete the page. There's never a requirement that a page bear a tag when it's deleted, and admins may speedy-delete any qualifying page at any time. If you want a quick response, go to Special:Log/delete to see who's been deleting pages most recently; the easiest route is a talk page message saying "hey, this page qualifies, but the creator keeps removing the tag; could you look into it". Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and hand them warnings when they remove CSD tags. If they ignore the warnings, and eventually get blocked, that's on them. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Appeal of topic editing restruction

I was hoping to wait on this issue. However I know face the fact that 15 proposed deltions I made in the last week wwere removed by one editor. All of them were because the articles as we have them were based on press releases. All of them were biographies of living people. BLP rules clearly state that we need to have reliable sourcing for all statements in an article on a living person. Hand waing that sources do not have to exist on Wikipedia while failing to provide more sources does not address the underlying BLP concerns here. Just to give one example Christelle Ndila, a source search reveals many Wikipedia mirrors with her name, a facebook page, nothing more substantial than the press release from the competition she won already in the article, nothing approaching the type of 3rd party coverage needed. I am willing to stay under this restriction, but if I do, I am pleading with someone to actually go through and start doing something about these lacking any reliable sources biographies of living people articles. This particular article has existed over 10 years and always only had this one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(1) As far as Ndila, don't worry; it was redirected to a list some few minutes after you left this request here. (2) The restriction is absolute: barring outright errors or vandalism (e.g. someone didn't mean to remove the template at all, or someone blanked the whole page), no PROD restoration, even if it's been removed on absurd grounds. Just take the article to AFD if no speedy criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

My first thought is that if a BLP article for someone apparently non-notable has been there for 10 years, why is there a sudden urgency to get rid of it right now? Just nominate one per day at AFD, as per restrictions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

First off, it's "Proposed deletion", not "Procedural deletion". Looking at those recent edits that did note PROD in the edit summary (far fewer than 15), I only saw one page as clearly not meeting notability guidelines. I've nominated that one for AfD. No opinion on the editing restriction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock review instructions

Silly question, but where (if anywhere) are the guidelines or admin instructions regarding unblock review? In particularly those stating a reviewer shouldn't review the same block more than once? O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking which says that a block will be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. If an admin has already reviewed the block once, then by doing so they might appear to have become involved and ideally should not review a second time. GiantSnowman 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the last part. Per WP:INVOLVED, purely administrative interactions, which include reviewing unblock requests, do not make an admin involved. However, it is my practice to not review more than one unblock request, because rejections are more likely to be accepted if they come from multiple admins. Sandstein 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

And the idea of reviewing is to have another admin access the block in case it was made in error. Though I see no problem in unblocking one's own blocks if conditions have been met.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts; it makes sense to have someone else look it over, and it would be crazy to object to someone accepting a block he'd imposed merely on the grounds that requests need to be reviewed by someone else. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

PS, I meant to say "...accepting an unblock request for a block he'd..." Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is not the right guideline, but I agree that admins probably should not decline appeals of their own blocks; fine to accept though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's in the policy: "blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if everyone has misread (perhaps it's me?) - but (I think) OP was not posting about an admin unblocking somebody they themselves had blocked - the post was about an admin reviewing a block appeal and repeatedly declining? GiantSnowman 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, see Jayron32's comment below. I would add that if the user is posting new requests after a decline which have not addressed the reasons for declining, I would consider revoking their talk page access. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've been known to do some considerable work at CAT:UNB in the past, and will still drop in from time-to-time to review unblock requests. My standard workflow (which is pretty close to the guidance linked above) is as follows. 1) I will review the request by looking at the edit history, the specific edits that led to the block, and the unblock request itself. If I find the block to be fully justified and/or the request frivolous, I decline and move on. If the request has merit, I then will usually 2) Ask clarifying questions to ascertain if the blocked user understands why they were blocked, and if so, if they can explain how they intend to change their behavior going forward. If they give satisfactory answers, I then 3) Drop a note on the talk page of the blocking admin for their input on the block; since they dealt with the user before, they often may have additional information I may have missed. If the admin is copacetic, I then unblock. If they aren't cool with it, and if I still feel that the blocked user should be unblocked, I may occasionally bring it here for further discussion, but that's rare. I don't think my step 3) is strictly required, but I find that both as a courtesy to the blocking admin, and also because I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, I always seek the blocking admin's input. If someone asks for a new unblock request after I have already denied their prior one, sometimes I respond to it and sometimes I leave it for someone else. If the person appears to be filing a new, good-faith request (such as providing additional information, or changing their approach), I may respond as I can see they are trying to learn. If the new request is either frivolous or simply repeats the prior request, I tend to ignore it and leave it for another admin. I want it to be that much more obvious that the person is playing IDHT games, and more rejections for more people can make that clear. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure whether it's written or unwritten policy, but it is unquestionable that an admin never formally reviews a subsequent unblock request after declining, unless accepting (i.e. changing their mind). Users have the unlimited right to appeal blocks to a new administrator, and it's abusive to obstruct the block appeal process by declining multiple separate unblock requests (unless for procedural reasons). ~Swarm~{talk} 07:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not exactly. Blocked users do not have the right to frivolous or disruptive use of the unblock template. If it is clear that they aren't taking a good faith effort to address the problems with their behavior, admins have the right to remove their ability to request further unblocks via the template; they can then us UTRS for further appeals. --Jayron32 13:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's generally accepted that an admin should not decline further unblock requests once they have declined one (with some minor exceptions like outright vandalism), but the question is where is that documented? I'm sure it is or was explicitly documented somewhere, as I distinctly remember being aware of an "any reasonable admin" clause allowing repeated declines in some circumstances. Am I imagining it in my old age, or does anyone actually know where this is or was covered? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests. —Cryptic 10:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks. I see it just says "Also, by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block", but I'm convinced I've seen something more specific than that - something that specifically talks of exceptions to the general rule. It could, of course, be senility on my part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, I also thought there was something more specific, hence the question. The background for this was that last year, I removed TPA for an IP who had made several frivolous requests without addressing the reason for their block. The block expired, they got blocked again, and made the same sort of unblock requests ("it wasn't me", "I won't do it again", etc.) I wanted to know whether I was in order removing TPA again. As it turned out, someone else did anyway so it's now moot. O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
        • It's always reasonable to request more input. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't there's any policy prohibiting removing TPA on two separate blocks on an IP or a named account. Nor do I think there's anything conventionally wrong with doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Too harsh? INDEF for doubius MEAT

TL;DR: I think User:Toasterlyreasons has been unfairly blocked and his unblock review unfairly declined. I strongly suggest unblocking him. Warning message at best should be sufficient, indef is a major overkill here.

Longer version. I received, out of a blue, an email from User:Toasterlyreasons, who seems to be have taken a college class of mine ~9 years ago where I introduced him to editing Wikipedia (he successfully contributed a GA Talk:Proto-globalization/GA1,see User:Piotrus/Teaching for more if you care, point is he is not lying about having been my student). Since then he has been slightly active, with few dozen or less edits a year. That is relevant, as editors with that amount of edits are unlikely to be familiar with policies like WP:MEAT, etc. In the last few days he seemed to have gotten himself indef blocked and then decided to email me asking for advice. I have reviewed his case and IMHO there are no grounds for a block, a warning and rule reminder should be sufficient. Here's my understanding of what happened:

• user:Fbrody creates a page that gets deleted in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lesser
• Fbrody asks Toasterlyreasons to look into this article (Marc Lesser)
• Toasterlyreasons recreates this article. I am not able to check myself to what degree it was identical to an old article, but at the very least Fbrody claimed in a talk page post that "The new page she [Toasterlyreasons] attempted to create was completely independent from what I created several months ago"
• Article is speedy deleted as WP:G4 recreation of a deleted article and Toasterlyreasons is indef blocked as sock puppet of Fbrody by User:RHaworth with no evidence of prior warning, explanation or even a sockpuppet investigation. It would be nice if RHaworth would share with us how he determined there is socking involved, and why did he decide to escalate all the way to indef nuke, bypassing any warnings, topic bans, short-term blocks, etc.
• few hours after that, Fbrody posted to talk of User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_Marc_Lesser_page [94] explaining that he asked Toasterlyreasons to review the article, and that any edits Toasterlyreasons did were independent. It is worth noting that Fbrody is not subject to any blocks or topic bans or other restrictions.
• Toasterlyreasons asked for an unblock on his talkpage which was declined by User:Yunshui, who stated that he has violated WP:MEAT which apprently, in his view, merits an INDEF block

In my view, nothing that happened here warrants any block. The first block by RHaworth was clearly wrong, as there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. It is highly debatable if asking someone to review an article that was deleted is meatpuppetry (see WP:MEAT), so the proper response to the unblock reponse should have been to unblock the user (I will not mention, apologize for unfair block, as apologizing is a well-known impossibility around here...). If the article was a copy paste recreation, than a warning 'use undeletion requests instead of reposting deleted content' would be a proper course for editors unfamiliar with our policies, per WP:BITE. If the article was not an exact recreation but was improved, a second AfD is the right course of action (I say this being a deletionist myself, I dislike spam and nominate a lot of stuff for deletion, so it is not like I have a particularly soft spot for vanity articles and like).

Bottom line, per WP:BITE and no evidence of wrongdoing other than an extreme interpretation of MEAT/CANVASS ('how dare one editor as another to look at anything wiki-related!'), there is no reason for any block or ban. Nothing bad has happened here (outside unfair block), two editors chatting about article and trying to write about the same topic is not a crime. At most, they can be warned that the proper way to recreate articles is through WP:UNDELETE/WP:REFUND. If anything is serious in this incident, it is the tendency of some of our admin corps to be too trigger happy with the block button (and indef, seriously?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, this's quite an inaccurate summary of the stuff. So, let me be more clear:-

• Toasterly violated the rules of COI-disclosure when he wrote the article about Florian Brody; despite being in close contact with the subject (FBrody), all-throughout. They communicated via email during those span and Toasterly was looking to gain a wider breadth on online writing experience........

• Years later FBrody himself appears over WP and creates an article about Marc Lesser, without any COI-disclosure, which was soon-deleted.

• FBrody then called his old buddy (Toasterly) to resuscitate the article about Lesser, who executes that in direct contravention of G4 and without submitting yet another COI-disclosure.

• RHaworth obliges with the G4 and blocks Toasterly as a sock. Obvious call. There were a network of intersections; very similar to what we observe in noob-UPE-rings.

• Yunshui declines the unblock. Good decline; that it did not mention about the relations between him and FBrody, which were very obvious to naked eye.∯WBG^converse 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Now that both has clarified in detail, someone can unblock them after making them aware of our COI-policies and other background checks.∯WBG^converse 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is of course good to educate new editors about WP:COI, but I am unsure how relevant it is. I am not saying it is not relevant, but in my reading of the case I did not see that the 2 (3?) of them are connected in any professional capacity. Per WP:AGF, it could be they are just weak ties collegues who happened to find out they both edit Wikipedia. (If my neighbour or coworker edits Wikipedia and asks me to look at article they've created, is there a COI? CANVASS? MEAT? Or it it plain paranoia to wrry about that...? Going in that direction, one can fear to even mention Wikipedia editing in any venue that is not Wikipedia itself :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• If someone unblocks them after making them aware of our COI-policies and other background checks, I will take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Call me suspicious and paranoid (I've been called worse!) but when someone makes an unblock appeal that appears to deliberately avoid mentioning that they personally know and have been working with the account that they are accused of being a sock for, I tend to assume something untoward is going on. Had Toasterlyreasons's original appeal been along the lines of the one that is now on their talkpage, I would have happily unblocked - indeed, would go and do so now were it not for the fact that this is now at WP:AN and therefore my judgement on the issue is apparently suspect. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Consider that in the wider world, people care about privacy, and may not want to disclose all details of their life and relationship on the Internet. And while on Wikipedia we are concerned about COI, in the wider world people, including new editors, tend not to realize such policy exits, not to mention is an issue, and so (speaking as someone who likes hunting for for-profit SPA spammers), we have to AGF that people may not disclose such relationship because outside Wikipedia it is not generally required or demanded (and on the contrary, privacy is a thing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Call me dense, but I see no reason to unblock.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually fuck it, there's no reason that they should stay blocked just because Piotrus wanted an excuse to go admin-bashing. Toasterlyreasons is now unblocked, let the process of tarring and feathering me for being wishy-washy on blocking/not doing so while I was offline earlier/unblocking a user while involved etc. commence. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I, for one, wouldn't call you "wishy or "washy".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

And rethinking a block after hearing more about the circumstances is the correct thing to do. I also don't think Piotrus was admin-bashing, he just raised questions about an indefinite block, provided more information and got another hearing for the editor. I think this is all how a system of appeals is supposed to work, I think everyone acted in what they thought was the best interests of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz, if the idea was to get another hearing for Toasterlyreasons rather than complain about how over-zealous administrators are, then I would expect to see a message on my talkpage saying, "Hey, I think you may have been a bit harsh here, would you mind taking another look, or explaining your reasoning?" There isn't one; instead - with some irony - Piotrus went with the "nuclear" option of going direct to AN, not bothering to mention to either RHaworth or myself that he was doing so. If you have a problem with an administrator's actions, the first port of call should be to take it up with that administrator - it's polite, it's quicker, and it avoids this sort of shit-show. Yunshui ^雲_水 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You know, Yunshui, you're completely right. My desire to defuse tensions here didn't take into account that the reasonable first step in a dispute is to go directly to the admin/editor's talk page and start a discussion there, not come to a noticeboard. I still don't think Piotrus complaint was admin-bashing but he did leapfrog over a simpler, more direct, more considerate approach to dispute resolution to take, as you call it, the "nuclear" option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liz and Yunshui: When I posted here, one appeal on admin's page (Fb's post to RH's page) was already outstanding and waiting for a reply. Unfortunately, I have known admins who just ignore posts from new editors, or comments from others about them because 'they are too busy to deal with such peons'. Or simply would be inactive for few days while the matter waited and the blocked n00b got more and more unhappy and frustrated while the admin in question was AFK. I am not saying this would've been the case here, but I wanted this resolved speedily, rather than risk any delays, regardless of reasons. As for admin-bashing, well, it's a bit OT but I believe we, experienced editors, need regular reminders about WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I've been here for over 10 years, I know we can get tired dealing with the flood of spammers and such, but that is no excuse for BITING. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know what you mean by any of that, but it looks like it was pretty straightforwardly a reasonable block. Recreating an article for your friend/acquaintance after it gets deleted is straightforward meatpuppetry, and rather than showing any understanding, they're nitpicking wording because it isn't a "dispute" (besides, it's only not a dispute because there's a CSD that pre-empts any disputes in this situation). Also, the user still claims they created a "legitimate article", with no understanding that they attempted to unilaterally overrule a recent consensus deeming the subject non-notable. The unblock request does not address either of these issues. It makes a good case that the user does not have a COI, but that's not the only issue. I respect Piotrus, I wouldn't classify his complaint here as "admin bashing", but even if you did, I don't see how it relates to a decision to unblock. I agree that the intent here should be to educate, not punish, but an indef is not a draconian measure, incompatible with that idea. An indef can be as short as the user wants it to be, provided they're cooperative and are willing to rectify the issue. But that unblock request was not an indication that the user now understands why they were blocked; on the contrary, it's somewhat combative and obstinate, not the type of unblock request we'd normally accept. I really don't understand why you rushed to unilaterally unblock before the user even understands the issue.  ~~Swarm~~  23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The block was for abusing multiple accounts, not for failing to understand notability. Since it is clear from their unblock appeal and other evidence that abuse of multiple accounts did not take place (or if it did, it was inadvertent and only vaguely covered by the policy), their recreation of a G4-able article shouldn't count against them - though feel free to block them for that entirely separate issue if you like. If you're going to block anyone, though, User:Fbrody - who has demonstrably violated the rules on paid editing at least once (with GenieTown) might be a better target. I'm not going there, since I'm clearly too "trigger-happy" to be trusted with that block. Yunshui ^雲_水 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest - gasp - warning them before blocking? It's all good to block and ban repeated violators, but we have to AGF that people don't know the rules... (of course it's a different issue if we have a WP:DUCK spam-SPA that creates Yellow Pages ads in their first edit, but this is hardly a case here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Block review of Johnpacklambert

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

---

I've just blocked Johnpacklambert for one week for violating his topic ban from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC as demonstrated by his latest AFD nominations here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The topic ban is almost two years old and was intended to prevent rapid spates of AFD nominations, this is a first offense and the AFDs created were all created hours apart from one another (00:20 and 19:16 on the 27th, 04:31 and 20:48 on the 28th, 04:05 and 07:23 on the 29th), but yes, it is a clear breach of the provisions of the topic ban, so I can't say it's a bad block. However, I probably would have tried warning them first given it's the first issue in two years, and a week seems excessive. Fish+Karate 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's a clear violation of the topic ban (which remains in place here), but like F&K says, a warning/reminder first would have been prudent. GiantSnowman 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

+1 regarding what Fish and karate says. I often disagree with JPL at AfD, but he hasn't violated his ban except for some inexplicable reason yesterday and today. Is it perhaps time for a review of the topic ban? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think he should have been warned first; I was inclined to propose lifting it for "time served" but this comment just isn't helpful. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

+1 to what F&K says - Given the AFDs were hours apart I'm inclined to AGF and say they were actually trying to abide by it, Given it's their first and only offence they should've been warned IMHO, Anyway I like Drmies's idea - Lift as time served, let them rant it our and then everyone can move on. –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm that's not exactly what I said... Drmies (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Drmies the second part was my idea however it obviously reads like you've just suggested all of that so sorry about that. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• 2 years? Let's try lifting the ban and letting him get back to work. Would also endorse unblock and ask him to not get carried away.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• You’re under the opinion that now, at the point in which he violated his topic ban, is the time to repeal it...? I have no opinion on any of this, just passing through and thought this line of thought was...bizarre... Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Would you consider lifting the block now? Seems to be a consensus. Fish+Karate 09:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unsure if other's have noticed this or not, but the topic ban was actually violated three days in a row, on each day from 27–29 January, 2019 (link). Some of the discussion here reads like a violation only occurred once (e.g. "Given it's their first and only offence"), but it actually occurred three times, for three consecutive days, with two nominations per day on each day. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• I opted for a block with no warning, because as Northamerica1000 correctly points out above, he violated the topic ban the last three consecutive days in a row before he was blocked (it helps to see this if you switch your time preferences to UTC). Up until then, he seemed like he was abiding the ban just fine (except for two nominations within three minutes of each other on December 28th, 2017 that no one caught). I have a hard time believing that was a simple misstep, especially after the comment on his talk page that Drmies linked above. However, if after all that, if another admin wants to lift his block, then feel free. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to lifting the tban. The comment Drmies links above shows that this was not a slip of the memory after two years, this was a deliberate violation of the ban. If you think the ban is no longer necessary, you get it lifted. You don't just ignore it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm in the minority, but I say keep him blocked. He should already be on thin ice given his long-term 'delete first, ask questions later' approach, and he should get no extra consideration after violating a deletion-related tban. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Don't see any problem with the block or a reason to lift it. Looks like a clear, deliberate violation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• In relation to the topic ban being lifted, I say no - he has also recently PRODded a notable article, clearly without going through WP:BEFORE. GiantSnowman 15:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've been involved in AFDs with this user before and we almost always disagree. With that, I also oppose the topic ban being lifted for the following reasons: 1) There have been recent violations (ones I consider small, but small violations do not lend credibility to a request for leniency); 2) The AFDs I've been involved in Jerome Long and Adam Replogle although open are pointing toward keep or snow keep and the nomination seem disruptive in nature--as though the AFD is created to try to "prove a point" 3) My review of the other AFDs where I haven't been involved seem to also be leaning toward frivolous nominations, although there are also some that I am likely going to be in agreement. What we have here, I believe, is someone who has good intentions but does not yet have a grasp on what is and is not a good AFD nomination. I have no objection to the editor participating in discussions, but I think we need to continue to restrict the creation of AFDs by this user. In addition, I propose that the user seek out a mentor who can help guide and navigate through the process of selecting AFDs in a way that is not disruptive or pointy. Maybe one day we lift the ban, but that day should not be today.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, check editor's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denicos Allen for insight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• What User:Jauerback says about not warning--sure. I might not have done it that way, but Jauerback's block is within policy and common sense. And User:Northamerica1000 and User:GoldenRing are correct as well: these were deliberate violations of a topic ban the editor didn't agree with. This is of course entirely the wrong way to go about it, and there is now little chance of it being lifted. Paul McDonald points at some comments that again indicate that the editor just doesn't do well with consensus--and not just with some individual consensus (all of us probably have some problems with some local consensus on some project), but with a lot of them, or with guidelines as a whole. So looking over all the comments here I think there is not much ground for lifting the block; the problem is the editor, not the admin who blocked. NOr do I see any reason to lift the restriction. (User:Davey2010, it's all good--no worries.) Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• At this point I consider the topic ban to have been reviewed, thank you to those who did so. I must agree that lifting the topic ban would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia at this time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Just wanted to say that I pretty much agree with everything Paul McDonald said. Bottom line, he was topic banned for not doing WP:BEFORE on AfD nominations, and he still continues to not do WP:BEFORE on AfD nominations (see here, here, and here, all of them coming in January 2019). IMHO, the ban should definitely not be lifted now, and probably not ever, absent a demonstrable change in behavior. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Lift TBan as time served, it's been long enough. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Care to provide any qualification for said opinion, other than "long enough", or is this just a statement? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Jayron32 said it better than I could below. I thus support an unblock as time served as well. As far as why TBan should be lifted: the block was based on a technicality. Yes, it is within discretion but it seems excessive. Here's a comparative situation from my own editing: I noticed that an editor violated their topic ban. Instead of going straight to AE, I discussed with them and the admin who imposed the topic ban: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. This resulted in no sanctions to the editor. Similarly, in this case, I think a reminder would have been more appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your explanation seems to fit with why there should be an unblock. (Well I obviously strongly disagree this is just a technicality but that's an aside.) I don't see how it explains why there should be a lifting of the topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think the discussion went a bit sideways here - I don't think Jauerback was calling for a review of the topic ban, he was asking for a review of the block pursuant to the topic ban. I have no issue with the topic ban being in place and some of the edits Johnpacklambert has made since his block (such as the ones Drmies and Paulmcdonald provided) reinforce that the topic ban remains appropriate. I feel a warning, however, would have sufficed as this was the first (identified) offence in the two years the topic ban has been in place, and that a block of a week was possibly excessive. Fish+Karate 12:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On the subject of the block because of violating the topic ban: short answer is no. Why? Well, if someone is given a topic ban and they violate that topic ban showing by doing the same thing that got the topic ban in the first place, there are consequences. We could warn, we could block, we could do nothing, we could take other action. Between the warn and the block, both are acceptable results. The admin that took action chose to block and even if I had done it different (which I don't think I would) we should respect that admin's decision. Further, "warnings" in my book are for inadvertent mistakes but these seem to be deliberate, so a warning would not suffice in my book.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, a week-long block is entirely within reasonable admin discretion. However, Jauerback brought it here asking for opinions, people have given them. I don't think people offering differing opinions is tantamount to disrespecting a decision, if that was always the case it would be rather stifling. Nobody is saying Jauerback is wrong; the primary function of this noticeboard is to bring things to the attention of the general admin corps for comments, information or views, this is a good thing. Fish+Karate 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I thought that's what I was doing...-Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock Of the three examples given by the OP, only the last one is close to a real violation, the gaps between the first set and second set are nearly a day, and if anyone is actually sitting around with a stop-watch to time exactly how long it is between his nominations, I weep for your soul; those could have been honest mistakes or miscalculations; one could easily have done those on two different days (local time) with the gap being the night's sleep in between. That certainly meets the spirit (if not the letter) of the restrictions, and that behavior, rather than showing a rejection of the ban, shows clear intent to follow the ban. I can't take that as evidence that he intends to flaunt his ban. Those two looks like he tried to act in good faith. The third example, with the 3 hour gap, is a bit harder to fit in that model; he should have known he was violating the ban there, but honestly as a first offense, and also still avoiding the sort of rapid fire, no checking, methods he was using before at AFD is not evident there either. I would have given him a reminder to abide by his topic ban, try to avoid making two noms in the same day, and just moved on. At best, this should have merited just that friendly reminder. The block should not have been issued, and he should be returned to editing. WRT revoking the TBAN, I'm officially agnostic on that one. If we had a separate discussion on the matter, I'd consider both sides, but on the narrow question of whether or not he should have been blocked here, I don't think the violations merited a blockable offense at this time, and he should be unblocked. --Jayron32 16:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reduce to 3 days due to compliance with their topic ban for 2 years and no other reason. Oppose time served or similar unblock until it's been at least 3 days.

