Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 76 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 36 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 44 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I've  Done that one for you. Mdann52 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Apologies if this isn't the place for it, but after making an RD1 request a few days ago, I've been continually surprised to find it unanswered. There are currently 25 pages in Category:Requested RD1 redactions, and it looks like most of them have been there for days—this one has been there since 24 August! Since RD1 is about copyvios, and therefore a legal concern, I was really surprised to find the category this backlogged. Note that the tag is also a huge red notice which readers and non-sysops can do nothing to address, so we really don't want many of these around at a time. I would have expected an absolute maximum of 6 hours between request and response. If a few admins can try to look at the category from time to time during their general editing, to keep it free from backlog, that would be excellent. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16 articles in the category as of now, but still needs attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back down to normal levels (1). Sorry for getting a bit behind, started a new job a fortnight ago and it's been a little crazy. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the backlog! The category isn't your personal responsibility and there should be enough active admins to prevent one person's dip in activity from causing a huge spike. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 70, but we all know that there's a difference between "actively patrolling" and "I'll do it if someone asks" ;-) Primefac (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do a fair number of RD in connection with copyrighted patrol but I confess I've only occasionally checked out that category and usually found it close to empty, so it isn't really on my radar. I see that it is in the {{Admin dashboard}} but not in the table of immediate requests. Should it be added?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding Yes, Please add it in the immediate request. Even I had to make such requests and then due to the delay, had to post on an admins talk page to get this handled. A speedy reply to requests in this category are expected. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible idea I think. I have added RD1 backlog to the immediate requests section in the admin dashboard ([1]). How does it look? Alex Shih (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it intentional that the category is not linked from Wikipedia:Revision deletion? (Or at least, if it is, I could not easily find a link).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we are back ro 13 requests. I will do a couple, but I now do not have time to take care of all 13.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I am coming here to discuss the possible unblocking of MaranoFan. They have lodged this request through UTRS.

They were blocked back in October 2016 by Bbb23 as a CheckUser block and then had the block settings changed by Floquenbeam. They have said that they were blocked for having an alternative account, User:MaranoBoy. They have said that this was meant as an alternative account for when they edit from public computers, and, in fairness, it looks like they did at least try to redirect the user page at some point. This is the unblock request that they have made to UTRS:

"I believe I should be unblocked because I've had enough time to realize how my actions violated Wikipedia's community guidelines. I assure you that it will never ever happen again when I get this account unblocked. Its been 6 months since my last sockpuppet was blocked, thus making me eligible for a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Administrators who declined my previous unblock requests cited this policy, hope I am welcomed back now as an act of good faith. This block feels punitive and not preventative at this point"

"There is a block currently affecting me due to sockpuppetry. I do not believe it was unjustified at the time but it has literally been two years since this account was blocked (and six months since I last evaded my block). I had a chance to realize my mistakes and a chance to realize what a privilege it is to get to edit Wikipedia. Its a very loved hobby of mine and I will never take it for granted once I'm unblocked. Hope the community will unblock me (as part of our own policy of good faith) because I've demonstrated my passion for it time and again."

"I would definitely like you to consider how keeping me blocked is doing the community a lot of harm (and no good). Once my account is unblocked, I will never make a sock again. But Wikipedia will gain a wonderful contributor (one who worked on so many good articles, and did you know? submissions). Its in my as well as the community's best interest to give me a second chance. Please let me have the standard offer now"

I have asked them to explain, in their own words, what led them to commit sockpuppetry before, why this was wrong and what they will do to prevent this in the future. I got this response:

"The account which I was blocked for User:MaranoBoy was intended as an alternative account for use on public computers. [2] I guess it did not comply with Wikipedia policies somehow and Floquenbeam indefinitely blocked me for abusing multiple accounts (I literally had always made it known that this is my alternative account, I don't think I ever abused it to pretend its a different user), and my talk page access was also pulled. I didn't realize that I can still contact admins through UTRS and felt like I was blackballed from Wikipedia forever, this did lead to me making some actual sockpuppet accounts. (Which did violate community guidelines but I didn't use them to vandalize. Look at the difference in this article before I worked on it and the current revision. Since I love Wikipedia so much, I finally mustered up the restraint to not violate my block for six months so I can come back with my dignity. I assure you that sockpuppetry is definitely not a mistake I will repeat in the future, hence me working so hard to get this account back. I have always had good faith and intentions with regard to the content that I actually edit on Wikipedia, even though I made mistakes along the way."