  I don't really see how 6 nominations in 3 calendar days (technically 55 hours 3 minutes) can ever count as an honest mistake or miscalculation that we can just let fly. Personally, I don't consider ~19 hours almost a day, and am fairly sure if I tried 4 reverts without an exemption in ~19 hours I'd find myself at strong risk of a 3RR-violation block. But even if I did accept almost a day so close enough, let's not forget 10 hours later there was another nomination. If they'd already used their nomination for the day on the 27th, they can't think it's okay to do another on on the 28th. I mean okay, maybe you want to count the first one as the 26th since it's so close.

  But let's remember after that they do a 2nd one less then 17 hours later. I don't really consider 21/17 hours (depending on how you count) almost a day later either, but again, even if I were to do so, that doesn't explain why it would be okay to do another one on the 29th. They'd already used their quota for the 27, 28, 29, 30th and now they're making their quota for the 31st. By this stage, even if you count the first one as the 26th, they're still making their AFD for the 30th at 0405 on the 29th. And they then go on to make a 6th nomination on the 29 as I think everyone acknowledges only about 3 hours after the previous one. So now they're making their nomination for the 31st or 1st at 0723 on the 29th.

  Sure it had been a few days since they made any nomination, and actually they'd made few this month relative to how many they would have been allowed had they strictly followed their limit. But for better or worse, that's the way such limits work. Back to my 3RR, if I make 3 reverts in one day, then I'm busy and make none the next two days, I'm still chomping for a block if I make 4 on the 4th day. (I'm aware that 3RR is 24 hour period, hence why I chose 4th day.) Yes edit warring even without breaking the bright line is also a problem. But it doesn't change the way bright lines work, and this is not just 1 violation but 3, or even if I'm very generous and put the first edit to the 26th, 2 violations. (I also expect that if JPL was really nominating an article every single day, they'd put themselves at strong risk for an extension of their topic ban.)

  I presume the reason the precise wording was chosen was to make it simple to follow, which it should be. Just check out your contrib history and see, no calculation needed. Still a bit more effort, but that the nature of topic bans, you have to go to more effort because the community feel you've caused enough problems which justify restricting your activity. Their comment also gives me no confidence this was simply an honest mistake.

  BTW, while I'd consider any request to lift the topic ban in good faith, what I've seen pushes me to oppose. I don't know the history here, and frankly I have no problem with calling myself a deletionist and do think wikipedia has way too much junk. But my experience is anyone who is so sure they're desperately needed to fix wikipedia is more problem then they're worth. While I commend them for following their topic ban until now, and it is an important part of the process, unfortunately it's IMO not enough.

  Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  I had a quick look at the nominations and am even more inclined to oppose any simple time served unblock until 3 days have passed. (I think this may have already happened, I'm not sure. I didn't bother to check, as I don't think most people proposing such an unblock were really considering such things either.) Same implication for any lifting of their topic ban.

  A big concern when the topic ban was placed (admittedly from reading only the beginning of the discussion) seems to have been not just the volume of nominations, but their tendency to nominate without any real research. From the discussion so far, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Sawaya, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agustina Pivowarchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mari Vasileiou seem to have been okay nominations. (Well the last 2 maybe could have been handled in a different way since they're likely redirects. And it's possible the middle one is actually notable but finding the sources isn't easy as they aren't in English so even a good faith effort would have found nothing. But these considerations aren't that important.)

  But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Long, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Replogle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arturo Rodríguez Quezada seem to be bad nominations as it's looking like all pass some notability guideline from some simple research. The third one seems to be particularly egregious since if I understand the discussion and history correctly, it was obvious from this ref the only one in the article [95] that the subject did meet NFOOTBALL.

  Again I want to emphasise this is not because I'm some inclusionist pissed off at all the articles deleted due to JPL's nominations. In fact I'm personally oppose to the way that subject specific guidelines are nowadays often taken to mean a person is guaranteed inclusion even when a large amount of research shows they don't meet the GNG. And I'd like our guidelines to be far stronger. But I also know that the only good way to change this is via some RfC, not by pointless nominations which are bound to fail.

  P.S. Arguably the violations don't really matter to this block. But the more I look into this, the more reason I see to fundamentally disagree with those who are treating this as a technical accidental good faith violation with no harm done or whatyever. Note that this does not refer to those who think it would have been better to warn or unblock because it's been nearly 2 years etc, only those suggesting there was no real violation. I'd also note that it looks like JPL seems to be engaging in proxy editing while blocked. (I don't mean socking using proxies, I mean getting others to edit for them.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a quick question for you @Nil Einne:: Can you explain what disruptive behavior you expect on the 3rd day that you think would not occur on the 4th day? --Jayron32 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That applies to pretty much any time limited block. Yet editors are blocked for time periods raging from a few hours to 6 months or more all the time. (And this is actually very common for topic ban violations. For example, even if we were being very generous it would hardly surprising if JPL had first been warned, then blocked for 1 day, then blocked for 3 days, then blocked for 1 week, then blocked for 2 weeks, then blocked for 1 month, then blocked for 3 months, then blocked for 6 months, then blocked indefinitely meaning in this case a very long time, if they kept violating their topic ban after their blocked expired.)

There are two simple answers. One is that an indef can be too severe when there is still a chance the editor will behave properly. (Yes an indef is not infinite, but in this case it's consequences are totally unclear. I'd also note that while admittedly it didn't turn out like that, an indef means time spent by everyone while the editor tries to get unblocked but a time limited block can mean no more time wasted.) In this case, the editor has shown they've behaved well for a long time, but then had a major relapse. I don't know for sure, why they had this major relapse although their comments suggest they simply lost control. Whatever the case, they had it. Sadly their comments give me no confidence they won't have another major relapse. So the longer we block them, the longer they won't cause problems by having another major relapse.

The fact that they apparently can't even properly obey the terms of their block (be it time served, 3 days or 7 days) obviously doesn't help. Further, the sum totality of their violations is that 50% of them were part of the crap that lead to their topic ban in the first place. So simply stopping them from making AFDs completely actually has benefits, whatever negative consequences may also arise from stopping them making AFDs and from stopping them editing point blank. (I count all 6 as violations even if 3 were allowed since I don't think there's any meaningful way to decide which should be counted as a violation and which an allowed edit. Also one reason why I didn't change my view on limiting the block to 3 days is because the proxy editing seems like it was beneficial to wikipedia, even if the nature of blocks means it should not have happened.)

Again we could stop them completely either with a complete topic ban or with an indef. Yet despite all this, there's also a reasonable chance that the editor will go back to at least obeying the basics of their topic ban, even if not doing the needful to mean it's no longer required. Maybe even when they accept again they have to be more selective with their AFDs there will be less of the nonsense ones and more of the good ones. Who knows, despite it apparently not happening after nearly 2 years, maybe this will be enough of a jolt to make them realise things aren't going to change, and what they're doing is just wasting everyone's time including their own when they do such nonsense and we'll mostly get quality nominations from now on.

Ultimately we have no good way of predicting which way it will go. Maybe they will violate again. Hopefully if that does happen they will be quickly re-blocked without fuss. However the comments in this thread don't entirely give me confidence this will be the case. Either way, we've starved that off by 3 days instead of zero days if they were unblocked within an hour for time served which I consider a good thing. If they don't, then they didn't have to be blocked for so long, unfortunate but not IMO unjustified.

Just as significant here's the secret which I presume many of us appreciate even if it's rarely discussed. While blocks are meant to preventative and not punitive and we don't do cool down blocks etc, we have no clearly guidelines on what this means in practice. I've seen enough discussions and actions that I'm quite confident I'm not the only person who feels that blocking prevents disruption and protects wikipedia not only by preventing the disruption while the block is in force, but also by preventing future disruption by sending a clearer message, 'don't fuck around with us, and we mean it, do obey the topic ban (or whatever) or there will be consequences'.

I don't think there's any actual good evidence on how well blocks actually work like that. I suspect if someone secretly used a random number generated and either blocked for 1 day or 3 days depending on the result (or whatever), the outcry would be so massive when it was revealed that few would know what their actually results were at the end of it. Someone could try and study blocks to ascertain if longer blocks means less future disruption post block, but as so many other examples have shown, trying to account for confounding factors in such research is nearly impossible.

However others personally feel about this aspect, 3 days struck me as the right balance of seriousness given the totality of the circumstances that JPL will hopefully get the message. I'm fine with people disagreeing on how long it needed to be. But do think it is important that JPL understands that if they want to nominate more than one article per day, they need to convince the community to lift the topic ban, not fuck around with us when they can't resist anymore. This is the big concern which lead me to comment here and it wasn't even the time. It was instead that despite JPL seemingly chomping at the bit to violate their topic ban, and making such egregious violations of it, people IMO risked unintentionally sending the message to JPL 'hey, there's nothing really that wrong with what you did, don't worry too much about not repeating it since it's so minor'. JPL needs to understand that they do need to stick with their topic ban as long as it's in force, and failure to do so will result in longer and longer blocks. (Again if people feel warning or time served is enough for that, this isn't my primary concern, it's any suggestion what they did was barely wrong.)

P.S. When I wrote the answers before this one, I hadn't read the beginning of this thread much at all. I was under the impression a reasonable percentage of the comments were supportive of reducing or lifting the block because there was no significant or real violation which was one of the issues which gave me great concern. I only really notice F+K's comment who had pointed out this was 3 consecutive days. I now see quite a lot of people made similar points, so my concern is greatly reduced. But since the question was asked, I've done my best to explain my rationale.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I guess we'll just have to be in disagreement on the utility of time-limited blocks when blocking established accounts. I generally (with some exceptions) don't block usernames with anything except "indef". Time limited blocks are useful for shared IP addresses, where it is expected the person causing the problem isn't likely to be using the IP address at some point in the future. However, I find that if a person has reached the level of disruption that they need to be restrained from using Wikipedia at all, the only reason they should be allowed to keep using Wikipedia is if they can convincingly show that they intend to stop what led to the block in the first place. Without that, all we've done is delay the disruption for those number of days, which I find a pointless exercise. The point of a block is to end disruption. If the person can convince me they won't cause problems, I see no reason to keep them blocked. If they instead have convinced me that the intend to continue the disruption, I see no reason to let them. That's my rationale behind blocking; and that's how I've always read the "prevention not punishment" aspect of blocking. If you have a different perspective, I don't begrudge you that; we'll just have to agree to disagree. WRT this specific case, I feel confident that the blocked user will not cause further disruption, so I say unblock now. If he ends up proving me wrong, we can always block again later. --Jayron32 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Suha A Kersh

Can someone fix the history of this article? It looks like it was hijacked by User:Midee Ruvh. Apparently a COI attempt to avoid NPP. Was originally an article about a town in the Czech Republic, and no amount of AGF makes an edit like this look like an accident. GMG^talk 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Spammer blocked indef, page moved back to original title. I guess I need to read up on whether the versions by the spammer qualify for revdel; I haven't done that for now, but may soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A related one here, which I found because the same editor had worked on this article. The bad edit, as you'll notice, was by another editor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh. As it happens, if you look here, and the history of the articles they've updated, it seems that this may be a pattern that spans multiple accounts. (I originally found the issue looking at PRM GR CC's file uploads on Commons). GMG^talk 16:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the spammed article, as it would have qualified for speedy deletion if they had created the page from scratch. 'Another admin should look at the other editors and other articles, I need to step away from WP for a few hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

GMG's right - there's a pattern. Here's another one, by yet another editor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see the pattern, I do actually have a few minutes I'll see how many I can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the four accounts related to all the links above (so far), and restored three hijacked articles linked above (so far). I think that's all there is (so far), but if you find more, link them here, because now I really do need to do real life stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Appeal my final two account restrictions

About two months ago I successfully appealed here for the lifting of the last of my editing restriction. The closing admin noted on my talkpage that I still have a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block."

I would hereby like to appeal for the lifting of those final two restrictions (not that I plan creating more accounts, causing disruption of failing to "get the point") to finish my journey along the path back to full good standing within the community. I hope my record over the past two or three years, since having a community ban lifted, of collegial and collaborative creation and improvement of articles speaks for itself, but if anything needs clarifying please ask. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• It kind of looks to me like TParis added these two restrictions in their close of the unban discussion without them having been proposed. The one-account restriction is logical considering the extensive history of ban evasion (at the time) but the second one is basically don't be a dick (which applies to everyone) and should not need to be appealed. For what it's worth I see no technical evidence of sockpuppetry in the past three months. I support lifting both restrictions, but if you are going to make new accounts be sure that you follow the instructions at WP:ALTACCN and/or contact the Arbitration Committee privately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• per Ivanvector-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'd actually slightly disagree with @Ivanvector: - both restrictions should go, and yes the latter shouldn't have been added. However I think the latter does need to be specifically noted and removed - with it there, it (if read strictly) would make any negative action eligible for a full block. While those who have been banned should have a quicker escalation of sanctions, this isn't a permanent state of conditions and especially not at this level - and this should be noted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, sure, I don't think we're really disagreeing on this, it's just a matter of doing the paperwork. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support on amending the second-account bit, and no comment on anything else. Given the length of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive, I'm uncomfortable saying that a future violation of the sockpuppetry policy should not attract immediate sanctions. But some appropriate uses of alternate accounts listed at WP:SOCK (the "Security", "Doppelgänger accounts", and "Technical reasons" bullets) are so basic that we shouldn't restrict anyone from those uses, unless the individual is so untrustworthy as to deserve a block or an outright ban. So in my mind, the best situation is that you're prohibited from using any accounts that are not clearly linked from your main account's userpage or talk page ({{User alternative account name}}), or you can create and use one or more accounts with clearly related usernames, e.g. "DeFactoBot" or "DeFacto on a public network". I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a person with a long sockpuppetry history being once again allowed to use an account that can't easily be traced to the main account ("Privacy" and "Clean start under a new name" bullets), but since the community thinks you can be trusted to edit in general (no opinion on that; I don't remember hearing of you before), I can't see a good reason not to trust you with editing with accounts that are openly linked to your main account. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: just want to clarify with you because this is almost unanimous and it's getting stale. I said they shouldn't create any alternate accounts without disclosure, but I think you're saying a formal "no undisclosed alternative accounts" restriction is in order. In my mind the restriction kind of exists whether or not we explicitly declare it at this point, having the community scrutiny that comes with a history of sockpuppetry plus cautionary advice from a checkuser. What are your thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You've summarised my meaning well. Since policy explicitly permits people (in general) to have undisclosed accounts for a few specific reasons, either DeFacto will be permitted to do it, or we have a community-imposed prohibition on him doing it — there's no ground in policy for sanctions based on an undeclared idea (i.e. de-facto sanctions :-) I couldn't care less what you do with a disclosed account, as long as it's okay to do it with your main account (this refers to everyone, not just DeFacto), but when you have a history of sockpuppetry and you're being permitted to rejoin the community, it's just not a good idea to permit undisclosed accounts. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Ivanvector. Alive4islam (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Global ban of Til Eulenspiegel

Today, the global ban discussion of Til Eulenspiegel was closed and community decided to agree with the ban. English Wikipedia community is not forced to do anything about it, but an admin may want to strike all the accounts' local rights. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 03:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Been indeff'ed here for some time now. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim, liked the old sig:-( ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  me too. There was a problem with readability. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 18:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Just for the record, the old sig (Dlohcierekim) I could read just fine, it was the next sig (Dlohcierekim) that I found very difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I had trouble at the end. The gold kept fading into the background. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. Did you try bolding the gold? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  YUP. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, my admin highlighter script highlights admins in gold :O ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, my grandmother wrote in the pre WWII Gothic script User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• The highlighter script I use has a shade of blue. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

UAA close review request

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

---

Re: IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk · contribs)

This username was reported to UAA on 2019-01-29. The response was to allow it, due to this RfC. I'm asking for this decision (and the RfC if need be) to be reviewed. Can a relatively small local consensus allow a username that either;
a) gives the impression that this user does represent Rotten Tomatoes (a violation on it's own, but given that this company is arguably one of the most widely recognized movie review sites, and this user wants to "update" their reviews on WP film articles, is also likely a significant WP:COI), or
b) this person does not represent this company, another issue of it's own, but they are using the company's name, a registered trademark.

I was under the impression that these are the kinds of usernames that UAA was created to address, and I've certainly seen less blatant examples of username violations submitted there that resulted in a mandatory change in username. I'm sure there are username, trademark/copyright and other related polices not mentioned here that apply. I'll search them out if necessary, unless someone here more familiar with them posts some up. Anyhow, thank you for your time. - wolf 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• The username is not disruptive, so a block would be inappropriate per the blocking policy regardless of what UPOL says. I’ll once again repeat my call to replace the username policy with a single sentence Accounts that have clearly disruptive usernames may be blocked at administrator discretion. it would avoid situations where we now have three discussions about the same clearly not disruptive username. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• I saw that and had the opportunity to block and did not. It's a far stretch to see this as blockable. And as we are here, I guess the RfC did not support blocking. I expect the same result here.Dlohcierekim talk 16:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Consensus seems pretty clear.Dlohcierekim talk 16:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked, nor did I say anyone was being "disruptive". And, yes... I saw the "consensus" at the RfC, (all seven of them). I linked the RfC in my OP. Again, I'm asking for a review for both the clear policy vios and the fact that many others have been blocked and forced to change their names for less blatant username vios. We have someone here with a well-recognized and trademarked company name right in their username, actively editing content about, and cited by, that same company. The conflicts abound. And it's the full name, others have been soft-blocked pending a name change just for having initials of an entity they might have edited, and not disruptively either. Shouldn't these policies and guidelines be applied evenly across the board? And since when do admins not apply policy just because ≈a half-dozen guys said "meh... policy vio? Who cares? Seems fine to us!" Just looking for a clear answer that makes sense. Thanks - wolf 17:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy violation, as the editor is not representing themselves as being connected to the Rotten Tomatoes website. I think the obvious reading of their name is that they update RT info on Wikipedia. Personally, I think RT info shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia, but the consensus is that it can be, and as long as it is, it's better that it be updated regularly than that it sit and molder away with age. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I understood it to be "I'm one of the people who updates data on RT". Whether BMK is right or I'm right, it doesn't seem to matter. Imagine that you're an admin on an independent wiki, with username and COI policies identical to here; if you see someone register a username IEditWikipedia, you won't issue a username-only block, because the username merely says "I participate on this website". Same here; either it's talking about what the user wants to do on Wikipedia, or it says that the user's active somewhere else. Either way, this person should be able to edit the English Wikipedia without sanctions, unless of course he does something that attracts sanctions for some other reason. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I said, being one of the mere seven lowly persons who particpated in that RFC, (which is actually a pretty good turnout for RFCN) and someone who has helped shape username-related policies for about a decade now, the name is not a violation because it clearly represents an individual. It is explicitly allowed to use the name of an organization as part of your username, this is colloquially referred to as the "Mark at Alcoa" rule and is very well-established policy. Forum shopping won't change that fact, you need to just let it go already. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that the user being discussed was not notified of this discussion, and hasn't editied in a week or so, so it's unclear why this is even here and I belive given all the above it should be speedily closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit so so here. On the one hand why should we ban the username Rotten Tomatoes simply because there is an organisation outside Wiki which uses it, on the other it doesn't seem right that someone with that username is editing articles related to what that organisation is known for. I think on balance the username should have a modifier on it such as IuseRottenTomatoes Lyndaship (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with all the above I'm still not seeing a violation, I would close this but I'd participated in the RFC so could seem biased me closing, Anyway speedy close. –Davey2010^Talk 10:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(Got here after the close) Beeblebrox, I'm not sure why you are personalizing this by implying that I referred to you as "lowly" when in fact I didn't. Nor am I clear as to why you cited wp:dts and/or why Fish and karate has accused me of "forum shopping". I posted an entry at UAA. I didn't agree with the decision. The decision was based on an RfC that I did not take part in. I haven't challenged the UAA decision anywhere else. I came here to ask that the decision be reviewed, as I thought that was one of the functions of this board. You guys could've simply said that we believe the decision at UAA was correct for "x" reason and left it at that. I accept that the username is permissible, I don't agree with it, but I accept it, and I will let it lie. What I don't accept is the needless hostility and empty accusations. WTF guys? You're admins ffs. You can't go around preaching to (and blocking) others for unacceptable behaviour when you act like this. I didn't attack the editor whose username I challenged, nor did I attack any of you. So how about you do the same? (edits, not editors, etc.) Also, no... I didn't notify the editor about this post. I forgot. Oh well. Sorry. But then, I see you didn't give them notice either when you saw I hadn't, so...
Lastly, these boards are bad enough already without admins making them worse. I thank the others for their on topic replies. - wolf 17:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee feel it is appropriate to elaborate on the reasons for Alex Shih's departure. Whilst Alex Shih was a member of the Committee, he held the Checkuser right. Both his use of the tool and his disclosure on-wiki of non-public information breached the Wikipedia:Checkuser policy multiple times. In addition, arbitrators felt that he had committed other breaches of confidentiality in his use of private information received whilst on the Arbitration Committee. In August 2018, the Committee confronted Alex Shih with these concerns. Shortly afterwards, Alex resigned from the Committee and gave up the Checkuser and Oversight user rights. The Arbitration Committee considers this resignation to have been under controversial circumstances. The matter was also referred to the meta:Ombudsman Commission by a group of functionaries including several arbitrators when the extent of the actions came to light.

• Support: AGK, BU Rob13, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, SilkTork, Worm That Turned
• Abstain: Joe Roe
• Not voting:
• Inactive: Callanecc, Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee Worm^TT(talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee

Steven Pruitt

Steven Pruitt was recently re-created, with a new citation showing notability. Please can someone undelete the previous version, and merge/ history merge them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Going for it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This was AfD'd and I'm not sure it isn't G4 material now. There is a dearth of coverage. Someone less fatigued should look at it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just chiming in apropos of nothing -- I REALLY dislike this. No disrespect intended to Mr. Pruitt, but there's a level of omphaloskepsis here that rankles me. That being said, major articles on CBS News and the Daily Mail, and a smattering of more minor things. It should probably be covered. Just a non-admin opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the coverage in the deleted versions was stronger than this, so maybe another admin can take a look at it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: as they closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Pruitt.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I think this one might or might not survive a re-AFD. No opinion on restoring the older versions, they contain some useful material although I'd ask the user the article was about first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: You're ba-a-ack-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: And better than ever? Surely not. _Sorry.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but since when do we resurrect deleted versions just because a page has been recreated with new sources/demonstration of notability? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that I don't think I've ever seen it done. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

@Primefac: A fair question, and one that recently has been much on mind. OK, not as much as $270 to get my dryer fixed, but meh.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Primefac It makes sense to me to do it if the deleted versions contain potentially useable material. For example, if Person X has an article written about them in 2019 that discusses their nascent music career, and it cites sources, but their career is just getting started and they aren't notable yet so it gets deleted at AFD, and then in 2021 they win Best New Artist at the Grammys or something, and someone creates a new article about them, it might make sense to restore the deleted history if there is sourced information in it that is missing from the new version. If that is done, said information and sources should be incorporated into the new version, and the history would be needed for atribution. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO it's a matter of fairness too. In a lot of cases, and this seems to be one of them, the person who wrote the latest article, or at least some people who edit it, probably saw the older article. That being the case, it's impossible to rule out them being influenced by the earlier article. Even if these concerns don't arise to the level of WP:COPYVIO, it still seems fairer to acknowledge their contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The use of {{notdone}}, while at the same time saying "Someone less fatigued should look at it", is unhelpful. Please don't do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• This has the same level of referencing, and less information, than was in the deleted article. Per WP:CSD#G4, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, how is this not a speedy candidate? If User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao still wants this deleted, then the closing rationale of the AFD is still valid, and it should be speedy deleted. If he's changed his mind and either wants it or doesn't care, then I personally would still delete per G4, but wouldn't be too upset with a new AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: et al: Put me in the "don't care" camp. The major concern I had with the last article (that of the rationale for its creation) is not present here. Elsewise I'll stay out of the discussion from here out. (Apologies for being late to the party, but it's turned into quite a busy afternoon.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I still think it's a G4, but enough experienced editors have expressed different opinions here that I won't impose my opinion. If this morphs into a vote of some kind, that's my suggestion tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of G4 to me. Nihlus 20:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The closing rationale of the AFD was "The crux of the argument is whether GNG is met..." That was in 2017. Two of the five citations in the current article are dated 2018. G4 explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version [and] pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion seems pretty circular now. Probably the only way to decide notability is another AfD. And I'm not in a hurry to do so. If there is no strong objection, Nil Einne has made a compelling argument to restore the deleted content. This is terra incognita for me, and I'm not sure if I'm violating the consensus in the deletion discussion or not. Seeking guidance.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Might as well just close this discussion, given that Graeme Bartlett restored the content (rendering this discussion mostly-moot). Unless, of course, we feel like converting it into a full-blown RFC... (hah!) Primefac (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored the earlier version to add to the history of the recreated page. This was based on a request on my talk page, and I have not been aware of this discussion till now. If the recreated page is to be deleted then the old version in history can go too. However note the recent coverage in the media for this person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I often restore page histories per Nil Einne's rationale - so that articles are as 'complete' and visible as can be, editors don't have unnecessary 'deleted' edits etc.

I'd also say this isn't G4able given the recent coverage, but should be determined at another AFD. GiantSnowman 11:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's improved enough in sourcing and content over the previous version.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Definitely doesn't qualify for G4. IMO the sources in the current article (full length Washington Post and CBS news articles specifically about him as an individual, plus Time calling him one of the 25 most influential people on the internet) are alone enough to meet GNG, not even counting the lesser sources. If this gets AfD'ed, count me as a clear "keep". -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

To the question asked I don't think there's a need to restore the history: that article was deleted and this new one was written from scratch so attribution is not a concern. As to the subject I'd also like to see this go to AFD, as I'm not sure that appearing once in a list of influencers is enough to cross the WP:BLP1E threshold. I'm saying I don't know how I would vote but I'd like the community to decide, that's all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

and already semi'd. At any rate, I was unsure of policy on this and did not want to do it on my own. However, unless there is a policy reason, I agree with the restoration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is like the centenarians. Necessarily, one of them is the oldest of the oldest of the random people... but the happy one is no more encyclopedic than the third one or the 17th. Here, the said newspaper articles are not proving that being the best at changing this-dashes into that-dashes or adding so many Category:21st-century male musicians is more influential than writing any article about nuclear physic or Japanese painting ... or compiling the list of all the showbiz people that endorsed the last failed candidate to the US presidential election. Pldx1 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not how GNG notability works. It's based on having reliable in-depth coverage, not on our own opinions on whether that coverage is deserved. I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint that notability should be based more strongly on accomplishments and less on publicity than our current standards, but that's a much bigger discussion than the existence of this specific article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Experienced (and flame resistant!) closer needed for contentious RfC

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? closes in a couple of days.

Besides being hotly debated, this particular RfC has several claims about policy that the closer needs to sort out.

There is also the demonstrable fact that the first RfC was interpreted differently by different editors, so the closing comments of this one need to be super clear as to what was and was not decided. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like three closers could be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I started reading that with an eye to closing it but realised I actually had an opinion so !voted. Given the huge amount of discussion, high proportion of !votes that are not straight yes or no answers, the previous RfC and the contentiousness of the topic area I think three closers and a detailed closing rationale would be beneficial here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would like to say how impressed I am with the quality of the admin closes I have seen. Even when the RfC doesn't go the way I wanted it to go (That will change when you finally see the light and elect me King of Wikipedia[96]), the closes do a great job of summarizing the consensus and pointing out (and carefully explaining!) any relevant policies. So thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC, a quick count shows 24 supports to 40 opposes. I'd personally be closing this as a no, especially since there's not one side making policy based arguments while the other doesn't, although I can see another no consensus result being plausible. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't quite that simple. The closers need to evaluate the !votes in the light of our existing COI policy. It could be that a bunch of the !votes propose being stricter or more lenient than the policy allows. A lot of the support votes are from editors who deal with fringe topics a lot. Could it be that they are being stricter than the policy allows? Some of the oppose votes are from editors who are working acupuncturists who stand to lose income if Wikipedia continues to say that acupuncture doesn't work. Some unknown amount of others may be !voting on the basis that they believe that acupuncture does work for them no matter what the sources say. And a no consensus result would need clarification: Some editors cite the previous no consensus as supporting the notion that it is fine for a working acupuncturist to edit the acupuncture page in a way that puts acupuncture in a more favorable light. Other editors cite the previous no consensus as supporting the notion that a working acupuncturist shouldn't be editing the acupuncture page at all. Editors on both sides have presented detailed, policy-based arguments. In such a case the closer shouldn't just throw up his hands, ignore those arguments and go with the raw vote count. He should evaluate the policy-based arguments on both sides. And of course the decisions would also relate to questions about tobacco scientists editing our article on smoking, editors who work for Monsanto or for legal firms suing Monsanto editing our article on Roundup, and various other groups who have an obvious financial interest in what Wikipedia says.

All of this makes me think that not only should there be multiple closers, but that they should do a "closed pending result" close at the end of the 30 days, discuss it among themselves as long as needed, and then add a well-though-out closing statement that they all agree on. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that several of the points Guy makes in that comment regarding acupuncturists are disputed by others in the RfC discussion, and regardless of that are a far from neutral presentation of the arguments. This is very much not the place to rehash the arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need three closers. It's not that big an RFC, and overcomplicating the closure process is not required. One is plenty. The close is clearly a "no", and if I wasn't on a hiatus from closing high-profile discussions I'd do it. Fish+Karate 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fish and Karate that one closer would probably be enough. (I can't close it, because I participated in it.)

I second Guy's and Thryduulf's request for an explanation of the result, whatever it is. Editors do sometimes exaggerate RFC results, so that "no consensus in this discussion" stretches into "no", which gets understood as "permanently prohibited in all instances, without appeal", or that "no" means "no restrictions whatsoever", or whatever suits the editor's interpretation. A little judicious application of WP:BRADSPEAK here might save a lot of time later.

Finally, I want to say how much I admire Thryduulf's first comment above. It's important for trusted editors to not engage in supervoting, but it's also important for us to do that transparently. Just posting that you decided not to close it because you discovered that you had an opinion helps everyone else know how important those standards are to you. Thank you for that. You made the project a better place, and I hope that we all will be inspired to follow your example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a non-admin who voted in the RfC, I just wanted to point out the need for an explanation of what the close means, because heated arguments over the meaning of a previous RfC[97] have continued[98]. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Forming a panel

Given that no-one has put their hand up to do this on their own, I'd like to form a panel. I've already suggested to wording to Ymblanter who has agreed to be on a panel (though not to my wording as yet) so we're looking for a third volunteer. (And Ymblanter, it would be good if you could confirm here on-wiki that you're willing.)

To be clear, I don't feel that this RfC needs a panel to close it because it's difficult but because passions are running high and it will help editors to accept the outcome. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I confirm this. Whereas the RfC probably can be closed by one admin, it is safer to have a three-admin closure to reduce post-closure opposition. I did not yet look at this RfC in any detail and do not have an opinion on it except for that it is contentious.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to contribute/rubber-stamp/provide half-time orange slices. Fish+Karate 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Admins get orange slices for their RfC work? I knew there were perks for the role! Nosebagbear (talk)

Anyone working on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an admin, but if you need a third I'd be willing to help... I can confirm that I did not participate in the RfC. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody should trust anything I say on this topic, because I have already taken a position, so I would ask someone reading this who does not have an obvious bias to answer the above. I might (consciously or unconsciously) slant my response based on whether I think DannyS712's close would be favorable to my position. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'm also involved so speaking strictly generally rather than about this discussion in particular, but closures of (potentially) contentious discussions are usually best done by administrators. Feel free to help out with other closures though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Goldenring, Fish and karate, and I are in contact and discussing the ciosure,--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Now closed and signed by all closers.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the close starts with "Numerically, about 60% of the RfC participants opposed the proposal. We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger." Was that a typo? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This was truly an excellent close. Thank you closers. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, what we mean by this is that with 60 to 40 and arguments roughly equal strength it would likely be a no consensus close (rather than oppose).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Good close. Even though it didn't go the way I !voted (I will put an end to that as soon as they declare me King Of Wikipedia) the close accurately described the consensus and was clearly worded so that there won't be endless arguments about what the result "really" meant. Excellent job. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Upload guideline page needs update

Wasn't sure where to post this but I figure this is a pretty visible page. Our page with instructions on how to upload a screenshot of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Screenshots of Wikipedia) was last updated in 2013 and features instructions for an interface which no longer exists. Could someone who knows what they're doing work on updating this page? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The interface certainly exists at Special:Upload, but your point remains. Killiondude (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link. I don't upload often; what I did was type WP:UPLOAD into the search bar, and was directed to the File Upload Wizard. The wizard did not describe what to do when uploading a screenshot, and when I went looking for instructions the wizard's interface was not described in the howto. I guess it's that that needs to be updated, if someone wants to take the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Spanish speaking admin

Is there a Spanish speaking admin out there who would be willing to try and help explain some things about WP:NFC and WP:UP to someone who might have difficulty with English? I looked for a template for this kind of thing and found {{Welcomeen-es}}, but that's more of a general type of thing. I could try Google translate, but that might not work too well since it would involve Wikipedia-specific terminology. The user appears to be new and means well; it just might be easier to explain some things to them in Spanish. I'm asking here since an admin probably has a better feel for policies and guidelines than perhaps someone else; if there's a better place to ask, then please advise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Perdoname, leer español usted?Dlohcierekim talk 22:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems as if you're asking me whether I can read Spanish. I studied Spanish as a student, but that was quite a long time ago and I don't remember anything but a few words. So, no I cannot read Spanish. The editor I'm referring to above, however, posted a message in Spanish (I think it's in Spanish) on my user talk and also left an edit sum in Spanish; so, I'm guessing that English is not his/her first language. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You should hold out for an actual legit Spanish speaker, but if one doesn't show up, I'll give it a try; some combination of Google translate, my rudimentary Spanish, and my natural charm and pluck should work OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a job for Alexf. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: @MelanieN: Sure, who is the user? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: your sentence is incorrect, it should be instead: Disculpe, usted lee español? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alexf: The user is Brony Miraculer 507 and the post he/she left is on my user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  Done. I basically explained the rules, linking to pages in English and similar pages in WP.ES, where the rules may not exactly match (I do not contribute there), but will give the user a clear idea of what we are talking about. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit off-topic here, but in a case like this you might get some traction using a template such as {{uselanguage|es}}, or you could try to point the user to the appropriate interlanguage link at the guideline page (e.g. es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo for NFC at eswiki) if you're confident the guidelines line up well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Would it be useful to have categories such as Category:Wikipedia administrators es-N? I also get asked pretty often as I guess one of the very few Russian-speaking admins (or just active users), but this is because people somehow know I speak Russian, not because it is easy to find me via these categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it probably would. Personally I keep a little "cheat sheet" listing two or three people (active users, not exclusively admins) that can be called on for help with various languages. (Yes, Ymblanter, you are on it.) Need a Spanish speaker? Ping Alexf! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  You could try a category intersection search of Category:Wikipedia administrators and Category:User es-5, using AWB's filter options. I really wish cross-category searching was built into Wikipedia, though - it's not yet available. Also this requires admins to have the necessary categories on their userpage. I'd be all for mandating all admins to be in the admin category as part of accountability/visibility, I don't think that would be the case for Category:Wikipedians by language subcategories, though. Fish+Karate 15:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  You can search for incategory: "User es-5" incategory:"Wikipedia administrators" which produces exactly one hit (User:Alexf, natch) Fish+Karate 15:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  I did not know this one. I am the only hit? Wow. This needs work! -- Alexf^(talk) 16:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did not know about the trick. "User es-N" incategory:"Wikipedia administrators" produces a bit more hits.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks to Alexf and everyone else for their help and suggestions here. Alexf's message will hopefully do the trick. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  You can also use Petscan to generate category intersections, like petscan:7565856 for this situation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  c:Commons:List of administrators by language GMG^talk 01:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Also, generally speaking, explaining guidelines to users is not something you definitely need an administrator for. Any competent and active user in Category:User es-5 or better ought to be able to help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add Merge template to "2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident"

Please add {{Merge from |Nathan Phillips (activist) |date=January 2019 }} to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident until such time that the merge discussion has proper templates above and below it. I can not revert again due to WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that merge proposal has been closed. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to keep the merge tag on the article when the merge discussion is closed. What is someone who sees the merge tag supposed to do? If you're refering to the use of {{archive top}} instead of {{discussion top}}, it's fine the way it is, WP is not a bureaucracy. If there's some other thing wrong with the discussion close that I haven't noticed, what is it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani

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

---

I request administrative attention at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani. There is already an administrator, User:JamesBWatson, but they are a participant in the discussion. In particular, I take very strong exception to the implication by User:Phil Bridger that the proponents of deleting the draft are doing so out of prejudice. The page in question is an autobiography, and the editor is gaming the system by submitting multiple copies, and some of us would oppose that by an Anglo-Celtic New Zealander. Can we please keep the deletion debate on the merits and demerits without playing race cards?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are oversensitive. I don't see a "race card" being played. Some editors disagree with you. It happens every day. 204.130.226.100 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that I wouldn't have nominated the autobiography of an Anglophone professor for deletion is implying that racial, religious, or national prejudice was a factor in my nomination. It wasn't. A prejudice, in the etymological sense, against autobiographies was a factor, and I have a right to interpret a Wikipedia guideline strictly and to argue that it needs to be applied strictly. The implication of racial, religious, or national prejudice in my nomination is a race card. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead". But irrespective of that bureaucracy, can I ask why you didn't try discussing this with the user on their talk page, explaining to them why you considered what they said to be impugning your and other editors' motives, rather than coming straight to AN? Is there an underlying prior conduct issue on Phil Bridger's part which mean you do not expect a polite and collegiate approach to be productive? I am not aware of any. Fish+Karate 10:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Phil Bridger made a mistake in exressing himself as he did, but I don't think it was a big enough issue to warrant any administrative action, and I think Robert McClenon has over-reacted in bringing the matter here. I will post a note to Phil on his talk page about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)

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

---

Please add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song). --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done by User:Bakazaka. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing by Santasa99 in regards to Islamism and Bosnia & Herzegovina

User:Santasa99 has recently been engaging in edits regarding Islamism and Bosnia & Herzegovina which seem to fall under the category of WP:POVPUSH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Specifically this user has blanked and emptied Category:Islamic terrorism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Islamism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members. I left a message on this user's talk page but at the timing of this post they have not responded. Other examples of this user's behavior include removing Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members from Mahmoud K. Muftić claiming that it somehow defaces the subject despite the fact that Muftić's lengthy relationship and association with the Muslim Brotherhood is described and cited at length in the article, removing Islamist categories from Mirsad Bektašević, Jasminka Ramic, and Abdullah Ramo Pazara despite the fact that these subjects are citizens of Bosnia & Herzegovina and affiliates of Al-Qaeda and ISIL, obvious Islamist organizations. The editor's conduct and edit summaries here and here seem to indicate that they are very passionate and bias concerning this subject. These edits seem to be POV-pushing and disruptive, hence why I am bring this up here. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. What POV pushing? What WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? You said to me how Cat's are "valid pages which I emptied/blanked without a good reason. Cat's aren't "valid", Cat's are exactly what they are - Cat's; and you put articles there or not. There is nothing to add to that.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Your behavior arguably falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because (jugging by your behavior, especially the edit summaries you leave) that these categories are somehow disrespectful or insulting, hence why you claim they are inaccurate and are removing them. This is the exact definition of RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In reality just because there are a couple of Bosnian individuals labeled as Islamists on Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia is trying to label all Bonsians as intolerant or Islamists. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to your mind reading. You are taking this issue and conversation into some area which I am not going to follow you into. You have certain pages on certain subjects and all that matters is if they correspond to Cat's. Your opinions on my state of mind or what Wikipedia does to whom isn't required and I am not interested in it.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: well first of all I never claimed to be a mind reader, I wrote that your edits "seem to" and "arguable fall under" what is considered POV pushing and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I neither know nor really do I care for your motivation in removing these categories.

Secondly categories, while not articles, are still quite important to Wikipedia, as they are important in connecting articles and integrating them in the greater encyclopedia. Instead of saying that the categories are rubbish or are tarnishing to individuals, perhaps a better argument would be why these articles are not appropriate based on the article subjects. Using the Muftić example, if the subject is from Bosnia & Herzegovina and is as well an affiliate with the Muslim brotherhood, by Wikipedia's guidelines Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members is a valid category, unless one or both of the aforementioned facts can be disproven.