Ponyo has completed CheckUser and found that MaranoFan's IP range has been static for some time and no block evasion for the last 3 months which is as far back as CheckUser can check. Therefore, I am starting a discussion here under the standard offer regarding their block.--5 albert square (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Need more info. There's an exchange on User talk:MaranoBoy where Bbb23 asked why MaranoFan was using an alt, to confirm its legitimacy, and it appears that the two accounts were blocked because no answer was provided, or perhaps that instead of an answer there was snark. However it does seem like MaranoBoy was a legitimate alt, based on their explanation. From what I see on-wiki I would support unblocking, but I'd like to hear from the checkuser first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. This, as the user provided, shows they do have the ability to contribute positively. Happy to give them a chance. WP:ROPE and all that. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: There has been a checkuser check by Ponyo, see just above. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should've been more specific: I'd like to hear from Bbb23 regarding the original incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector I have received a response from MaranoFan which I think is in relation at least in part to what you have mentioned above:

"Hi, I have a feeling this encounter will come up during discussion. The "private information" that is being talked about is my bipolar disorder. I didn't want to reveal it if not necessary but the situation requires it here. I'd often have mood swings (due to being bipolar) and go on script-enforced wikibreaks, thus the alternate account also served as a safety net for me to be able to ask a reversal of it."--5 albert square (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, 5 albert square. MaranoFan's description of the events leading up to the block leaves a whole lot out. Including:

• A long, long, long history of feuding with others
• A lot more sockpuppets than MaranoBoy, *not* just the obvious "MaranoXXX"-named ones, but others used on the same articles at the same time as MF (I've struck this one portion, because that particular allegation was made for 2 accounts, but never proven --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)), and used to continue to argue with the people he was feuding with using the MF account[reply]
• Wildly over-the-top, irrational, blame-everyone-but-myself behavior after the block
• Homophobic comment on their talk page while blocked, leading to revdel of an edit summary and talk page revocation by me

I also think we need to discount admissions of error when they're just the generic, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear variety like "I have learned from what I did wrong and won't do it again". And it isn't a good sign when they claim with a straight face that the only thing they did wrong leading to the original block was to have a legitimate alternate account. If you're going to consider unblocking, I'd put a whole bunch of restrictions on it, along the lines of:

• An actual description of what he did wrong, so there is some reason to believe this time will be different
• One-way interaction bans with everyone he fought with previously
• 1RR restriction
• no alternate accounts, "legit" or otherwise
• Explicitly acknowledging that good faith and rope and last chances will be all used up. This would not be an unblock to resume previous behavior, it would be an unblock to enable them to act 100% completely differently. Any resumption of unhinged behavior will lead to reinstating the block with little to no discussion first.

I'd still be disinclined to unblock, but if people decide they want to, these restrictions seem like the absolute minimum to give this even a chance of working. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, though, it probably makes sense to restore talk page access so they can respond to questions raised here. I'll go do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. I've worked with MaranoFan on the Adele songs and consider their contributions very valuable. In terms of the disputes, the warring was usually from a tag-team/meatpuppet team that did no research but instead were AfDing everything by Adele without cause. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock principally for the reasons Floq mentioned. The idea of unblocking someone with that many restrictions, all of which would have to be enforced, makes no sense. Nor does the project need to take into account the user's mental disorder.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock only with one-account restriction - I'm not exactly disagreeing with anyone who's opposed an unblock here. I would like to think that Wikipedia can be sensitive and accommodating to people with health issues, as long as they are able to manage those issues themselves so as not to become disruptive. If MaranoFan wants to use these scripts to manage their own bipolar episodes (I'm sorry if this is not the right term) then I think that's fine; I'm not sure how well they've managed in the past but I'll take Softlavender's word for it that they can be productive. But no alternate accounts: if you need someone to undo the script when you're ready to edit again, use UTRS, or email an admin (I guess you'll have to email an interface admin these days). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock - per WP:ROPE, WP:SO, WP:TIMESERVED, etc, and per Softlavender's endorsement, which is more than enough for me. I don't see the need to retroactively pile on other block reasons or unblock conditions in order to make the user jump through hoops to get unblocked. Conditional editing restrictions aren't needed. If they cause "disruption", they get re-indeffed. Straightforward WP:ROPE, simple as that. Stick it on WP:ER/UC, like we did with UpsandDowns. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 5 albert square says it better than I could, but in short, at this point, I feel like they wouldn't disrupt the wiki if they were unblocked, which is the whole point of any block, and that they would instead help improve the encyclopedia. It's been many months since they've caused any disruption or performed sockpuppetry, and they've shown that they can edit constructively - let's give them another chance.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "I have always had good faith and intentions with regard to the content that I actually edit on Wikipedia, even though I made mistakes along the way." If that is how you display the assumption of good faith, then we really don't need it.

"since the alleged feuds": Use of "alleged" is underestimation and misleading.