Lastly more of a general statement to anyone reading I believe this thread might be more appropriate for ANI than here just based on the nature of the discussion and issue. If anyone wishes please feel free to move this discussion to ANI, or on the other hand if some admins find this topic interesting than it could be kept here. Good day Inter&anthro (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I must say it seems as if Inter&anthro has a point. Santasa99 has blanket removed categories that (at least at first view) seems reasonable. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeppiz, maybe second and third look at actual articles categorized as such would be in order?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Inter, how about you assure me that person, you repeatedly mentioning, is Bosnia and Herzegovina citizen - this Muslim brotherhood guy? So basically what you are saying is that no matter if articles have nothing to do with such Cat editors should restrain themself from removing them from it? You didn't even try to contest my actions on specific articles, you are trying simply to bypass entire issue of these articles being rather curiously ambiguous on these Cat's you are so eager to save. And regarding your expressed opinions on my "motives" and "behavior", and how I feel and what I think is happening and so on, they are on record just above.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Since I was asked to take a second and third look, I have done so. My conclusions:

• Santa99 was wrong to remove the categories, except for the article on Mirsad Bektašević.
• Both Santa99 and Inter should stop arguing here immediately . You have both stated your case. Continued arguments do you no favours at all. Quite the opposite.
• The categories should be restored and Santa99 cautioned to desist. Jeppiz (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not arguing with anyone, quite the contrary. But I will argue my case if anyone ask me to. As far as Jeppis observations, you seem pretty convinced - there are more the a few articles to review to get all the important information, really, and I must noticed that you isolated only this person Mirsad Bektašević as not fit for such categorization, again, pretty convincingly. How is that that you missed this Muslim brotherhood guy, how is he fit for placing under "Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members", which is then categorized as "Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Islamists" and so for--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)th ?

I am not arguing with anyone, quite the contrary. Good one! --JBL (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• He's at it again, pretty much templating and removing the content of the Bilal Bosnić article. Bosnić's relationship with the Salafi movement and ISIS is well established and this is cited and mentioned numerous times in the articles yet in this edit Santasa99 tries to chalk it all up to weasel words. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please redirect

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

---

Chaim Eiss to Chaim Yisroel Eiss. I'd have done it myself but "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Shrug - never saw such an error before, but well, here you go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1. Remedy 5 of The Troubles is amended to read:

   5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

2. The section #One revert rule of the same case is superseded by the following additional remedy:

   6) As a standard discretionary sanction, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles.

3. All active restrictions placed under the previous remedies remain in force.
4. Remedy 1.1 of Great Irish Famine is marked as superseded. The article, now at Great Famine (Ireland), is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorised under The Troubles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland

vandalism and prejudice by indain vandals on Pakistan related pages

Hi, I am writing to ask if administrators can shed some light on this issue, i have been monitoring Pakistan related pages, history, culture, people etc everywhere where Pakistan have been shown in positive light or have some comparison with India. Indian users are getting in to edit wars to push their narrative and later it is being accepted by some moderators here. I have been blocked lately due to reverting Regional power article to it's original form and the later Indian narrative is forced. I expect administrators to be neutral; instead of having an agenda. Also, if administration is aware of this problem and they are letting it slide through and they intend to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool by some particular nationality, please mention it as a disclaimer at the beginning of every Pakistan related article. Comment added by AlphaAce (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I can help you fix whatever problems there are, but you need to drop this attitude like "indian vandals are doing <blah>". Please see WP:AGF.

On the Regional power article, I suggest you first read the talk page discussion, and the recent RfC (Request for Comment) which formed a consensus that only sources that meet the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS criteria can be used. So, what you need to do is to find sources that meet the criteria, and discuss them on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: have you gone through the whole talk page and archive of previous talks. Consensus was developed on Regional power and said sources, until someone came in and vandalized it. Just look at the editing history of that page, you would know what i mean. AlphaAce (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

AlphaAce, Yes, I know what happened on the talk page. That is how I gave you the advice above. Repeating: RfC formed a consensus that only sources that meet the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS criteria can be used. So, what you need to do is to find sources that meet the criteria, and discuss them on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlphaAce: Your attitude here is unacceptable, you may not appear on noticeboards doing exactly what you have accused others of doing and expect sympathy. I've placed a notice of discretionary sanctions concerning India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on your talkpage. Please review the conduct expected of editors in those topic areas and abide by it. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: my attitude is in retaliation for what's being done systematically on wikipedia by a certain nationality users. It's unacceptable that you or anyone, instead of addressing the core issue, are cherry picking that why i am raising the issue. It itself explain my reservations. Look at the example below by @Nil Einne: tells the whole sad affairs of wikipedia by itself. AlphaAce (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne is rather ungracefully pointing out that the argument could be inverted, and that you appear to be guilty of the same conduct that you're complaining about in others. You must expect your conduct to be scrutinized when you post here. "Retaliation," as you put it is not acceptable, and I strongly advise you to reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia. If this continues, you may facing editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

vandalism and prejudice by Pakistani vandals on India related pages

@AlphaAce: Hi, I am writing to ask if administrators can shed some light on this issue, i have been monitoring India related pages, history, culture, people etc everywhere where India have been shown in positive light or have some comparison with Pakistan. Pakistani users are getting in to edit wars to push their narrative and later it is being accepted by some moderators here. I have been blocked lately due to reverting Regional power article to it's original form and the later Pakistani narrative is forced. I expect administrators to be neutral; instead of having an agenda. Also, if administration is aware of this problem and they are letting it slide through and they intend to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool by some particular nationality, please mention it as a disclaimer at the beginning of every India related article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, but it's probably not helping. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil, are you compromised? ∯WBG^converse 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Where have you been blocked? Can someone run a CU? ∯WBG^converse 17:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

He's just reversing the order of AlphaAce's complaint to make a point - it's easy to misinterpret. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: i was blocked for three day, now i am able to edit. However, responses given above are testament for the point i am trying to make in the first place. Addressed users love going to nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology, going behind the vile of so called guidelines and policies and push the agenda. It's sad but as per wikipedia guidelines this community itself is a public property and the community that is created by it's valuable users; pouring in hours of their time and then someone comes and change culture, history, art, ethnicity related articles of a certain country to push their agenda. It is just unacceptable. AlphaAce (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlphaAce:, go to the t/p and start a discussion about your content. See WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:AGF. This board is not for settling content-disputes.∯WBG^converse 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You're clearly still missing my point. Maybe my comment wasn't the best way to express it, but if you've been around wikipedia for long enough, you've seen the same crap from both sides. India supporting editors moaning about how bad Pakistani editors are and how they're destroy wikipedia etc and Pakistan supporting editors moaning about how bad Indian editors are and how they're destroying wikipedia etc. Your latest comment didn't include any country references so this time I could just repeat it word for word as coming from an India supporting editor. It gets very boring seeing it all the time. Note that I hardly ever edit in related topic areas, so it's mostly at various noticeboards especially the AN ones I see it.

Also discussing disputes over article content, respecting other editors and assuming good faith are not just the "nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology". As we are a collaborative encyclopaedia they are a key part of what wikipedia is. If you are unable or willing to work with other editors in a constructive fashion, whatever country they come from, then wikipedia is not the place for you. And yes, again this applies to editors who support India as much as it applies to editors who support Pakistan.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, as for the specific dispute you outlined, the history is a mess. But it's probably best to start from here [99]. On 11 November, an editor removed the content based on an RfC. It stayed that way until 18 December [100] when various IP editors tried to re-add it. This was largely stopped by protection a few days later. Then you came along on 31 January and tried to re-add the content [101] falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. You then edit warred with multiple other editors to try to keep it in, I guess until you were blocked.

Two points here. First as I said the accusation of vandalism was false and should not have been made. The edits were clearly made in good faith, based on the belief that they improved wikipedia. In fact, your edit summary itself supports this view. It also said "Wikipedia is not about India's personal feeling platform". POV pushing is harmful, but most of the time it's not vandalism. Maybe you consider this "nitty gritty of wikipedia terminology" but there are reasons why vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia. If you don't wish to understand them, or wish to understand what vandalism is, that's fine. Just don't ever use the word vandalism. There is no reason why you can't learn such a simple thing.

And here's the most ironic point. When you started your edit war, the final thing you said was "Before editing go to the discussion board". You then proceeded to make 4 more (5 total) reverts against 4 editors and of course eventually came here to moan. But guess what? The talk page hasn't had a substantive edit since 31 October. [102] Why didn't you follow your own advice and go to the discussion board, at least after you got into an edit war?

Since we don't rule on content disputes, there's not much I can say about that. Further back there was this discussion Talk:Regional power/Archive 5#Pakistan. This eventually ended up on the DRN, but it looks like that discussion died as no one responded to the questions raised by the volunteer Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 167#Talk:Regional power#Pakistan Later an RfC was started on a wider issue. This closed on 31 October (that last edit) with the summary "clear consensus to include only those nations as a regional power if the information is supported by multiple reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS". That was clearly the justification for the editor removing the content on 11 November. So at least one editor, and probably more, seem to feel that at the moment, the Pakistan does not meet the requirement for which we have consensus. (That RfC did include some discussion of that as well.) Again if you disagree, the talk page shouldn't be empty. (I have zero opinion, I haven't even looked at the sources.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify to avoid causing offence that I'm not saying most editors from Pakistan or India are like that. Nor is it unique to that specific area, I only singled them out because that was the issue of discussion. Also in case it's unclear, this also all means that there are legitimate behavioural problems from editors on both sides. But it's also generally possible to tell if there's nothing worth looking at simply from reading the complaint, without checking any diffs. (Although the lack of diffs is something that doesn't require checking.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Appealing Sanctions on Editing Caste and related articles

Hi,

I received a message[103] on my talk page from Bishonen (talk · contribs) that I have been topic banned and am restricted from editing caste related articles and social groups. I would like to appeal against this ban and request uninvolved editors/admins to review and lift this ban. In my defence, I have been actively engaging in talk pages see [104], [105] and also initiated the discussion on the wiki noticeboard for reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gustav_Solomon_Oppert_work_a_reliable_source_?. During the course of this time I have interacted with Slatersteven (talk · contribs), Sitush (talk · contribs), Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) and found that to my horror that Sitush (talk · contribs) and his cronies like Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) actively monopolising the edits to these articles and thereby controlling the content of the articles like Maravar for example. I also found that Bishonen (talk · contribs) colluding with Sitush (talk · contribs) on more than one occasion during this time period. The modus operandi seems to be that Sitush forces an editor into an edit-war by reverting an article back and forth and then asks for Bishonen's help [106],[107],[108] upon which Bishonen swiftly blocks or bans the opponent under the pretext of restoring normalcy. So, requesting other admins and editors to review and lift this ban. Nittawinoda (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse sanctions Any appeal that contains words like "cronies" and continues personal attacks against other editors is unacceptable. This topic ban appears to be entirely justified. Acroterion (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I regard the word cronies as being totally apt in this case as Sitush, Sangitha_rani111 and Bishonen have been tag-teaming against other editors in articles like Vanniyar and Maravar to push POV and project the communities in bad light. For example, they've been calling the entire community of Maravar as robbers and thieves [109], [110]. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been tag-teaming? That's interesting, since I have never edited those articles. Just one of your many random accusations. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

Oh Yes you have been tag-teaming as you are quick to intimidate, block and lay sanctions on editors at Sitush's request without even reviewing the case and looking at an edit from the other side. Here [111] you are clearly stating that you have no clue what the issue is but then you're asking Sitush (talk · contribs) as to what needs to be done whether a topic ban would suffice. If you do not understand the cause of conflict then you should lay off instead of taking sides with Sitush. This is precisely what tag-teaming is. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Nittawinonda 31 hours for abusing this appeal to resume personal attacks on other editors. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement sanction, at least for now. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

YOU are doing yourself no favours, but I would also point out there has not been a serious of less severe blocks leading up to this topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There don't have to be any blocks before issuing a topic ban, nor does the banning admin have to get community consensus to do that deed. I've not long since alerted you to the same sanctions regime, Slatersteven, so perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with it. Nittawinoda, partially aided by you, probably out of ignorance on your part, has been showing either a severe lack of competence in the topic area or (as I think) a glorification agenda for weeks, even months now. They've been a serious time-sink and have been trying to whitewash stuff all over the shop in relation to certain castes of South India.

Nittawinoda, you were not only on Bishonen's radar. You will see on their talk page that other admins, such as RexxS, have also expressed concern about you. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RexxS is yet to be one:-) ∯WBG^converse 17:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, sorry WBG. I always thought he was, for some reason. I think Vanamonde93 may have been involved also but, hey, let's just say "other contributors" then. My apologies. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My conceanrn is that one of the few times a users cam forwards and try and tell him he was wrong (not shout at him or call him incompetent, just tell him "this is against policy" I was told I was in fact wrong by one of the users who wanted him blocked. I am concerned because what I am seeing is a users who was subjected to abuse and PA's (and he was), who was never in fact given mentoring or any any attempt made to change his ways and who has now been blocked because of those ways. I do not doubt his actions were actionable, I told him as much. I am concerned this was a first step.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The block wasn't a first step, Slatersteven. Blocks and bans are different, see WP:BAN. I banned Nittawinoda, Acroterion blocked him. I wouldn't exactly call my topic ban a first step either; it was preceded not only by much advice and explanation from Sitush over several weeks, but also by this explicit warning from me (more explanatory version specifically about sources here), to which Nittawinoda answered like this. You will recognize much of his wording from his appeal in this section. Since I was met with so much assumption of bad faith, I didn't choose to continue arguing with him. Sitush has more patience than me, though, and went on explaining. (I suppose it's those explanations, occasionally with an infusion of impatience, that you call "abuse and PA's".) If Nittawinoda had listened even a little, even intermittently, to what Sitush told him, he would have had a good chance to become a better editor. EdJohnston's advice about listening to Sitush might have helped, too, if he'd listened to that: Sitush is very familiar with the sourcing issues on caste articles and his recommendations are often respected by administrators. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC).

• Decline--I read 2 of the t/p(s) and I support Bish's TBan, which is as usual, good. Complete clueless-ness + PA + IDHT. Enough, ∯WBG^converse 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

The restriction on page creation imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:

• Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new pages outside of mainspace such as talkpages and AfD pages.
• Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
• The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request

Standard offer unblock of User:My Lord?

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

---

Following an SPI report, I blocked My Lord (talk · contribs) on July 18, 2018 for abusive use of sockpuppet accounts IndianEditor (talk · contribs), Iamgod12345 (talk · contribs), GhostProducer (talk · contribs), and CEO of Universe (talk · contribs). After initial denials, My Lord admitted to operating the account(s), and while there could have been valid real-life identity concerns (which I won't spell out) for starting the first alternate account those wouldn't explain away the multiple socks and how they were used.

Subsequent to the block, based on behavioral evidence, suspicions were raised that My Lord was also behind the Adding The Truth (talk · contribs) account. My Lord has denied the linkage and admin opinions on the strength of the bahavioral evidence has differed.

On the plus side: afaik My Lord has not socked during the duration of their block and their past editing has shown that they are at least capable of making useful contributions to the project. In light of all this, and as I had suggested at the time the current block was placed, My Lord has requested an unblock as per the standard offer.

My recommendation: I am inclined to grant a conditional unblock, with the user, however, being topic banned from "India-Pakistan conflict" related articles, discussions etc. Please see the discussion at the user's talkpage for reasons why such a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA may be helpful and justified; if this is the path taken then the continued need for the topic-ban itself can be re-evaluated after, say, six months.

I invite other admins and the community to chime in on whether they think a continued block, conditional unblock or an unconditional unblock would be the best course forward here. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would feel fine with conditional unblock if there is no check user evidence of socking by My Lord or Adding The Truth. Though the connection is behavioral only, there should be caution before unblocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Almost forgot I would also need to know the user is not using proxies, unless there is a valid reason to do so.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• CU said "inconclusive" and behavioral evidence was too flimsy. It was not long after the SPI that the filing editor was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE for engaging in this proxy editing[112] and he himself claims that his account was being used by someone else with his permission.[113] Another SPI was also filed by a proxy editor, who was later topic banned for it.[114] What if these circumstances were revealed before? No one would be blocking Adding The Truth and My Lord. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ironic The sock detector was proven to have used sock puppets leading to their block. Leaving aside Adding The Truth. They admitted to socking. However, that was then; this is now. If they have abided by the terms of their standard offer then they can be unblocked. And so far, I see no indication they have not.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support (changed opinion, see comment below Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)) unblocking, and note that I'm the admin that made the call in the Adding The Truth case (I did not have checkuser access at the time) and have been challenged on that call extensively. The relevant consideration for SO is that there is no evidence of socking in the last six months, and my opinion as someone who's looked at this case very extensively is that there is not. As I said on My Lord's talk page I will not check this account myself owing to past administrative disagreements, but I have assurances from another checkuser that there's nothing to report. I did not ask about proxies, though. We had some back-and-forth on the talk page already, it might be relevant reading for anyone considering the request. I cannot support this unconditionally: My Lord has stated they intend to dive in to active editorial conflicts, and at first I offered advice that they should not, but the appearance of other familiar names from those conflicts makes me think that unblocking without a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict is just going to be asking for trouble. tl;dr: yes to unblock, but only with conditions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note A few minutes after starting this section, Abecedare unblocked My Lord with a rationale of unblock so user can participate in AN discussion on standard offer unblock request. Clearly this has not been abused so far, since My Lord last edited yesterday. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support unconditional unblock as a no-brainer. My Lord is known for catching some of the most disruptive sockmasters in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts,[115][116][117] all of whom are now sitebanned, and for bringing great quality to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus,[118][119] Kargil War,[120] Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts,[121] and many other articles. Having him blocked over a block evasion in 2017 (from which he had already learned) is punitive and unusual in nature since SPIs frequently get rejected for "not showing recent abuse". CU never confirmed any recent socking by My Lord since the time he was blocked. My Lord's adherence to the terms of WP:SO, something that most editors fails to do, further strengthens my comments. Orientls (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock and keeping unblocked as is. Given the lack of any evidence of problematic editing, I am mentioning that SPIs were filed by socks and meat puppets who were sanctioned for it very soon,[122][123] and to keep My Lord blocked or sanctioned any longer under flimsy causes would only entertain the disruptive block-shopping behavior and discourage productive editing. 39.33.95.29 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock, per Ivanvector, Abecedare, and Huon at User Talk:My Lord. I don't want to rehash everything that others have said on that talk page; suffice to say that I would prefer to see My Lord demonstrate an ability to edit constructively and collaboratively outside of this highly contentious area before diving back into the same conflicts that precipitated their previous socking. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock: User:MyLord was blocked for a six-month period for sockpuppetry, which in my opinion, is enough of a censure for that offense. He has created geography and religion-related articles on Wikipedia, such as Zeashta Devi Shrine and Point 5240, which have been helpful to the project. As such, his request to be reinstated as a productive editor should be honoured. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock - yes, the behavioural problems that led to the block of My Lord's sock account(s) were displayed quite some time ago. However, they have never been addressed, and by focusing solely on the sockpuppetry issue (or the lack of a recent such issue) My Lord is avoiding to address them now while indicating that he wants to return to just the same topic area. Huon (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support only with indefinite TBAN I'm undecided whether the TBAN should be from IP-conflict or all IPA topics. The ban should be indefinite with an appeal to AE or AN after six months on a showing of constructive editing elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock Technically, the issue of sock puppetry was resolved much before since he had been only using his main account for a long time. I don't see any sense "topic ban" or any demands since no one is producing any diffs to justify this unwarranted sanction, though the evidence for opposite significantly exists. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock. There is always a chance to go awry and go nuts in wiki for some time, I presume there should be a chance given to come back to normalcy, (return to civility) if the user has shown these signs why not unblock him unconditionally ?. --Shrikanthv (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock only. Let us see if My Lord can edit productively in other areas before letting them back into the area that caused the issue in the first place. I note that pretty much every editor above asking for an unconditional unblock is a user in the IPA area, which isn't a good sign. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock for the exact same reason Black Kite opposes it above. If ML is going to go back to doing what got him blocked (which would be very stupid given the number of editor who will be watching), it is best that we find out right away. Anyone who thinks that WP:STANDARDOFFER should specify an additional topic ban after the six months, they should discuss it on the talk page for that essay (or perhaps at WP:ROPE) and see if the community agrees. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock persuaded this would be a net positive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock - currently there hasn't been clear provision of evidence by the TBAN-proposers - I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's conclusive. Primary ban was for socks. I'm not sure how much benefit this will bring - any violation will get him rebanned regardless. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock - no topic ban was ever placed, and there's no evidence that has been supplied that suggests there was a particular issue in the user's editing in "India-Pakistan conflict"-related articles. If we trust an editor to be unblocked we should initially assume good faith and let them edit without restrictions, as with all editors returning from a block someone is bound to be monitoring their contributions. Fish+Karate 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock - I don't find the evidence of misconduct conclusive. My memory may not be that good here, but I don't recall any serious issues with ML's editing under that particular account (other than the usual par for the course). Moreover, if we believe that ML won't be able to edit in a policy-directed way, it is better that such editing happens in the India-Pakistan conflict area which is closely watched. Overflow into other areas is not in anybody's interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support unconditional unblock. I only see evidence of the fact that ML has been a net positive to IPA and India-Pakistan space and has indeed done a great work in both article and Wikipedia space related to this area. Sure some people would personally disagree with his edits but there is no reason not to accept his unblock request since he has been thoroughly helpful. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose without conditions (restating a "support" opinion I wrote above) - those looking for evidence of My Lord's past disruptive behaviour in the India-Pakistan topic should look to the editing histories, talk page histories, and block logs of their admitted socks IndianEditor (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and GhostProducer (talk · contribs · logs · block log), the behaviour which led to their blocks which My Lord has never acknowledged (i.e. this is not just a sockpuppetry block), and that My Lord fervently denied these connections while evading their blocks right up to last July when they were backed into a corner and admitted everything. I'm also concerned that many of the editors writing here that My Lord's past sockpuppetry should be unconditionally forgiven are the same editors that agitated for NadirAli to be sitebanned for exactly the same offence, and have argued for sitebans for other opponents for much lesser infractions. It's an obvious double standard that does not bode well for participation in this Arbcom-sanctioned topic area.

I feel the sentiment from some here that we should just unblock and wait for My Lord to screw up and be blocked again, I know WP:ROPE and all and I often agree. If it were a matter of not being confident that an editor is going to avoid repeating their disruptive behaviour then ROPE is a decent approach. But this is not that: it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to. That ought to set off alarm bells, and if not then all their old friends showing up here to cheer them on definitely should. The topic seems to be reasonably stable now (I haven't seen a huge ANI thread about it in at least a few months) and a lot of admins and editors have spent a great deal of time getting to that point, but taking the ROPE approach here is almost certain to destroy that stability.

I support unblocking My Lord, just repeating it to be clear, and I look forward to seeing what they get to work on. We had a brief conversation about it on their talk page and I think those are some good ideas. But I'm very wary about how this is playing out with respect to the India-Pakistan conflict. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Re "it's not a matter of whether or not My Lord will jump right in to one of the most embittered conflicts on Wikipedia, they've already said they're definitely going to", could I have a link to where they said that? Not arguing or disagreeing, but I like to verify claims when they affect whether someone is blocked or banned. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, here is probably the first time where ML indicated his plans. He is quite upfront about it, which I appreciate. I am not overly worried about POV-pushing possibilities there. Notice how my mediation at Talk:Hizbul Mujahideen was quickly accepted. On the other hand, I would be more worried about pages like Jaggi Vasudev, which tend to generate endless drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, couldn't you provide diffs in place of speculating the contributions? One can find India-only related edits in all accounts of My Lord except his main account when it concerns India-Pakistan conflict and they seem problem-free. NadirAli was a package of CIR and NOTHERE who socked every day, that's why he was sitebanned for second time. Why he should be mentioned? If you would like to discuss "obvious double standard" then consider mentioning Nauriya who was not blocked for his continued CIR and socking in July 2018, yet My Lord was blocked for his past socking. Nauriya managed to get himself sitebanned, which is something anyone can tell My Lord never will. It doesn't matters if My Lord edits India-Pakistan conflict since evidence establishes that he was a productive editor. Now instead of settling scores for the opposing side, you need learn to examine the credibility of each case on its own merits. 41.246.26.55 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no speculation. My Lord suggested that their last 50 article contribs indicated which topics they meant to edit, but after I pointed out that 39 of those contribs were rollbacks ([124]), My Lord responded: "After unblock, I will continue working on Kargil war (there is a dispute there with which I can help[125]), Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Point 5240 and bring each of these articles to GA level." I didn't say at the time but I appreciate the honesty, I think it's a good marker and bodes well for future contribs, but I still think it's a bad idea to come off an indef going straight into India-Pakistan conflicts. I think it would be a bad idea for anyone, but My Lord has been specifically involved in those conflicts previously. I just don't see it going well, and I actually don't want to set them up to fail, regardless of what anyone here thinks about my motivations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This user was not exactly famed for their honesty. A troublesome trait of My Lord was lying in their edit summaries. In particular they would claim consensus for their edits/reverts (on ARBIPA pages no less) where none existed.[126] For example he lied[127] that there was consensus for his edit on Violence against women during the partition of India when in fact there was none.[128] He behaved similar on the Kashmiris article. To add to all this, he also lied to Sitush that he had never had any other account on Wikipedia.[129] I don't even need to mention his initial lying on the SPI. Ivanvector can elaborate on that. Before allowing him to edit again we need some sort of guarantee that the habit of lying won't continue. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Citing a frivolous report that ended up with "no action" only puts My Lord in a better light. While I can see you are engaging in aggressive POV pushing on both of these articles, it also appears that there is clear consensus in favor of My Lord's edits as the talk pages shows even when he was not editing.[130] Maybe you could be more honest with your first edit ever to this page[131] but at this moment you are only poisoning the well. 39.33.55.198 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• @My Lord: Now would be a good time to do as Guy Macon asked on your talk page and to respond here so as to . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE and the conditions of WP:SO having been met in good faith. If the problems return later, we can always reblock. --Jayron32 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support When a productive editor screws up badly, and then does what is required to be readmitted to the community, I generally believe they should be given the chance. As Jayron notes above, if problematic behavior returns then reblocking is just a matter of three clicks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Please see User talk:My Lord#AN. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have given this some thought but I'm not convinced that My Lord should ever be unblocked. His dishonesty was so pervasive that he can't be trusted again one bit. See for example this edit summary here on an India-Pakistan war article[132]. A search of that page's edit history shows there was no deletion and restoration of that (well-sourced) section before My Lord deleted it. His edit summary was a lie. Once a liar is always a liar. And My Lord has lied many, many times. His behaviour on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus was especially egregious. His tactic was to bludgeon his way through the dispute process by citing unresolved discussions in his edit summaries to support his changes.[133] Not only was this user a liar but he also harassed Mar4d and NadirAli.[134] This user is of no value to the encyclopedia. Some good faith editors are of the opinion that My Lord can always be re-blocked if he repeats his disruption but I should point out that administrators have typically ignored clear evidence of his disruption. Sandstein closed an AE report about him merely because there was no other administrator interested.[135] (I also note here that Sandstein found the first batch of diffs presented there unactionable, but he did say he did not examine the rest of the evidence. Several editors pointed out that the next piece of evidence showed clear dishonest conduct from My Lord). I am also noting the (clearly non co-incidental) proliferation of IPs[136][137] from random corners of the globe who are popping in here just to defend My Lord. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fabricate all you want but edit summary here was accurate and this discussion shows consensus was in favor of My Lord, and even the present version of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus supports these edits. Reporting a topic banned editor for his topic ban violation is a productive work. Admins have already dealt with these diffs and that is why Sandstein had closed the report as "no action" because the report was extremely frivolous. Your personal attacks, false accusations and aspersions would rather justify a prohibition on you from contributing to Wikipedia. After all an SPA like you who has done nothing except promoting a particular fringe POV is a net negative. 39.33.84.145 (talk)

@Dilpa kaur and 39.33.84.145: both of you, make sure those are the last personal attacks you write in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I was curious about the liar label repeated four times, based on "some thought" and a "search of the page's edit history". The content in question was added by a notorious sockmaster Faizan/Towns Hill on 11 April 2017, deleted on 13 May 2017 as a block evasion edit, and reinstanted on 15 May 2017. This clearly validates ML's edit summary: remove section restored without discussion. I am also curious though how this particular edit showed up on Dilpa kaur's radar screen, which was well before her account was created and on a page that she never touched. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on unblock, but a little concerned that at least two IPs with no other edits have argued against oppose votes, when the subject was blocked for sockpuppetry. O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• You may want to know that IPs are human too. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not concerned. It's one of our very capable and knowledgeable IP editors who for whatever reason has not registered. It's dynamic. The editing style is different from ML's.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both of the IP editors here (there are two, despite the multiple addresses) are editing from locations which are different from what I have presumed is My Lord's location, though my assumption is based on things that other checkusers and editors have written on Wikipedia since I said I was staying out of checking this myself. One is on a different continent. I'm not saying that they're definitely not being used inappropriately, but I'm as certain as I can be that they're not My Lord. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

True Dlohcierekim. I was also editing Sardar Arif Shah a few hours ago, though that won't appear on contribution history of a single IP because they are dynamic. 41.246.26.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/41.246.26.0/24, more or less. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't aware that the IP was dynamic, so I've struck my concern. It just smelt a little fish, or rather meaty (and with social media nowadays location is not so much of a factor), but I'm happy to accept the explanation. O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, Dilpa kaur has raised a serious point about the edit summaries. To restore controversial content with an edit summary which merely links to an ongoing dispute about said content[138][139] is impermissible. It creates a misperception that the discussion has a consensus for one's edit. It also impedes the consensus building process. It should be remembered that these reverts were done while discussion was still taking place. The disputes had not been resolved then. Code16 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose : The administrator Ivanvector has outlined some concerns, which I find genuine and tend to agree with him. ~~ Arslan-San 10:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because My Lord wasn't just blocked for socking. His other accounts were indeffed for tendentious editing. Ivanvector has pointed that out. FreeKashmiri (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. Alive4islam (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no considered opinion on this request at the moment, but I am puzzled by the out-of-the-blue "Oppose" !votes above, most of them parroting each other, from four editors in a row, within 34 hours of each other, two of whom have made less than 35 edits total, and three of whom came straight here from editing, and edit-warring, on Alastair Lamb. Something seems odd. Kautilya3, any comment or insight (besides the fact that that article could use some admin oversight)? Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the India-Pakistan space is always sock/meat-infested, as we all know. The mass topic ban of a few months ago has exhausted its shelf life, and new socks have been recruited. What else can I say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

A new proposal for community EC restrictions has been created below. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking for a while now that this topic area would be suitable for a blanket 30/500 restriction. It has the same kind of problems as gamergate and Israel-Palestine, both of which have improved greatly under 30/500 restrictions (see this and this). Or see the new bullet directly below this comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Agree that India-Pakistan needs a blanket 30/500 restriction, per Ivanvector and per the unstoppable legions of sock/meatpuppetry and bad-faith deceptions – evident even in this poll. Softlavender (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC) @Softlavender and Ivanvector: I agree that it's an area that could do with ECP. If you want, I could fill out the paperwork at WP:ARCA. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC) @Softlavender, Ivanvector, and Bellezzasolo: I too am supportive of pre-emptive protection in some cases, but I think this needs to be thought through a little bit more. In contrast to ARBPIA, which only has to do with a geopolitically localized conflict, the scope of ARBIPA is enormous; it isn't limited to the conflict. A request specifically related to the India-Pakistan conflict, for instance, would be more likely to succeed and would address the concern here more specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC) That would not resolve the problem, as is easily seen even by the meaty/socky participation on this very poll and on articles such as (since I just mentioned it) Alastair Lamb, and also the broadly construed TBans which Kautilya mentioned which have recently expired. Articles broadly construed to be related should be allowed to be placed under 30/500 at administrators' discretion. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC) {[re|Softlavender}} Administrators are already allowed to do that. ARBIPA discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply protection quite liberally, and that includes EC protection. Preemptive protection is what requires authorization from ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Vanamonde93, I was thinking a narrower scope for the preemptive protection - throwing the word "conflict" in or something similar. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC) @Bellezzasolo: yes, that makes sense. I suggested "India-Pakistan conflict" because that is a scope that has been used for topic-bans before (notably the mass topic ban last year) and that encompasses a very substantial portion of the disruption, without being an absurdly large number of articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC) This proposal really doesn't have anything to do with My Lord. I think we should talk about it, but not in this thread. I'll work on a separate proposal for input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support unconditional unblock because if it's good enough for our best editors Kautilya3, Orientls and Accesscrawl then it is good enough for me. They obviously know this user the best with loads of experience. 2601:248:600:B1D:982B:ED22:81B:416F (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

A definitely neutral comment from an IP that just yesterday posted: "We all patriotic Indians must unite!! [...] We need to make use of every Wikipedia avenue ANI, arbitration enforcement, SPI to get rid of them." A WP:NOTHERE block is probably in order for Special:Contributions/2601:248:600:b1d::/64, but someone else can review that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, just reminding everyone saying "oppose per Ivanvector" that I support unblocking, but with exhaustive long-winded explanations and conditions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - It is unbecoming of a sysop to compare My Lord's case with NadirAli. The latter was an extreme trouble who should never be allowed back but the former has done nothing but good. 42.108.249.237 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional unblock A good contributor who brings several sourced content and quality to articles from what I have seen. I do not have much background on some of the SPI, but have come across their edits and they seemed sourced. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support unconditional A lot of the opposes have a dubious tenure and whilst I do not have a huge lot of sympathy for MyLord; I believe that he is here for the right purposes and have displayed much less of the characteristic IDHT traits, visible in this arena. His editorial actions will be extremely scrutinised; (he knows that) and shall he mess up, it won't be long before he gets re-blocked. ∯WBG^converse 11:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Call for close

It has been three days since anyone commented. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, I was going to write Guy's comment myself. We seem to have a shortage of uninvolved admins patrolling this board, there are a few stale threads here that need a closer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll close it, as I haven't been involved so far. Give me a while to read the arguments each way... O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised I have been involved. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's any help to whoever closes this, a quick tally gives 17 support !votes (of which 15 are unconditional), and 5 opposes. The main concern, raised by Ivanvector, is that My Lord has stated that they intend to resume some of the editing patterns that got them blocked in the first place. This concern was raised quite late in the discussion, and possibly may have swayed some of the earlier supporters if the argument had been made earlier. I share Ivanvector's concerns and hope that ML will take this on board if unblocked. Despite this however, I feel there is a consensus to unconditionally unblock, per ROPE. As I said above, I have been marginally involved, but if people (especially Ivanvector) are happy for me to close with this consensus, I will do so. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This must be some unusual method of counting - I make it 12 unconditional, 8 conditional and 2 opposed (I'm counting "oppose per Ivanvector" as conditional support, since it's clear that's what his oppose vote meant). At any rate, please don't close this yourself - it's unfair to the editor to be unblocked when the close can be attacked for being involved. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a quick mental tally, rather than an official count. I should have said "at least 2 conditional". O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also not sure what method is being used here either as Voice of Clam is at least correct about his "support" and "oppose" count. Clearly 15 users support "unconditional unblock" in the sense that they only want the user to be unblocked and they have rejected or ignored the condition: Orientls, 39.33.95.29, Anupam, Accesscrawl, Shrikanthv, Guy Macon, Dlohcierekim, Nosebagbear, Fish and Karate, Kautilya3, Shashank5988, Jayron32, Ad Orientem, 2601:248:600:B1D:982B:ED22:81B:416F and Sdmarathe. There are 5 users who completely "oppose" any unblock even if they misunderstood someone's comment or they are using argument of that different !vote to support their oppose: Dilpa Kaur, Code16, Alive4Islam, Arslan-San and FreeKashmiri. There are 5 users who want "conditional unblock": Black Kite, GoldenRing, Huon, Vanamonde93 and Ivanvector. There was one "neutral" comment, which came from Voice of Clam. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think what anyone neutrally reviewing the discussion above would agree is that there is support for My Lord to return to editing; there's only a quite small minority saying they should not be allowed to edit at all. Out of the rest of us, I read the discussion as there being a number of editors concerned that My Lord's return to India-Pakistan topics could be tumultuous, but no consensus whether this merits a preemptive sanction, versus being a situation which WP:ROPE already covers. And so if I could gently nudge the eventual closer, I suggest unblocking unconditionally with advice regarding the sentiment here. Either My Lord has heard the concerns here and will approach the topic with caution, or the significant additional scrutiny they are likely to be under means any disruption will be rapidly reported and result in some kind of sanction anyway.

But whichever way one reads the discussion, it's been well over a week while these appeals usually run 24 hours. Let's just get on with unblocking them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone just close it? ∯WBG^converse 11:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• I concur with Ivanvector's summary of the discussion and, given that this has been waiting closure for quite some time, I will close the discussion on those terms in 24 hours unless someone (a) objects to me being the original starter of the discussion and the closer, or (b) beats me to it (which you are most welcome to!). Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I'm going to have to object, per GoldenRing's comment a few lines above. Given the animosity in this subject area, this really should be closed by someone with clean hands as much as possible. Even if you didn't really make a bolded comment in the discussion, the fact you opened the discussion is going to meet someone's low bar for involvement, and there are already a number of editors here for whom that bar is extremely low. Although I suppose if we determine that there are no willing closers, we could close this by committee, in which case see my most recent comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Hopefully an uninvolved admin will bite the bullet and close it soon enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm willing to close it if people support and I'm called upon to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Oshwah: you are hereby called upon to close this discussion :) --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Give me a moment and I'll close it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

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

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

While ArbComm failed to pass a motion on it, Admins should be mindful of the problems of shutting down discussion about Admin misconduct too quickly. Two Admins closed the discussion of GS's conduct on this board and a third Admin threatened to block another editor who objected to one of the thread closes. GS himself called the qusstions harrassment. This behavior can cause non-Admins to distrust Admins generally as they are perceived to protect their own. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits with no visual change to the article

Are edits like this allowed? I recall some time ago that a couple of well-known editors used to get regularly hauled over the coals at ANI for making these types of edits, but I can't find a policy or guideline against it (except the WP:AWBRULES). Not looking to get the editor in question into trouble, but was just wondering if I could advise them to stop making such edits (my watchlist seems to be getting these on a regular basis recently). Cheers, Number 57 11:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Number 57, I've once or twice made cosmetic changes - that happens when somebody uses VE (I believe the mobile version) and it makes cosmetic changes to infoboxes. Certainly with the larger articles, having no line breaks in an infobox makes patrolling changes to the infobox vastly more difficult. I think WP:COSMETICBOT covers some aspects for humans too. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

But the edits in question don't change the line breaks, all they seem to do is remove a space from empty template parameters – that's not something that affects the display of the template or the wikitext in the edit window. Seems like a clear case of COSMETICBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This is neither AWB nor a bot. The editor just used the script WP:AutoEd to automatically edit this page. The user who made this diff above wasn't even aware of what change was made while saving the page. I am aware of it since I had used this script for a while, to try it out and later uninstalled it. The script among other features has an in built Module that automatically "Adds and removes whitespace in certain locations". --DBigXrayᗙ 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm assuming you are asking in general here and not about this specific editor's edit. In general, someone making a whitespace edit somewhere is not a problem. Most of the prior cases of this were when these edits were being made as part of a high-speed and/or high-volume series of edits. In those cases it wasn't so much the mostly useless edits, but that the volume and/or speed would cause general disruption by flooding watchlists and recent changes. @DBigXray: all editors are personally responsible for every edit they commit, I used some script and I don't know what it does type statements are not an excuse that will survive past an initial warning. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes, I am asking in general. The edit I noted above was not about whitespace though (I assume by whitespace, you mean an edit that reduced whitespace visible in the article) – it didn't change the appearance of the infobox at all. Number 57 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I meant code white space - which is invisible to readers as you mentioned. These purely cosmetic edits in isolation are really no big deal and don't constitute disruption - but if someone starts making hundreds or more - they could be. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, indeed, the editor will be held accountable for using the tool, which automatically removed some whitespace without the knowledge of the editor in question. Unawareness does not mean unaccountability. In fact this lack of awareness of what the tool was doing in background when the editor window was loading, was the main reason why I removed this script. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My thought on this is that if we have tools that automatically make changes like this because these have been determined to be the ideal configurations for the encyclopedia, then why don't we just have a bot come through every few weeks and apply these to all the articles in the encyclopedia? Either these changes are good and we ultimately want them made, or they are not, in which case they should not be part of some tool's default. bd2412 T 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I make cosmetic/autoed changes virtually every single day and to my knowledge I've only had one person complain, I won't deny I too make edits like the one above which I consider to be pointless but still smack save anyway, I don't really see a problem with edits such as these, We're all helping here in our own little way. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • But an edit like the one shown above doesn't "help" in any way, it only bloats watchlist, history, ... without any benefit. Looking at your edits, what's the benefit, the "help" provided by an edit like this one? Take the first change it makes: a "real" cleanup would have removed the return, while your edit removed a space instead. That's not helpful, that's useless tinkering. Fram (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding Davey's edit: Depending on brain type, some editors would say that inserting a blank between a bullet and the following text makes a tiny improvement in readability in the edit window. Not wishing to discriminate on the basis of brain type, and believing that no improvement is too small, I don't object to that kind of change. (Marking that as minor helps editors who exclude minor edits from their watchlists, and Davey did that in that case.)
      Removing or inserting blanks that have no effect on the edit window, let alone the rendered article, crosses the line in my view, even if marked as minor. Any tool that does that should be required to cease doing it.
      Agree that the line break should've been removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason to not have a bot making cosmetic edits en masse at regular intervals is to avoid flooding people's watchlists with changes that don't need to be checked. The idea of having a script make such changes automatically is that it will usually only be done when some other non-cosmetic change is made at the same time, so we get gradual cosmetic improvement without alerting everyone for every cosmetic change. The downside of such script changes is that they can still generate watchlist alerts if no non-cosmetic changes are made at the same time, but that has a far smaller impact on watchlists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A downside to making such changes in Draft space is it postpones the bot from identifying pages for the G13 deletion. I often find pages kept alive for months or years because of automated edits that add no value to the dead draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

I admit, I'm not sure the administrators' noticeboard is an appropriate venue for this comment. If that's the case, sorry, I'm just trying to solicit feedback from a wider audience since the RfC I submitted before received very little interest. I thought I'd try here, and hope experienced editors will participate in the ongoing discussion.

I've become very frustrated by the fact that Wikipedia has many categories defining all songs by recording artists as one or more specific genres. For example, categories at Category:Lady Gaga songs suggest all of her songs are synthpop, dance-pop, or electropop. Entries in this category include many songs that would never be described as pop, including many jazz standards she's recorded for various projects. For song articles, we require secondary coverage to verify genres listed in the infobox. I argue we should only add genre categories for song articles when the song has actually been described as such. We can't just group all songs by an artist as being a specific genre. Doing so makes Wikipedia wrong, sometimes very inaccurate.

I've raised this issue for a third time at WikiProject Songs, here, and I invite editors to review past discussions and contribute to the ongoing recent one. I don't want to introduce any bias here, but as a general summary, some editors feel strongly about keeping the current method of categorization, but if I'm tallying correctly, more editors seem at least open to making changes. Again, I'm just hoping for feedback from editors who are not necessarily watchlisting WikiProject Songs.

I'm also open to other ideas for getting more editor feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but maybe try WP:CENT too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih

The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.