The unblock is not convincing and failure to compromise with the proposed restrictions seems to be telling that MaranoFan is going to continue their behavior for which they were blocked. GenuineArt (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from MaranoFan on his talk page copied below:--5 albert square (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GenuineArt:: I apologize for not being able to word myself correctly in my previous response. I want to use less buzz words like "swear" and "promise" and demonstrate my changed conduct with my behaviour. Being off Wikipedia for so long made me forget how these requests should be worded. I just want people to know what a tremendous loss keeping me blocked is doing. I used the word "alleged" with regard to my feuds because they were being projected as a one-sided thing by my blocking admin when the two users I had a feud with did malicious things to me like Want my good articles delisted, nominated articles I created for deletion etc. to provoke me. However, the time I spent blocked gave me enough time to realize how I contributed in the occurrence of those situations and how I can better avoid it in the future. I'm highly apologetic about the past and do not wish to continue on that same path. And when it comes to sockpuppetry (Which was the only reason provided when I was being blocked), It was actually a failed attempt at a legitimate account and the real sockpuppets came after a permanent block (It was highly disruptive on my part and I won't repeat it.) I just don't know what else to say anymore, I'm responsible for almost every good article listed here as well as the creation of the Wikiproject. Just please give me enough WP:ROPE to prove that I'm a changed person through my behaviour after being unblocked. I wanted to give you more insight into the situation, its totally your choice if you still want to vote to keep me blocked :/. Link to discussion--MaranoFan (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a one-account restriction (and I don't think we need more restrictions than that - she knows what the deal is). It's been nearly two years and it sounds like MaranoFan has used some of that time for reflection, and I'm big on giving well-meaning people fresh chances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock per long history of socking, deceit, and overreactions as well as everything Floquenbeam stated. This user has already been given multiple chances in the past and abused them. I'm very pessimistic things will be any better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS You have a response that I have copied from MaranoFan's talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think me creating dupe accounts should be considered as being given second chances by Wikipedia. This is the first time a discussion is being had to get me unblocked in the last two years. Its really not a foreign concept that a 15 year old matures a lot when she turns 17. When I say i have changed and do not want to feud with anyone or make sock-puppets, I mean it and words are the only way I can demonstrate it now under this infinite block. Wikipedia has its own pages describing this situation in forms of WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Basically, you all should have good faith in me and please give me a final chance since I specifically held out hope for the standard offer in the last six months. Its my final hope of coming back to Wikipedia. You've reviewed countless good articles I worked on [3] [[4], You have an idea of my intentions. I was a little short-tempered two years ago and held things against users too fast, but now I plan on taking things people say at face value and actually learning from them. Thats how you know it will be different this time. A whole wikiproject completely died when I was kicked out.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By chances, I was referring to how you'd promise to stop certain bad behaviors only to resume them later on, and your history of sockpuppetry makes me even less inclined to trust you. I simply can't trust you after all that no matter how much time has passed. What you've said is too little and too late to change my mind here. Your bad history unfortunately outweighs your good on this site. Saying I reviewed "countless" good articles you worked on is blatantly exaggerating and you know it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am fairly neutral about MaranoFan, having observed from a distance a number of things go down. Since I was very brief up above, I'd like to elaborate a little: (1) I do not believe she started out being a battleground-y editor. There were several editors (who shall go nameless) that were relentlessly pursuing her and her contributions, and since they were far older and far more experienced they knew how to wiki-lawyer and meatpuppet their way to success while bullying her. By the end they pretty much knew how to push her buttons to get her to act out. (2) As many of us know, she has contributed fine work and valuable articles and edits. (3) Although I know Wikipedia isn't therapy, I feel bad depriving someone who so sincerely wants to contribute to Wikipedia in the area of her expertise, and it's been two long years since she was blocked. (4) I really really hate sockpuppeting, and I'm astonished when good editors do it, but part of it seems to be a maturity thing, and when someone is upfront and admits that yes they were sockpuppeting, even yet again, I feel better about it than when they twist themselves into a pretzel in denial and then still get found out (I'm thinking of one good music-article contributor who shall go nameless). I didn't know MaranoFan was only 15 or less then but that does explain the maturity part. She's now a young adult. (5) It seems to me she just wants to quietly do articles related to Meghan Trainor, and contribute to the encyclopedia. (6) I'm with Fish+Karate: I see no harm in giving her one last chance, as a young adult, to fulfill her desire to contribute her knowledge to the encyclopedia. She knows it's her last chance. If she blows it, she's out. Not too hard to grasp, and not too much of a risk to take, considering she has grown two years by now. I think it's a risk worth taking. That's my personal take, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Fish and Swarm. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IIRC I ran across this user when going down a SPI rabbit hole a while back. I think that unblockign would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, and if they have shown deceit int his penetance we will know very quickly and how to deal with it. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from MaranoFan on her talk page

Note:I've copied this from MB's talk page; if someone could keep an eye on their page and transfer anything else that would be appropriate, that would be great, as my participation is unreliable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deflecting some of the talking points being used to keep me blocked

• I might have a "history of feuding" with people (who feuded with me equally), but they were never blocked at all and are editing for two years with no problem. The block I got was for sockpuppetry, not for this. The standard offer exists for a reason and the 2 years that have gone by since the respective feud has made me get over it. None of the accounts I violated my ban with interacted with those users either and I don't plan on doing it now
• Yes, I had sockpuppets. I did go six months with no sock activity to demonstrate how I'm a changed person. Again, the standard offer exists for a reason.
• Excessively reverting wasn't the reason I got blocked, and I don't have a problem with that in general. No idea why a user is saying I need a 1RR restriction.
• I'm not gonna interact with any of the users I "feuded" with, again I didn't with any sock accounts and I won't with this one. I'm over it.