If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the Clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih

My appeal has been archived before being closed

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

---

On 31 January 2019 I filed an appeal here. About four hours ago that appeal was archived by a bot before it had been closed. Granted it had attracted very little interest, but to me it was a big deal, and I think the comments it did attract were generally favourable. Where does that leave me now? Can I appeal again? Can I unarchive that appeal and request a formal close? Please advise. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unarchived below, in the hat. I would be in favour of removing the restrictions also, and your following Ivanvector's advice. Fish+Karate 10:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support removing the restrictions although as with others I urge you to follow Ivanvector's advice Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: The bot archived it again. You'll need to use something like {{Do not archive until}} to stop it. I'd fix it myself except that I still need coffee and don't want to break anything. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It didn't just archive that, it also moved the thread below into an irrelevant collapsed box, seems to be a bot problem? Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The box was because the archived text took the closing {{hab}} with it. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers all. The error was mine, I didn't remove the header within the hat tags, so the bot still saw it as a separate section what needed archiving. Foppish Fish! Trying again. Fish+Karate 13:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is the hatting supposed to attract editors to the discussion? GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unarchived DeFacto restriction appeal discussion attempt 2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About two months ago I successfully appealed here for the lifting of the last of my editing restriction. The closing admin noted on my talkpage that I still have a restriction from editing logged out or using more than one account, and a restriction stating that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block." I would hereby like to appeal for the lifting of those final two restrictions (not that I plan creating more accounts, causing disruption of failing to "get the point") to finish my journey along the path back to full good standing within the community. I hope my record over the past two or three years, since having a community ban lifted, of collegial and collaborative creation and improvement of articles speaks for itself, but if anything needs clarifying please ask. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC) It kind of looks to me like TParis added these two restrictions in their close of the unban discussion without them having been proposed. The one-account restriction is logical considering the extensive history of ban evasion (at the time) but the second one is basically don't be a dick (which applies to everyone) and should not need to be appealed. For what it's worth I see no technical evidence of sockpuppetry in the past three months. I support lifting both restrictions, but if you are going to make new accounts be sure that you follow the instructions at WP:ALTACCN and/or contact the Arbitration Committee privately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC) per Ivanvector-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I'd actually slightly disagree with @Ivanvector: - both restrictions should go, and yes the latter shouldn't have been added. However I think the latter does need to be specifically noted and removed - with it there, it (if read strictly) would make any negative action eligible for a full block. While those who have been banned should have a quicker escalation of sanctions, this isn't a permanent state of conditions and especially not at this level - and this should be noted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Well, sure, I don't think we're really disagreeing on this, it's just a matter of doing the paperwork. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Weak support on amending the second-account bit, and no comment on anything else. Given the length of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive, I'm uncomfortable saying that a future violation of the sockpuppetry policy should not attract immediate sanctions. But some appropriate uses of alternate accounts listed at WP:SOCK (the "Security", "Doppelgänger accounts", and "Technical reasons" bullets) are so basic that we shouldn't restrict anyone from those uses, unless the individual is so untrustworthy as to deserve a block or an outright ban. So in my mind, the best situation is that you're prohibited from using any accounts that are not clearly linked from your main account's userpage or talk page ({{User alternative account name}}), or you can create and use one or more accounts with clearly related usernames, e.g. "DeFactoBot" or "DeFacto on a public network". I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a person with a long sockpuppetry history being once again allowed to use an account that can't easily be traced to the main account ("Privacy" and "Clean start under a new name" bullets), but since the community thinks you can be trusted to edit in general (no opinion on that; I don't remember hearing of you before), I can't see a good reason not to trust you with editing with accounts that are openly linked to your main account. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC) @Nyttend: just want to clarify with you because this is almost unanimous and it's getting stale. I said they shouldn't create any alternate accounts without disclosure, but I think you're saying a formal "no undisclosed alternative accounts" restriction is in order. In my mind the restriction kind of exists whether or not we explicitly declare it at this point, having the community scrutiny that comes with a history of sockpuppetry plus cautionary advice from a checkuser. What are your thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC) You've summarised my meaning well. Since policy explicitly permits people (in general) to have undisclosed accounts for a few specific reasons, either DeFacto will be permitted to do it, or we have a community-imposed prohibition on him doing it — there's no ground in policy for sanctions based on an undeclared idea (i.e. de-facto sanctions :-) I couldn't care less what you do with a disclosed account, as long as it's okay to do it with your main account (this refers to everyone, not just DeFacto), but when you have a history of sockpuppetry and you're being permitted to rejoin the community, it's just not a good idea to permit undisclosed accounts. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Agree with Ivanvector. Alive4islam (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

176.224.57.211

Moved from WP:AIV

• ‎176.224.57.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Latest sock of indeffed User:FaisalMusicFan99 - see history of Draft:The Life and Times of Beau Rondeau which he has recreated - was blocked as 176.224.192.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 6 Feb and 176.224.139.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 5 Feb Arjayay (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arjayay:: are all these edits the same person, in your opinion? I am looking to range-block if possible — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ - undoubtedly - I've been following these socks for a long time - for an explanation of their modus operandi, and the more recent IPs, please see User:Arjayay/Albert Unfortunately, they have used several ISPs in Riyadh so this would need several range blocks - the 176 and 93 ranges would be a start
PS your ping didn't work, I found this by accident - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the 176 range for 3 months. Can you help by calculating the other ranges? If there is little collateral we can block them for a similar duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to calculate ranges - the IPs are listed at User:Arjayay/Albert - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI: NativeForeigner's tool - simply copy/paste text containing IP addresses and it'll do the work for you, but it may return ranges too big to work with like /15. Those will have to be split into multiple smaller ranges. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, you may want to change that block to include {{anonblock}} in the reason so that any innocent users will have some idea of how to request an account. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Does that look okay now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:PC Engine

PC Engine from the Japanese Wikipedia keeps on adding that the Bomberman series originally debuted in 1987 when it actually was in 1983. His/her reasons are that the 1983 is a prototype and not part of the series. To support this, one of his/her sources is a primary source to Hudson Soft's website (the company that created this franchise) which, for some reason, points out the 1987 debut. Supposedly, this is the year the NES game was released in North America but, as far as I know, we go by the original release and not by any specific region's release year. I reverted PC Engine adding tertiary sources, most of which on Internet say the first game was released in 1983. However, he still insists on changing it without consensus. I didn't make this report on the edit warring noticeboard because the reversions were sporadically. Check his talk page and the article's talk page. 200.59.159.162 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also discussed at WT:VG#Bomberman. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Just a note that SPI seems to be very backlogged. Right now there are more than 100 cases in various stages of the process, plus another 70 or so that are closed but not archived. I hate to point this out because I know that our SPI admins and clerks work very hard - and do have lives. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've worked to clerk, handle, and close a handful of them today. I'll jump back into the SPI list once I get a few high priority tasks that are on my plate wrapped up and done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice related blocks

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

---

Mark Dice has posted a YouTube rant encouraging his legion of subscribers to disrupt the talk page of his article demanding we write it the way he wants Ian.thomson has begun blocking them as NOTHERE meatpuppets (see his block log). Wumbolo has challenged these blocks and effectively called for Ian to be desysoped. To provide clarity as to these blocks, I’m asking the community to review them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks this page is subject to the long-term disruption by an alt-right conspiracy theorist with a twitter and YouTube following who has been trying to write his own biography for years. He’s managed to convince Jimmy Wales to try to write it for him twice, and it failed each time, so now he’s moved to devoting a 5 minute YouTube video to getting his followers to force us to do what he wants. We don’t have to tolerate such disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks Meatpuppetry is only slightly less disruptive than regular editors advocating on behalf of meatpuppetry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blocks seem fine to me. I looked in on the article earlier today to see what had happened recently following Jimbo's interference. Saw extra activity but couldn't check YouTube. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't have an opinion on the blocks either way but believed that they should be publicized. I also did not call for Ian to be desysopped for blocks of sleeper accounts. I said that it would be highly controversial if he unilateraly blocked new accounts after talk page protection expired. None of the new accounts were made aware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously. Since the talk page was semi-protected, it hasn't been new editors who don't know what's going on, it's people who have read Dice's YouTube rant and have old WP account that they've reactivated. As I said at the talkpage, the last four were created in 2006 (first edit for over 10 years), 2011 (first edit for 3.5 years), 2013 (re-started editing end of January after over a year break) and 2017 (first edits for 3 months apart from two edits on English Defence League - which probably tells you something). Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks It was pretty damn obvious and blatant, most were just trolling anyway. Accounts inactive for years suddenly showing up to make snide talk page comments about how unfair Wikipedia is to Mr Dice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Editors above are conflating accounts that were created today and those that were active years ago. I'm not saying that they should necessarily be treated differently, just that they should be examined in context and perspective. wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• What useful content was provided by the new accounts that were blocked? As I said on the talkpage, if someone wants to start a reasonable discussion, that's fine, but all of those account were the usual "Wikipedia is left-wing bias (sic)!!!", "the MSM is fake news!!!1!!" and "I'm not contributing to Wikipedia again!!!". Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• And then there's, the criminal Ian.thomson blocked me on here illegally for political reasons and I have contacted law enforcement and they will be investigating his behavior and when he is indicted for the felony he committed against me he will be extradited to my state to face criminal charges and will likely be sent to prison I was told.[140] —DoRD (talk)​ 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of course they were, because they don't know any better. We have escalating user warnings for a reason. wumbolo ^^^ 17:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not throwing around abusive threats peppered with legal shenanigans is a thing you're expected to know before you edit here. If it's something you really need to be educated on, just get the hell out. We have no "escalating warnings" for having the maturity of an infant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks and calling for a desysop is clearly not warranted in the face of this canvassing and meatpuppetry. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• A perfect example of which we speak [[141]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• [142] sounds You-tube related with a legal threat thrown in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That one actually isn't. I did get that impression at first but their gripe is about some unrelated alt-right author. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks - I wrote a comment on Ian.thomson's talk page after wumbolo posted their objection but before I knew this thread was opened. I wrote: I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). I also wrote that I had checked some of the accounts which were just recently reactivated to participate in this and found them to be  Unrelated. Maybe we could be a bit kinder to actual new good-faith accounts that are on the canvassed side of this, but trolls and older accounts that should know better should be indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably goes without saying but when I say "new good-faith accounts" that does not include new accounts dropping legal threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse best to batten down the hatches. I'm not sure all the blocks need to be indefs, but blocks of some length are definitely justified. While Dice (a BLP) has concerns that aren't entirely meritless, there's such an astonishing lack of good faith here that nothing can be done to fix them. I watched Dice's 6-minute video and apart from a bunch of "Other pages have stupid details", there's no arguments there. Being an "Amazon best-seller" is meaningless, and his Youtube viewer counts merely make him a legend in his own mind. An absence of information is not a BLP violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment instead of indefing a bunch of occasional contributors why not set the page to 30/500 which will only let more established editors work on it. Pending changes would be another option. The video will be up for years so this problem will continue for years. No one wants to play whack a mole forever. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

30/500 on the article might be fine but I'm hesitant to put that on a talk page for any extended period (maybe a longer period of semi-protection). The video is gonna eventually be buried by his other videos, so while we will get the occasional user who comes in and screaming "shitcock libtards!" they'll just be part of the usual number of trolls and such that these topics attract (not a larger influx of hoi polloi that hasn't found something else to rageturbate to). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the effects are not only there, but on my (and I suspect others) talk page, over at Tea house and god knows where else. This (whilst very mild) is not just limited to the MArk Dice talk page, and I suspect may spread.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Blocks It's a series of accounts commissioned by a political commentator hoping to disrupt community discussion pertaining to the article about him. They are meatpuppets, and should be (and remain) blocked. Vermont (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I will note that I do not endorse all of the blocks; constructive editors (broadly speaking) should not be blocked for agreeing with Dice. Only the accounts created for the sole purpose of disrupting the discussion. Vermont (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have no issues with blocking offensive disruption - I'm suggesting a little prevention. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Blocks I suggested that discretion would have been the better part of valor in blocking Dice, but all of these blocks are grounded in policy. The involvement Ian has had at the page does not make him involved. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't feel like digging through the diffs that Barkeep49 has kindly linked to: my edits to the article have been damage control after Dice's previous attempts to call his fans to "fix" the page the way he wants it (which largely consisted of them disruptively blanking stuff), and one instance of adding sources to a BLP about two years ago -- all of those instances so that the article reflected talk page consensus. I would not claim to be uninvolved in the sense of "I don't have an applicable opinion" (an unrealistic ideal for uninvolvement) but everything other than that last instance of adding sources falls under the purely in an administrative role exception of WP:INVOLVED, it's not out of the question to argue that adding RSs to a BLP could as well (although I'm not going to drive that point), and the endorsement here certainly indicates that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not comfortable with this comment that Ian.thomson made on his talk page: "Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless." (emphasis mine) [143] That seems to imply that the blocks were WP:POINTy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian says what he feels is the best course of action for us to take, and you think that's pointy? Wow. Seriously, just... wow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this is still open? Near unanimous support for the blocks, and Wumbolo is saying increasingly silly things (for example: WP:POINTy? come on). Suggest the next admin who sees this closes it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Mark Dice AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dice (2nd nomination) - this will get ugly very quickly. I considered a WP:SNOW keep close, but I'd almost certainly get some trouble for that. Can admins please make sure civility is maintained with minimal disruption to the encyclopedia? If you're not going to close it quickly, it may need WP:ECP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unhelpful comments by this IP Special:Contributions/70.119.159.78 Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC) The whole AfD has been closed down Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

TfD on protected template

Please can an admin list Template:TheFinalBall for TfD deletion? The template is protected and so I cannot use Twinkle to do so. There's a discussion here which suggests template is not needed, so good to start a proper focused discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reversal sought of non-admin CFD closure

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

---

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia is a mass nomination by me of ~650 categories.

It was closed[144] after only 3 hours by non-admin @MattLongCT on procedural grounds.

At User talk:MattLongCT#CfD_Macedonia I have supported the request by two other experienced editors to revert the closure: @Marcocapelle[145] and @Oculi[146]. However, MattLongCT has declined this request[147].

MattLongCT is a relatively inexperienced editor (with only 2219 edits), who should not have closed this discussion:

1. MattLongCT does not meet WP:NACEXP
2. WP:BADNAC#2 and WP:NACPIT#1; this close was inevitably controversial
3. WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question". I am a regular participant at CFD, and don't recall seeing MattLongCT posting there

Please can an uninvolved admin revert this bad closure by an editor who probably shouldn't be closing any CFDs?

There are currently ~650 categories tagged with a link to the closed discussion, so the closure is likely to be impedng a lot of potential participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• A little more background, the closer MattLongCT makes a wrong judgment when thinking that the CFD discussion is potentially conflicting with a parallel RFC. This morning I explained to him why it is not a problem that the RFC and the CFD discussion are running in parallel but did not get a response back. I do not blame him for making the wrong judgment, but not reverting the closure after three editors questioned the closure is a matter of plain stubbornness. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle, sure, the misjudged closure is the sort of error that can happen. But the problem here is that @MattLongCT shouldn't have been making that judgement in the first place ... and, as you rightly note, is now just being stubborn and digging himself into a hole.

By the time 3 of the most experienced CFD editors are saying this was a bad call, he should recognise that this decision is best left to an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have to say that while it may have been proceduraly improper, I broadly agree with the close; if there is a broad RfC considering how we are going to deal with this name change, and the RfC has so far failed to deal with the obviously-connected question of categories that use the name, then it just makes sense that the categories question should be added to the RfC, not held in parallel. GoldenRing (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The RFC and the CFD discussion are two streams that are each dependent on the Requested Move of the article. The two streams are not dependent on each other. Since the RM has already been closed, both streams can now have their course. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

While in theory that is true, in practice it makes a whole lot of sense for these obviously-related discussions to happen in the same place. GoldenRing (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing, sorry, but that makes no sense. The RFC is a massive, sprawling multi-section exercise. It makes no sense at all to add a massive category discussion onto that already-overloaded page. (The CFD non and cat listing alone is 85Kb). Adding the cats to the RFC page would make it harder to track the progress of the category discussion, since once page history would cover them all.

There is no discussion at the RFC either of the categories directly, or of any issues which would affect the CFD. The head article has been renamed non-contentiously, add the CFD includes only those categories which use the noun-form.

So what we now have is 650 categories tagged for discussion which has been closed, and which has no alternative venue. That's daft.

If you or @MattLongCT identify an issue with the nominated categories which relates to the topics at the RFC, then you could raise it at the CFD and see if there is a consensus to park the CFD in whole or in part ... but simply closing off the CFD prevents that discussion from taking place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps you would rather have a separate discussion on how to disambiguate "Macedonia", and a separate discussion on how to describe the nationality of people from North Macedonia, and a separate discussion on how to describe public organisations of the state of North Macedonia, and a separate discussion on which adjective to use for nouns related to North Macedonia, and how to name North Macedonia in historical contexts? No doubt all of these would reduce the sprawl of the RfC and give editors many more opportunities to waste time reiterating the same arguments on what is, fundamentally, the same discussion. All of these have, nonetheless, been collated into one RfC because they are all - blindingly obviously - different aspects of the same question. How we categorise North Macedonia is obviously another aspect of the same question, albeit one which the RfC proposer didn't think of. GoldenRing (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The closer has reverted the close. Carry on. GMG^talk 19:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GMG, I only closed because BrownHairedGirl said I was starting to appear to be engaging in wilful disruption. That comment hurt a lot. My revision in no way means I am okay with ending the discussion here. I felt incredibly pressured to do so at that point even if I did not feel there was satisfactory consensus to reopen it. :( ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: you continue to entirely miss the point.

Your close should have been reverted because it was of a type which should not be made by a non-admin, viz. that it was controversial. You should not have waited to make your own weighing of consensus of responses to the merits of the closure; the mere fact that it was demonstrably controversial (as you should have foreseen) was sufficient to require its re-opening. That's why I labelled your delaying as disruptive.

Once you had 3 objections from editors vastly more experienced than yourself, that should have been sufficient for you to recognise "oops, I still think this was the right step, but it wasn't suitable for NAC, so revert". It should not have required any pressure on you to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I have no clue why the onus should be on me as the nac-closer to find consensus to procedurally close something currently under discretionary sanctions. There was no consensus to separate out this CfD from the main RfC even though it has the same topic. It feels like there is an arbitrarily higher bar for me as a Non-admin-closers to close this topic than had I been an Admin. My interpretation that I was a lawful closer under the rules for CfD should be just as valid as anyone else's. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, @MattLongCT

1. Discretionary sanctions are a tool open to admins. You are not an admin
2. As one of the architects of the RFC, you were WP:INVOLVED
3. You complain that feels like there is an arbitrarily higher bar for me as a Non-admin-closers to close this topic than had I been an Admin. Exactly! Read read read read read read read WP:NAC: there is very clearly a higher bar for non-admins, as set out at the top of this discussion.
4. Your claim that There was no consensus to separate out this CfD from the main RfC entirely misses the point because
   • There is a long-standing consensus that CFD is the venue where categories are discussed.
   • The CFD carefully avoids the issues being discussed at the RFC

This would be a great time for you to stop digging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I get it. I already know I've made a fool of myself. I'll just go away. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec with notification of re-opening, but I'll post anyway) @GoldenRing, let's look at the issue you raise:

1. nationality of people from North Macedonia
2. how to describe public organisations of the state of North Macedonia
3. which adjective to use for nouns related to North Macedonia
4. how to name North Macedonia in historical contexts?

None of those issues affect the decision to be made at the CFD, which has been specifically designed to exclude all those issues which are still under debate. So the CFD issues are not an aspect of the RFC.

It seems to me that you simply haven't read either the CFD nomination or the list of categories nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, as someone who has read both in detail, there is some clear overlap. Category:Works about the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Works about North Macedonia, Category:Prehistory of the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Prehistory of North Macedonia, Category:Geography of the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Geography of North Macedonia, and so many others. Some of that is exactly what we are discussing over there. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT, I'm sorry but that reply also shows little sign of having read either the CFD nom or the RFC. If you think I am mistaken, please identify which parts of the RFC are discussing the change of page titles from "foo Republic of Macedonia" to "foo North Macedonia". So far as I can see, there plenty of discussions about usage in running text, but none about page titles.

And if you had read the CFD, you would see that it is intended to specifically exclude topics which wholly predate the name change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl No need to be sorry. Also, please see: Macedonia (region) being discussed under Disambiguation, State-associated and other public entities (which discusses how we should refer to any related institution to the Government of Macedonia), and "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects for some supplemental conversation on geography and whether Northern Macedonia means the same thing as North Macedonia. Also, yes I saw that you had tried to exclusively discuss topics that were already not covered by the RfC. However, the RfC is more broad than you originally gave it credit for. It's that or that you did not succeed in your intentions in excluding categories that predate the name change. I don't know. At the end of the day, this whole thing is not simple and non-controversial in pretty much any area. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @MattLongCT, really really please do read the CFD nom, esp the final para which says If you spot any categories listed above which you think should be left for a future discussion, please strike them or ping me and I will strike them. I am open to suggestions on how to reword that more clearly.

The whole point of the nomination is to proceed with the uncontroversial category names: as I wrote in the nom, only taking only the simplest and most clearcut cases. Again, I welcome suggestions for how to clarify that phrase. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, even if I come up with a hundred plus categories? That's the only reason I did not follow the process since it seemed you figured that these were the most non-controversial ones. I feel like if I did that now, you would think of me as even more intransigent than if I just gave up on this whole affair as was just suggested. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, That is not correct. The result of the section on Non-contentious housekeeping decides whether or not the Move Request should stay or not. I keep trying to explain this. :( ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• That is actually a poor part of the RFC, there is no reason to re-do an RM after the discussion has been closed with overwhelming consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Marcocapelle, there was consensus to include it, so it was included. If you object, then I encourage you to bring it up with all the editors who agreed to put it there. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MattLongCT, per @Marcocapelle, it is surprising to see the RFC examining that. The RM discussion was exceptionally well attended, and the closer noted an overwhelming consensus in support of it. If someone objected to the RM discusion, the appropriate venue to consider re-opening it is WP:MOVEREVIEW, not an RFC. Bluntly, the RFC doesn't get to decide whether the Move Request should stay or not. The reason you keep trying to explain your point without success is that is that you are advocating something which is procedurally wrong.

And in any case, at the time you closed the CFD, that section of the RFC was running 16:1 in support of the RM, which is WP:SNOW territory. So there was absolutely no need for anyone to intervene to prevent a process clash, let alone an urgency which required you as a non-admin to intervene without prior discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is why my original suggestion was to have it over there as a part of that proposal. I still don't see why we should not merge the two discussions if they are both related.

It also was not a surprise as someone who participated in the RfC drafting process. The group endorsed the inclusion of that question. As I noted, the RfC was in the process of being drafted before the move request had been proposed. It was noted in some of the comments on the Move Request that this was the case as well (which was how I found the RfC). You are welcome to hop over there and express your concerns to the several editors who included the question. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As a show of Good Faith, I have reopened the CfD. However, I still feel the need to clear some things up.

The RfC in question was first proposed in 11 February 2019. Several editors (including myself) since then had spent many days discussing how exactly it should look like and what to include. On 18:00 UTC 15 February 2019 we were set to launch. This then happened without much fanfare. In the meantime, yes a move request was successfully gone through. However, the question of whether or not to support the move request was also included in the RfC under Non-contentious housekeeping.

On 01:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Admin BrownHairedGirl (someone whom I greatly admire for their many contributions to this project) wrote the first draft of her proposal to rename Category:Republic of Macedonia to Category:North Macedonia and all of its ~670 subcategories. This was also included on WP:CENT.

I then noticed it on WP:CENT when I went to see if the RfC was added there or not. On 04:51, 16 February 2019‎ I closed the CfD. I then immediatly notified the nomination of this change. I wait some hours for a response, but as it was getting late I went to bed. The only response I had before I went to bed was from MSGJ who sent me a thanks in the thank log (at 05:27 UTC specifically for the curious).

Three and a half hours later, Marcocapelle made his object to my close known. At 11:43am, so did Users Oculi and BrownHairedGirl. A few hours after that, I had posted my response on my talk page. I notified all involved parties (except MSGJ) and thanked them for their patience with me. I included a list of remedies I thought would be most helpful in order of my preference. The last remedy on the list was for me to just simply do as BrownHairedGirl asked and revert my closure. I fully expected that one of these solutions would be workable, and I figured that there would be no further controversy on the matter.

I have come to find we are here. I have no clue why to be honest. I do not understand why there have been no objections to the RfC including a discussion on the "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects, but there is for this CfD. I think the discussion is important to have, but I do not feel it warrants a completely separate conversation when every single other thing we could think of is included in the RfC.

I would also contend that I am an inexperienced editor all around. However, I am more so experienced in the field of general discussion closings. I can name several times I closed something and an editor objected to my closure. Previously, we were always able to work out a solution to the problem and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone is welcome to review my closing history. If there is something I need to do better, then let me know. I stand behind my procedural closing, but beyond that completely agree with GoldenRing. Thank you all. (edit conflict) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for re-opening the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I really also want to state for the record that I never "declined the request," I just hadn't explicitly come to the decision that I would. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Giving up is not a character flaw on Wikipedia; it's a virtue, and will save you a lot of headache and wasted time. If multiple people take issue with something, then just let it go. It's often a net negative to fight an extended war of attrition and win, rather than to easily lose a winning battle, even if you're right. GMG^talk 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  GMG, so I should give up? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. I mean, is it really worth all this to have an arguably marginally better procedural process? Let's be honest, there are a few hundred thousand people on this project, and it will work itself out eventually. We had the same issue over at Commons about whether someone should be moving categories and files individually or whether we should have a big procedural vote on a bot that will fix everything very neatly. It's a thing. It'll be worked out. There's no sense in fighting over it. It's a whole big nasty mess based on people doing what's in front of them that will be on average productive at the time. No need to stress over the particulars. GMG^talk 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You will never convince BrownHairedGirl to allow anyone else to handle her precious categories in any way that does not fit her master plan. So yes, since categories are marginally useful to editors and of no consequence to readers it is best to let her run her corner of Wikipedia without interference. For a while she was not aware the country renamed, blocking efforts to make updates, until she was set straight. Eventually her 650 category CfD will get actioned and all will be well. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, Unceasing vandalism from Omar Toons

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

---

Hello, there is an unceasing vandalism of the Marinid article õn the french Wikipedia. We provided necessary sources. best ~regards 196.117.101.240 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You will have to report this on French Wikipedia. We cannot help you here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from User talk:Rickyc123

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

---

Rickyc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this discussion at ANI. Although this was a discretionary block by Swarm, there was consensus at the ANI thread to block.

I have copied over their request for unblock and the unblock discussion from their talk.

Unblock request

I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation.

Unblock discussion

Hello. What's different this time from last? What will you do instead?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123

Thanks. Awiting swarm-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I suppose this would need to go back to ANI as it was imposed at THIS discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If unblocked, I believe there must be a TBAN on article creation for 6 months of active editing without further problems.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock per WP:ROPE etc. I'm fine with a TBAN on article creation if desired. Hopefully lesson was learned. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Can we have them explain how copying within Wikipedia works? Copyright blocks are CIR blocks, and we shouldn’t be unblocking per SO until they demonstrate they know what the rules are. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• As one of the disputants in the days of weekly (if not daily) AN* threads regarding external communities demanding that en.WP be the full repository of KayFayBee, Fight stats, descriptions, etc because Wikipedia shows up so much in google searches over the need of the WP community for adhering to standards, I request from Rickyc123 a plan/explanation of how they intend to reconcile their purported desired editing (I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated.) with applicable standards (such as WP:MMANOT). Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have informed them of this question and have asked they respond on their talk page. I will be offline and unable to repost responses here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Ok, based on this diff I must have to ask the question more plainly. What is the appropriate ballance between the needs of enthusiasts to have datum that are better serviced from external websites versus the need to keep wikipedia accurate? For example: Fighter XYZZY is in event YARRA. How soon after the conclusion of the fight would be appropriate for the typical case to update a fighter's stats be, expecially in light of WP:RS? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  In light of second reply. I express Decline. The suggestion that updating stats as soon as the fight is over (especially in light of potential disqualifications) suggests that they don't understand the concepts correctly. Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the repost, but Rickyc123 has asked for this to be retrieved from the archives to find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support conditional unblock Apart from the general dislike for wrestling topics here (due to the volume of drama in editing disputes there), I don't see any reason not to unblock. I agree with the conditional block on page creation, appealable after 6 months, that Dlohcierekim suggested earlier. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock - Seems to understand what they did wrong; if they go back to problematic behaviors, it's easy enough to reblock. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock WP:ROPE springs to mind. Also, as per what NorthBySouthBaranof says, if the same problematic editing returns, we can simply block again.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

New OTRS queues

In an early 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusive paid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related to privacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue is paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.

This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.

Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such as WP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.

The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues

User:NBA Referees

User has continued to edit List of National Basketball Association referees, ignoring 2 WP:PAID user warnings. Links are: List of National Basketball Association referees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NBA Referees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I notified them of this discussion on their talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is in fact a paid editor? I find it very unlikely that the NBA would be so dumb as to pay someone to push a POV under such a blatant username. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the username, I believe it is reasonable to conclude they are likely a referee, who as an employee would be covered by WP:PAID even if the NBA had not explicitly assigned them to update the page. Regardless, failure to respond to the WP:PAID notices (even with an "I'm not paid" response) is a violation of the policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As the username suggests it is a group, I have blocked the username; given the UPE possibility, I hardblocked. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they are likely to be a referee; the name sounds a lot more like someone interested in referees than, say, the National Basketball Referees Association. Editors are not required to respond to personal inquiries; the paid-contribution policy requires disclosure, but no one is required to declare that they are not a paid editor. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true no one is required to respond to any request or declare that they are not a paid editor- but the username policy is clear that usernames cannot be that of a group and "NBA Referees" at least suggests that the user represents a group. They need to clear that up- which may clear up the paid editing issue. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the name any more suggestive of a group account than the user name "F1fans". The name is a bit more generic than a group would ordinarily pick. The user's edits are not promotional—in fact, the most recent one removed needless praise. So while I wouldn't be shocked if the account were operated by a paid editor, for the moment I don't feel there is a strong argument to conclude this. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, let me be very clear: no more personal attacks. WP:WIAPA demands serious evidence for serious accusations. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that a fan is the same thing as a referee, especially not an elite level referee. Anyone can be a fan. By comparison there are only 71 current NBA referees according to our article. There would be maybe a few hundred more former referees. You can't be an NBA referee unless you're appointed by the NBA. Maybe more to the point, if you call yourself "NBA Referees", it's fairly unclear if you're saying you represent or are associated with them in some way, or are just a fan of them. I mean if this editor was mostly editing random other pages, I'd have no concern, but given their edits have all been to the list page; at a minimum, I think there is easily possible confusion and uncertainty about who they are and whether they represent a group. BTW I'm not sure the fact that they have a blatant username says anything about them being paid. Many organisations (or more accurately the people at whatever level in whatever organisation involved in making the decision, in this case I assume there may be multiple) still have little idea how to engage with wikipedia. Not everyone is trying to sneak stuff in the back door, there are still many which are trying to be semi open and transparent, but hopeless failing to do what we expected. To be fair, in most cases these will confirm when challenged although of course, our talk pages probably still mystify a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that a fan is the same thing as a referee; I only meant to say that neither name seems like a name that an organization setting up a shared account would use. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Nyttend, and thank you 331dot. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes casting a supervote again

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

---

Lourdes (talk · contribs) has cast a supervote in this ANI thread, unblocking Godsy (talk · contribs) after only three days when he was blocked indefinitely by Ivanvector for repeatedly violating an IBan. I did not participate in the ANI thread; however, there was a stronger consensus to retain the block (pending a more convincing appeal by Godsy), than there was to quickly lift it. I count 5 supports for the block staying in place, and 3.5 (GoldenRing was hesitant in his opinion) against. Lourdes stated that there was "broad consensus" for the quick unblock, but that's simply not true; in fact seemingly the reverse. This is not the first time Lourdes has cast a supervote at ANI; she did so in October [148] and was reverted by Bishonen [149]. My sense is that if this is becoming a pattern and Lourdes is casting supervotes and taking administrative actions (or making administrative warnings and/or threats) contrary to consensus, she probably needs to stay away from taking administrative actions at ANI until she learns how to assess, summarize, and abide by WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• If the consensus here is that I have misread the ANI discussions and that Godsy should remain blocked, then any administrator can and should reverse my administrative action. Lourdes 08:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to describe Lourdes' closure as a supervote. There was definitely a consensus that the indefinite block imposed by Ivanvector was too much, Ivan was ok with this being discussed/ameliorated, and within the discussion I see 4 editors arguing for a week or more (SerialNumber54129, power~enwiki, Dlohcierekim, Levivich), and 4 for less than this or no block at all (GoldenRing, Flooded w/them 100s, Atsme, Tavix). There was a very clear and definite consensus to shorten the block, and all that was left was to argue over degrees. When we're at the point of nitpicking over whether a block should be 4 days or 7 days, we could probably find better things to do. Fish+Karate 09:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Check again, please:

1. Serial Number 54129: Indef, no appeal for at least six months
2. Nil Eine: "an indef is IMO justified"
3. Power~enwiki: at least a week
4. Dlohcierekim: "a week or two .... Their unblock request is most unpromising"
5. Flooded with them hundreds: "It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week"
6. Levivich: "good block, .... Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another"; and he gave a very well-reasoned, very extensively researched; very extensively diffed, and multi-point rationale.

As someone who participated in the discussion, I think you are misreading the situation to match your own viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave no opinion on the ban, and if I had, it would have been to keep it in place until Godsy made it clear he was aware what he'd been doing (stalking LP's edits) was unacceptable and that he wouldn't do it again, for however long that took. I did miss Nil Einne's statement that an indef was justified, but there's still a consensus to reduce the length of the block, and all that remains is quibbles over a couple of days. As someone who once was accused of making two admins quit because I suggested one made a supervote, I am very clear on what does and does not constitute a supervote and I don't think this is one, really. I understand that your opinion on the matter may differ and am OK with that. Fish+Karate 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Edit: Fixed spelling of Nil Einne, with apologies. Fish+Karate 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised when I saw Lourdes had unblocked as it wasn't my reading of the ANI thread, and Godsy's appeal didn't really seem to sufficiently reflect an understanding of the problem with their editing. I'd note also that while IvanVector was fine with their block being overturned with consensus, or with a modification, they seemed to believe it was justified. (In other words, they too come into the 'support indef' category IMO.) Recognising indef is not permanent, a suitable appeal would be another avenue, but again this goes to whether the appeal really indicate an understanding of the problem with their editing. That said, I also don't understand why this wasn't raised with Lourdes first. Yes I know Legacypac said something, but Legacypac is not someone who should be quibbling over this. Frankly though my biggest concern is not whether or not there was consensus and for what action, or whether the appeal was sufficient, but whether enough time was allowed for discussion. While the discussion had been opened for a while, Levivich's analysis was fairly new. I get the feeling the discussion had died down and wasn't going to be resurrected, but I can't be sure. So it seems to me it would have been better to leave discussion for a few more days. This would also better fit in with the 'week' which seemed to be the lowest there was consensus for. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As to what should happen here, I would say nothing. I don't think what happened is ideal, but I don't see sufficient evidence to sanction Lourdes (even if we could) or to overturn the unblock i.e. anything other than "nothing" will just make a bad situation worse. I think at a minimum Godsy is on notice they need to take greater care and if they don't, further sanction is likely to be incoming. The original proposal for a topic ban didn't pass. Maybe it would have passed with more time for discussion, but I'm not sure if it was looking good anyway. (One of the things which hadn't happened in that discussion was looking into Godsy's reply e.g. what happened on previous days with respect to Legacypac and Godsy and moves from user space to draft space.) Technically the discussion could continue, but with all that's happened, it seems unlikely anything productive will be achieved. This strikes me as one of those cases where there's no easy solution and anything that happens is going to leave a bunch of editors feeling a mistake was made. We can only hope it doesn't come to head, but if it does we will need to deal with it then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I support the unblock. Just let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock (blocking admin comment) - I blocked indef expecting that the block would be lifted rather quickly, and there was no support for my proposed action. I don't think there was anyone in the thread saying Godsy should stay blocked forever, a reduced time-limited block would be purely punitive, and arguing over its length is a waste of resources. I don't know anything about a history of bad closes by Lourdes but this was not one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

PC question

I have an IP who is desperate to insert some content on Conversion therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have been trying to talk them through the sourcing that would be needed for this to meet NPOV, but I suddenly thought: is rejecting a pending change counted as a revert? I assumed not, from the definition of PC, but actually thinking about it there is no real technical difference at the back end, it's only a procedural thing, and it turns out I have no idea one way or the other. Thoughts, please? Have I got this horribly wrong? Guy (Help!) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• To me; it's a revert and pretty obviously.∯WBG^converse 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think not, but specific to this situation, and a good idea to ask the question in any case. The protection log for this page reads "non-autoconfirmed edits need review, as a minimum" beside the pending changes activation. You've given a valid reason to not accept the edit. The IP is edit-warring to re-add the same material without addressing the valid concern, they're just insisting that they're right. One or the other of you should have gone to the talk page by now, but WP:ONUS suggests that's on them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Following up: not to suggest wrongdoing by either party, I have protected the page for 2 days. If that is not enough time to resolve the issue please let me know; I have the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it counts as a revert minus the standard exceptions. WP:RPC refers to the options the reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. Someone adds content, and you reject it. If the individual kept adding it and kept adding it, and you kept rejecting it and kept rejecting it, the two of you could be sanctioned for edit-warring unless it were a case of 3RRNO. Better to protect the page; thank you Ivanvector. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Qatar issues Admin needed

Talk:Qatar Charity has several users concerned about whitewashing by single purpose accts, possible socks etc. Can an Admin look into this page. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:MKD

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hello. Please change the Macedonia with North Macedonia to Template:MKD. Do the same to Template:Country data Macedonia. Some changes maybe needed to other template as Template:Flagicon etc. Xaris333 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request edits to protected templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

Non-admin Edit Filter Manager request for User:Suffusion of Yellow

Hello all, there is currently an open request to grant edit filter manager access to Suffusion of Yellow. To comment on this request please use the primary discussion at: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_filter_manager_right_for_Suffusion_of_Yellow. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt request

Hi guys, sorry to ask here but can I get a quickie IP block exemption for User:Hariata77. Currently working at an Edit-a-thon and running into issues with one of the editors here being unable to edit do to a range block on her IP (I think the university uses a range of IPs distributed at random and some are blocked and others are not; the one she is on is blocked). I tried to go through the steps of requesting an IP block exemption from her account but it seems bugged and I really want to get her editing ASAP. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, now done. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, Thanks mate. Issue fixed now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Very good. Please notify me if you have any other issues. I'll try to be online for a few more hours (it's 7:45PM here in eastern North America) in case IPs get reassigned midway through your event and someone else gets rangeblocked. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict

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

---

In a discussion above a number of editors have begun discussing restricting edits to pages related to conflicts between India and Pakistan to users with extended confirmed rights. It's buried in an unblock request from another editor which isn't really related and wouldn't be affected by that restriction, so I'm formalizing the proposal and breaking it out for discussion. I will post notes in relevant places after I post this.

As many of you know, this topic is plagued by sockpuppetry (including ban evasion and likely good-hand-bad-hand abuse) and it's strongly suspected by many editors that groups on both sides of the conflict are recruiting new editors to falsely influence consensus through civil (and sometimes not-so-civil) POV pushing, and the use of brigading tactics. The topic is already under a broader set of Arbitration discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA) which largely fail to address this "bigger picture" problem, except when incidents have already occurred. The conditions here are similar to the editing issues facing gamergate and the Israel-Palestine conflict before similar restrictions were put in place for those topics (see discussions here and here). In those cases the restrictions applied to the arbitration cases but in this instance the proposed restriction would cover a much narrower subset of topics, so I am proposing it as a community general sanction.

Proposed (parts copied from the relevant Israel-Palestine restriction): All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. Editors who do not meet the extended confirmed threshold may request edits on an article's talk page, subject to discussion and consensus. On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion.

Please discuss below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• My gut reaction is that we already have the authority under the existing DS to apply ECP as needed and that it should be used liberally in this area. I'd be hesitant to bring about a new area that is 100% under ECP because of how difficult the conflict is to define. We could get a situation where all of South Asia is more or less blue locked, which is what we had for a while with the Middle East. It seems easier just to apply ECP on the first instance of disruptive socking/meat/whatever, and log it as an AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni is right. All it needs is admins prepared to do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• How will that solve this newest drama-fest that popped up an hour ago, over ANI? ∯WBG^converse 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The problem with this is that it can act as a reverse honeypot trap - the conflict branches out onto less and less related topics, and thus so do the editing restrictions - topics to do with the individual countries, at a minimum, would see a spike. It's not that I don't see the issue, it's just that I'd rather the splash damage. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support - I admit that 30/500 is no panacea, but it will help. The problem is "brigading" as Ivanvector has pointed out. Each country's editors want the viewpoints favourable to their country to be represented and those favourable to the other country to be eliminated. The former is apparently ok by our WP:NPOV policy (even though there are struggles to get the WP:WEIGHTs up) but the latter can only be achieved by demonising all the editors that stand in the way and the sources and scholars that stand in the way. For that, brigading is needed. If you can gather big enough a brigade you can shout down the other brigade. Brigades are cheap these days. You just go to your favourite internet forum and shout, saying "our country's honour is at stake". People will line up. They may not know X from Y. But that doesn't matter. All they need to know is cut-and-paste. Any mobile phone will do. That is the environment we are in at the moment. A 30/500 protection will at least dampen this. The new recruits will need to stick around for 30 days, which might try their patience a little. But determined nationalists will stick around, and pass the goal posts. Plus we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is itself an internet forum. There are plenty of potential recruits available right here. Those people might have already passed the 30/500 goal post. So the problems won't go away. They might just become a little bit easier. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support as one major and important step in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• This thing already exists. A number of articles about other subjects like castes, geography, and more other subjects under ARBIPA are already ECP for various reasons. GenuineArt (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Ivanvector is proposing a blanket use of it for the Indo-Pakistani conflict stuff, which certainly is not how it is done for caste or geography articles. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don't we need an explicit ArbCom decision to authorize preventive ec protection, similarly to ARBPIA?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support. I agree with a lot of what TonyBallioni has said above about the need for caution and the dangers of defining the conflict too broadly. That said; we already have used this particular scope for topic-bans, including last year's mass t-ban, because it is a fairly narrow locus (relative to all of ARBIPA) that still contains a lot of disruption. The issue with the current regime isn't that admins aren't using our discretion to protect pages when necessary; it's that pages that need protection often do not come to our attention. As a result of off-wiki canvassing, a ridiculous number of distinct sockmasters with varied agendas, and increasing awareness of how CUs may be circumvented, it is often not worth an experienced editor's time to investigate a new account and file an SPI. Some of socks are caught anyway (Bbb23 really needs to get a medal for everything that they do) but a lot of others are not, and especially if they are throwaway accounts created for the sake of a single conflict or discussion, may never be. Also, protecting a single page often has the result of driving the nationalist conflict to different pages. The net result is that we have sustained disruption on a number of pages that is too large to be effectively patrolled by experienced editors who have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. In that respect, preventative protection would help considerably. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging @GoldenRing, NeilN, JzG, Bishonen, Sandstein, Abecedare, BU Rob13, and Doug Weller: As all of you have sanctioned editors under ARBIPA in the last year, I think your opinions here would be valuable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Make it so. This will result in less drama and fewer sanctions of inexperienced editors unfamiliar with our ways. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes yes yes. This topic is a mess of editors broadly suspected to be socks or meats but without any firm evidence of the same. This would significantly raise the effort required to make a sock ready to do battle. To answer a couple of objections above:

• @Ymblanter: The community can impose whatever restrictions it likes, given a strong enough consensus.
• @TonyBallioni: While it's true that we can apply ECP to individual pages, this particular topic is disruptive enough that I think it's worth having a preemptive rule. At present, it needs an administrator to come along and apply ECP, while this would allow any EC editor to revert changes by non-EC editors on any article falling under the restriction.
• @Ivanvector: I'd prefer to see language that more closely mirrors the committee's ARBPIA restriction; in particular, I think the committee's "reasonably construed" language is important to avoid some of the problems others have alluded to above; this is narrower than the usual "broadly construed" language. I think the language about preferring enforcement through ECP would also be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact at first I copied the Israel-Palestine General Prohibition verbatim, only replacing "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" with "related to any conflict between India and Pakistan". But that prohibition was originally drafted before extended confirmed protection was a thing (I was involved in its drafting), you can see the original version in the "superseded versions" collapse here. Basically it read as it does now, but the second sentence read "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, ...." without the bit about EC. Some time after EC became available to admins the phrase about preferring the use of EC was shoehorned in, in typical Arbcom bureaucratic fashion, without fixing the rest of the sentence. In fact there's no reason to enforce that prohibition by any means other than EC protection, but all the old methods are still mentioned. Subsequent revisions also added the instructions for editors not meeting the criteria in bullet form, which I tried to fit into the restriction itself. Then it was too long so I started editing, and by the time I got through that I had basically rewritten the whole thing. But I agree that something like "reasonably construed" could be added back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) already apply to the India-Pakistan topic area, so admins can already use this to apply ECP to individual pages. Whether a broader community sanction is needed I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the particular dynamics in this topic area. Sandstein 09:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not only do discretionary sanctions already apply, any page experiencing issues of this nature can be just sent to RFPP where it will get ECP'd if necessary, a sanction is not required to allow ECP to be applied if there's already disruption occurring from new/autoconfirmed editors. Fish+Karate 10:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that we are discussing a preemptive protection. Requests for preemptive protection are routinely declined at RFPP, withe the exception of the ARBPIA articles which can be extended-confirmed protection any time, even if there is no ongoing or past disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  While I am someone who doesn't place much stock in preemptive protection, and that includes the ARBPIA articles, I would pay you the princely sum of $1 if you can show me an article pertaining to the India-Pakistan conflict that has never been subject to any disruptive or nationalistic editing. Preemptive is not something that applies here. Fish+Karate 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Bhaskar Sadashiv Soman was the Chief of the Naval Staff (India) during the 1965 war. After looking at every edit in its history, I don't believe that it's ever had any nationalistic or other disruptive editing, and the closest thing to an editing dispute in its history is [150], where someone declined a db-copyvio because the infringing text could simply be removed. You didn't specify what kind of dollar...I want a Gold dollar in perfect condition, please :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Excellent work! I bet it took some hunting, though. You have won 1 Liberian Dollar; it has a value of around US$0.0062. Let me know where to send it. Fish+Karate 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually not. I figured that a comparatively minor military figure would be less likely to get disruption (if the other side's never heard of him, they won't know to mangle his article), so I looked up the 1965 war and clicked the names of the various commanders in the infobox until I found one without a significant revision history. (Less revisions = less chance of disruption, since lots of reversions expands the history.) Then, all I had to do was page through the revisions. As for the money, send it to my former employer. Their resources helped me expand related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support as someone who frequently edits in the topic area. A step in the right direction. The topic area is infested with sock-puppets, and this is certainly going to help. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with TonyBallioni - admins already have the authority to incrementally apply indefinite ECP to the articles that need it. I don't think they should be preemptively protected, but the threshold for protection should be very low (e.g. any reasonable request, even in response to a small number of disruptive edits). If you want preemptive protection, an amendment request should be put forward to Arbcom. MER-C 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MER-C: (and @Ymblanter:, since they raised this concern above) We do not need an amendment from ARBCOM, because Ivanvector is proposing community-authorized sanctions that happen to overlap with ARBIPA discretionary sanction. Procedurally, broad community consensus is quite sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  We've just got two complaints today, on this very board, within the scope of the Arbcom case, one of which is about this conflict. That and the considering the general lack of clue in this part of the world tips me over to cautiously support. MER-C 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Central Discussion - I suggest that this be added to the Cent discussion list - going off others on the list, it's a broad enough issue (with major potential ramifications) that it warrants it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for the suggestion. Someone may want to tweak my description of the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support Tony is right. We already have the authority to do this. Unfortunately, for the most part we haven't done it. I think there is a certain reluctance on the part of many admins (myself included) to push the ACDS button in all but the most egregious situations. And I also think that reluctance is generally good and healthy. I'm also not a big fan of one size fits all solutions to problems. That said, this really has become an area of pervasive and sometimes organized disruptive editing. IMO it is at least as bad as that which in the past afflicted the more highly trafficked Arab Israeli related articles. So yeah, this probably is something that needs to be done though I regret that necessity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support I get the "reverse honey trap" argument and think there is a strong possibility that it will balloon to cover all South Asia (e.g., Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan) but allowing sock-puppetry and brigading to rule the day is a worse outcome I feel. One merely means an overly-high level of protection, the other means Wiki relaying POV and potential false information. PS - but also, let's have a time limit at which we review whether this restriction is actually working. There's too many bans/restrictions that just get put in place and left there without anyone checking to see if they're still needed (e.g., is the Arbcom restriction on The Troubles still justified this far out from the Good Friday Agreement?). FOARP (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as long as it is applied relatively narrowly. GAB^gab 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support The point of extended confirmed protection is to direct new users to discuss the issue on the talk page. This issue is probably among the top 5 most contentious in Wikipedia, with a 1.5 billion / 150 crore people being upset. People supporting Pakistan claim that Wikipedia is biased for India, and people in India claim that Wikipedia is biased for Pakistan, and I expect we have 100,000 / ek lakh complaints. Directing people to discuss this is our best response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: for mercy on my watchlist. The revert wars and POV-pushing are getting just as toxic on these as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions could be applied as TonyBallioni said, but there's no harm in generating a nice discussion here so admins protecting such pages can link to it. SITH (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The most complicated areas require the most experienced editors. This will free up admin time by reducing the number of PP requests and ANI threads, and it will encourage newer editors to go to the talk page first. Article stability will increase. There will be peace for a time. Levivich 07:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Extended confirmed is reasonable and appropriate here. Benjamin (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Partial oppose/caution
  • Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. This part I completely concur with and I hope the above discussion will encourage uninvolved admins to use the tools they have already been granted by WP:ARBIPA (and which seems to have wide community support).
  • On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion. This is the part I am wary of since I forsee that this will result in edit wars, 3RR violations and meta-arguments on whether a page falls within the "India-Pakistan conflict" area or not (for example, does the whole or part of the Navjot Singh Sidhu article fall into that category due to this recent controversy?) Instead of extended-confirmed editors being free to flout 3RR if they have a "good-faith reason" to believe the article/topic/edit falls into the India-Pakistan conflict area, they should request EC protection and admins should respond more promptly and boldly.

And while I have your ears: the "India Pakistan conflict" has been and will probably remain a long-term problem area but over the next few months I expect that articles related to 2019 Indian general election will present an even larger number of, and more urgent, problems requiring admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: That's an excellent point. I'm not even sure why that language was placed in the ARBPIA restriction, since surely the best way to deal with such a situation is to request EC protection citing the relevant sanction, thereby avoiding an edit-war. Ivanvector I'm wondering if you could strike that portion, even now, since most people supporting this have commented generally on the need for preemptive protection, and less on the specifics of the wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of my intent. What I mean is that if a non-EC editor makes an edit it may be reverted under this restriction, but equally it may be restored by any EC editor in good faith iff they take responsibility for the edit (the "editors may restore" directions at WP:EVADE though that's a bad place for it). At that point it is subject to 3RR or any more limiting revert restriction. If extended-confirmed editors start edit-warring over nitpicked interpretations of this restriction, then proceed with whatever your usual approach is to disruptive reversion. Just generally speaking, if you get two editors arguing over who it is that first crossed the bright line, a good approach is to block them both while directing them to WP:NOTTHEM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would not like a discriminatory policy like this. As long as there is no EC protection on a page, all editors should have the same privilege to edit. It would not be fair to non-EC editors otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm not sure doing this preemptively is the best of ideas. As TonyBalloni, Abecedare and others point out, it is not always easy to figure out whether an article comes under the conflict and we could easily see this being applied too broadly. For example, if the conflict with Pakistan becomes one of the talking points in the upcoming Indian elections, we could easily end up with a large number of election related articles under ECP and would lose an important opportunity for adding new editors from India. Applying restrictions rather than ECP on individual articles, or on flash point areas like the Kashmir conflict, gives us some level of control while keeping more articles open to new editors. What we really need is a full time ombudsperson to monitor and manage these articles and, since that is hard, this is just a weak oppose. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to get accused of assuming bad faith here, but in my experience this is what actually happens. Yes, hot news topics and especially elections bring new editors to Wikipedia, and that's a good thing most of the time. New editors of course don't have a good idea of how things work here, and make entirely good-faith common mistakes like not providing a reference, editing based on "things they know", innocently edit warring, gentle POV skewing, and you know, stuff we've all seen and probably have had to gently coach a newbie on. The problem when it's a topic like this is that those new editors immediately get bitten by the established editors on one or the other sides of the conflict: their edit is reverted more or less immediately and they get a couple of big scary notices on their talk page about the discretionary sanctions and the potential punishments for not being perfect right out of the gate, or if they do have a good grasp of things they're immediately accused of being someone's sockpuppet. You can't really blame a new editor interested in Wikipedia from giving up on the project in short order when they encounter such behaviour. And yes, that aggressive behaviour is a problem and when we see it we should knock heads, but this is kind of a way to address it broadly. Not a fantastic solution, I know, but it's something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support There are many socks and meatpuppets. This will save the time of good faith editors. However those 500 edits should be on mainspace, not on talk pages or userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.216.115 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Pages related to the conflict have been under constant attack for a while to the point where ACP isn't enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support with a clear definition of what a page must have in order to fall under the protection. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Request to lift the restriction for the unblock

It has been over a year that I was unblocked, the relating unblock discussion please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Standard Offer for User:B dash. The restrictions are as follow:

1. You must not edit at all except from this account. Note that this restriction goes further than your offer of stating any other accounts on your user page and following WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly.
2. You must not make any GA nominations.
3. You may ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for these conditions to be lifted, but not until one year has elapsed from the time of the block being removed. It is possible that further discussion may lead to a change in this restriction, but unless you are informed otherwise it remains so.

In the past year, I'm focus mainly on tropical cyclones-related articles, and doing some minor edits on certain topics. Moreover, I have written a few articles on tropical cyclones. Although they are not the best, this still showed my contribution to the encyclopedia. I have read through the guidelines of WP:GAN/I and WP:SOCK. I promise not to violate these guidelines anymore. In the future, I will still assuming good faith to others, especially to the new editors, and to communicate to the related userse when I'm facing a conflict. I hope the admins and other editors can consider this request. Best wishes to all. --B dash (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Given that action would presumably have been taken if we'd spotted any editing from other accounts, I do not think either of these conditions has to be retained. One confusing point is that though he clearly has his stated userrights (and page mover usually involves a fair degree of vetting), the PERM archives point me towards the appropriate days' discussions but then doesn't include him, and I'd like to see the discussions. A personal look over his rollbacks suggest a little too much willingness on providing warnings for lack of citings on non-controversial topics, but that's more my usage vs a black mark for him. His editing work has certainly been significantly beneficial - I actually think his self-gradings of certain articles as starts is significantly underestimating his work. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

state India got after British colonization

Respected sir/madam i wanted to help write a topic under state India got after British colonization but came across some problems as i am new to wiki editing thing i was wondering if you might help these are some of the contents please have a look and if you please i request you to create one article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Nepal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal%E2%80%93Britain_Treaty_of_1923 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sugauli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir.07 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mahir.07 Please use Wikipedia:Article wizard link to create new article. If you are copying content from an existing article on wikipedia, then in the WP:EDIT SUMMARY you have to mention the name of the article, from where you have copied the content. See this WP:TWA tutorial for a quick editing guide, Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Naruhito's accession date in 2019

Howdy, we've an unregistered editor who continuously pushes May 1, 2019 as Naruhito's accession date as Emperor of Japan, even though Akihito is abdicating on April 30, 2019. I've tried to explain to him, that the accession & era dates are different, but he refuses to listen. He's also using multiple IPs, see
User:123.150.182.179
User:123.150.182.180 &
User:123.150.182.177.
PS: It's quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

For easier access, the range is 123.150.182.179/29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geolocates to Beijing, which strikes me as a bit unusual. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on IP behavior, but they are substantively correct. Abdication (current emperor's last day at work) is April 30. Accession (new emperor's first day at work) is May 1. New era starts on May 1. Enthronement is scheduled for October sometime. Plenty of English-language sources verify this. So, it might be more productive to just add sources, rather than getting frustrated with an IP editor who is probably very frustrated with you right now. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So Akihito's reign will end at midnight, seeing as succession is automatic. Wish those source gave an 'exact' clock time. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh... This is a tradition that dates back to before everything had to be measured down to the nanosecond. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The abdication must be at midnight, then. Otherwise, the accession & era dates would be different. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You're not getting what I'm saying. Before mechanical clocks that precisely divided our days into 24 hours of 60 minutes of 60 equal and consistent seconds became widespread, everyone's perception of time was a lot more fluid. That's why Christianity teaches that Jesus was in the grave for "three" days (part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday). This tradition dates back to a time when probably wasn't a big deal if the previous emperor left the throne (by whatever means) one day and the next emperor ascended to the throne the next, even though that technically meant (from our modern, precisionist perspective) that there were several hours where the guy ruling the country hadn't officially been given the job (not that that quibble would have stopped him).

When dealing with any tradition that's more than 400 years old, use days as the smallest unit of time (not hours, minutes, or seconds). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue that royal succession in Japan doesn't necessarily follow European rules. Yes, Prince Charles will immediately legally be King Charles the instant that Queen Elizabeth dies but that's not a universal rule, as rather indicated by Japan separating the abdication and ascension days. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case, it does. Akihito became emperor upon the death of his father Hirohito, on January 7, 1989. His Era began on January 8, 1989 as it was his first 'full-date' as emperor. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the AN board isn't the place for content discussion, it's best we take this to 2019 Japanese imperial transition article. Meanwhile, still concerned about the multiple IPs being used by the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well the range looks to me like it could just be an office or something else with a small range of IPs assigned, or some other system where the IP change is not within the user's control so I don't see how it's a problem. It's annoying to deal with, and all the IPs should be treated the same individual with respect to blocks, edit warring especially 3RR, and any behavioural concerns, but the fact that it happened doesn't seem to be a socking or other problem. While it would be nice if the IP were to register, it's not something that can be required or even expected per core policies just because their IP changes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a long message but near the end of the message came across something suggesting a SPI will probably be better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've opened this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123.124.233.241. It seems clear from what I've seen in the SPIs and related pages even if blocks happen this isn't going to stop the problem unfortunately. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:71.81.175.156

I have blocked this IP. Looks like what they are doing is disruptive. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks like the same trolling as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Disruptive ip. IP editors on 161.73.0.0/16 continued the same disruption (randomly reverting good-faith editors and warning them with {{uw-vandalism4im}}), so I did a short range block. This IP editor is from a very different location, but the behavior is similar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Another one on Special:Contributions/180.197.45.225 in Japan. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018

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

---

In August of 2018, I was put under a topic ban. See Incident no. 989 topic ban. I have been active in geographical / historical related articles, as well as in the Arab-Israeli conflict area since joining Wikipedia and have tried to bring balance to articles touching upon this important topic. I wish to reaffirm my commitment to assume good faith and to treat all fellow editors with due respect, and whenever differences surface, I will do my utmost best to approach our differences with civility, looking for consensus to resolve any differences that might arise. No man can claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, as I have consistently tried to improve Wikipedia. In the field of ARBPI I have especially tried to bring balance and neutrality to the way Wikipedia reports on this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have gone through David's edits (which took ages, he's remained quite active) and do not see any instances of his breaching the topic ban since this back at the end of August, which was only debatably a breach, and resulted in a reasonable discussion on his talk page clarifying the scope of the topic ban. I do not see any editing that could be construed as nonconstructive or disruptive. I am happy to support removing this topic ban, with the usual caveat I'm sure David will be aware of - that resumption of any problematic behaviour would likely lead to a block, not just a topic ban. Fish+Karate 13:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support I agree with Fish and karate I think David contributions are constructive moreover In my opinion he overcame the problems that led him to the topic ban. --Shrike (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Davidbena should show some understanding of what the problem was that led to the topic ban in order to give some assurance that they will be able to avoid similar problems. The fact that someone can edit non-contentious topics does not mean they are ready to return to the most contentious topic at Wikipedia (WP:ARBPIA). Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I supported a 6 month topic ban back on 3 August last year...and since that is over 6 months ago, I support the lifting of the topic ban now....with some trepidation, I confess. (I do hope he will refrain from speculations about who I am married to, my ethnicity, my education level, etc, etc, in the future.) To Davidbena's "plus−side" is definitely that he is studying, and looking up sources like few others in the I/P area. I just hope he will be quicker bringing any questionable sources to the RS boards in the future, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Personally I support the appeal, David is generally a very fine editor. I just hope the issues with OR do not reappear when he returns, but I personally see no reason to not allow his return. If there are future problems there can be a future ban. nableezy - 01:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support the unban. If there does not appear to be a likelihood of continuing disruption, there is no need for the topic ban to continue. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. David is polite, well mannered, makes constructive edits, and is motivated by good faith. His many contributions during the topic ban, to other non-conflict Israel/Middle-East (a hard feat to avoid the conflict while editing in the geographic area) - were constructive.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support The fact that excellent editors with a very different point of view on topics covered by ARBPIA are supporting the lifting of this topic ban is both persuasive and heartening to me. I truly hope that this editor will be a constructive and collaborative contributor to the topic area going forward. Such editors are very valuable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Diligent compliance with the ban shows maturity and desire to improve. Hope they'll proceed with more caution in the subject area from now on. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So, time to close this, maybe? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Pennsylvania article problem

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

---

The article on Pennsylvania has an edit pending approval from 29 May 2017. Whether I accept it or reject it, it still shows as pending and never resets. I'm not sure if this is some coding issue or something else, but it appears to be something beyond the scope of an editor. Would appreciate it if someone looked at the issue. Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

With so many intervening revisions, I don't see how it could be accepted, but for the record it is not showing on the list of pending edits needing review. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The only 2 edits I see on that day were the adding of PC and the addition of the PC template, both of which were automatically accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Go to view history, and you'll see numerous edits are highlighted in blue (using Chrome or IE). This typically means there's a pending review. Then compare any two edits (edit history) and you'll see that it shows a pending edit from 2017. MartinezMD (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

MartinezMD, I think you might be mistaken - all accepted edits in history on a page with PC are highlighted blue, regardless if there's pending ones or not. See Apple of Discord or Ant-Man and the Wasp, both of which have blue in the history but no edits pending. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I see the blue issue. But it was still showing me pending edit. Let me clear my caches etc and see. Thanks for your time.MartinezMD (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reset by User:Premeditated Chaos and no longer an issue for me any more. thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Sourced information removed by administrator

Hi, I've already provided a link sourcing the Algerian origin of Merinids in a previous talk related section. http://books.google.ca/books?ei=8AG9TI64HsH78AbnyNj0Dg&ct=result&hl=fr&id=EQJFAAAAIAAJ&dq=Les+civilisations+de+l%27Afrique+du+nord%3A+Berb%C3%A8res-Arabes+Turcs.&q=ouacine+aur%C3%A8s+

196.117.101.240 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Regards

1. I see from the history of Marinid dynasty that you've been edit-warring with another person not using an account.
2. I don't see an administrator removing sourced information. Which administrator, and what edit? Please provide a diff, or if you don't know how to do that, go to the page history and say what time and date the removal happened.
3. Remember that sourced information is very often not appropriate. I could expand the Marinid dynasty article with information about astrophysics from a scholarly journal on the subject, and you'd do well to remove it because astrophysics isn't relevant to medieval Moroccan history.

If you don't provide more information, nothing can be done. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably the OP is just confused because an admin protected the page. Or maybe they still think we're the French wikipedia and are complaining about fr:Mérinides (there was a complaint a few days here about their edits to that article being reverted) although it doesn't look like the people reverting them are admins either albeit they are established editors. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, from a policy perspective, being reliably sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for some information to be included in an article. That is, unsourced information should not be there, but merely because it has a reliable source doesn't mean Wikipedia is forced to include the information. There also needs to be consensus that the information is relevant to the article, and is presented in a neutral manner. Merely having a source is not sufficient to force others to accept an addition. To wit, from WP:V, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". I have no idea if the OP's proposed additions have a reliable source, but even if they do, other editors may contest their use for other valid reasons unrelated to the sourcing. --Jayron32 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Manning naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To consolidate and clarify gender-related discretionary sanctions, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:

1. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case is amended to read:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology GamerGate case, not this one.

2. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
3. The following amendment is added to the Interactions at GGTF case:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Manning naming dispute

Page move request

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

---

Hi. WP:RM/T isn't the right place to put this since its a file, but {{rename media}} only works for moving within the file namespace. Can an admin please move File:Ilayda Nurkan.jpg to Draft:Ilayda Nurkan? Its technically a description page for a non-existent file, but its the start of a draft about Nurkam as far as I can tell. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Makes a junk draft. A student athlete with two edits writing about themselves. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought I'd try it, but I got the following message:

The page could not be moved, for the following reason: Cannot move file to non-file namespace.

As Legacypac notes, it's not a good draft anyway, and since it can't possibly be moved without copy/pasting, I have no hesitation about speedying it under G8 (file description page with no file). Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Coincident relevant discussion: WT:CSD#Talk pages of nonexistent articles that are written as articles and would be speedy deletable as articles. —Cryptic 01:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: wait a sec - even admins couldn't move it? Then its not a permissions thing, its a mediawiki thing. Maybe that should be changed to allow sysops to move files to non-file namespaces? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yep, looks to be a harcoded restriction. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks. Do you think there would be any objections to allowing admins the ability to move (make an exception to the restriction)? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is such a rare issue it's not worth changing. A copy paste is such a simple work around, and attribution can be handled with a edit summary. Only a rookie editor would put an article in a file name and not quickly correct the problem themselves. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[ec] I don't remember the last time I had reason to move a File: page to another namespace. (Same with a Category: page, which if I remember rightly also can't be moved elsewhere.) If you could move a File: description page to another namespace, what would happen to the file itself? If it ended up attached to another namespace page, you'd have a real mess (imagine if a file were attached to a page in Template talk:, for example), and if it didn't get moved at all, you'd suddenly have an orphaned file with no description page. Either option would be a very bad idea, especially since someone could make such a move by accident (just click the dropdown by mistake) or by vandalism. Also, it would need to be reciprocated (if you could move File:A to A, you'd need to be able to move it back), and the people accidentally or intentionally moving articles into filespace is a good deal bigger of a risk. Filespace pages with no files are rather rare, and they almost never need to be kept; there's no real benefit to allowing them to be moved when there's almost never a benefit and when risks are a lot more likely. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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