I was responsible for at least 3 good articles, 3 successful DYK submissions and had more GAs in the work. Its unfair to deny me a second chance when its been two years since the alleged feuds. (I simply just want to return and work on Meghan Trainor articles, I do not come to Wikipedia to make friends or enemies).--MaranoFan (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy this to AN

• Support unblock with a one-account restriction for one year I think it is important that if we have a one-account restriction that it be time limited (although yes, I know they could ask later for it to be lifted if we don't). I don't see a history of sockpuppetry, and the standard offer should be accepted. I don't think people even should have to admit that they did what they were accused of (claiming that that believed they were following the alt-account policy is ok, not that we have to believe them), all they have to acknowledge is that they will not do it again. And that appears to be the case here. -Obsidi (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I would like to report a disruptive user, that being User:Jhartmann

He began to undo edits that I had made to the pages Communist symbolism and Anarchist symbolism with his explanation being that I was, quote, "promoting Leninism". I undid these edits because this claim was absurd, and he undid my edits and claimed that I was a random internet user named "rennschnizzel" that I had never heard of up until this point. I decided not to undo his edit for fear of starting an edit war, so I went to his talk page to discuss whatever issues he may have had. He responded by calling me a "Lunatic", "Maoist", and telling me to "fuck off".

It's obvious to me that this user is not mature enough to contribute to Wikipedia without personal or political bias. I would greatly appreciate if this user could be dealt with in whatever manner is deemed appropriate. -- DiegoAma (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2018

I'm not sure if that's a sickle or a WP:BOOMERANG I see. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the disputed image is used by anyone other than DiegoAma. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are no notable organizations that use this symbol, then it certainly does not belong. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When i created and tried to publish, i got an error message saying that the word ஓசை is black listed or not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazhippokkan123 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the English Wikipedia should be titled as they would be referred to in English-language sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

m:Wikimedia Forum#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media

Some adjustments will need to be made to templates, pages and bots. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:In ictu oculi has had some troubling editing issues recently, which for me have undermined the confidence in their edits sufficiently to propose the removal of some userrights, i.e. "pending changes reviewer", "autopatrolled", and "new page reviewer". I don't think "extended confirmed" is a problem, and "page mover" is not really related to my concerns.

On 5 September, I deleted an article they had recently created as a copyright violation[6]. It turned out to be an unattributed copy-paste from another enwiki article, a problem they had been warned about twice in 2017 as well by User:Diannaa.

Then their article Tal Vez (Marta Sánchez song) was nominated for deletion. This article was created by In ictu oculi with only one, unreliable source (a Russian tribute page for an artist), and when researching the subject, it looked to me as if most of the contents of the article were completely wrong (as in, claiming that it is a single which reached #7 on the US Latin chart when it wasn't ever a regular single in the first place, only a very limited promo release). Okay, errors can be made, but what happened then meant that I lost all trust in In ictu oculi to use these user rights.

They opposed deletion of the article because it "is confirmed by es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez", questioned "what Spanish-language 90's chart books did you consult?" without having consulted any themselves (at creation or now), and added a totally unreliable source to the article and quoted it in the AfD to support the keeping of the article ([7] added a link to Prezi, a site of user-generated slideshows, which in this case used a machine translated version of our own article on Marta Sanchez, making it doubly unreliable).

An editor who creates an article based on unreliable sources, supports retention of such an article because it is supported by another Wikipedia language, and uncritically adds another totally unreliable source to defend the article (and at the same time ignores the evidence presented in the AfD that the information really is completely false), and just last week failed to adhere to our basic attribution standards), is not someone who can in good faith be trusted to patrol new articles and check for copyvios, sourcing problems, hoaxes, ... Fram (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Autoreviewer should obviously be revoked from someone who creates unattributed copy paste articles, or thinks that an es (or any) wikipedia page "verifies" something in an article. Many of their articles (example) seem non-notable. So support removal of autoreviewer as their articles need patrolling for notability verifiability etc, and new page reviewer on the same basis, not that per logs they have used the right much (and pending changes reviewer too I suppose). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyone, I ask for some consideration that we all make mistakes, I do not create unattributed copy paste articles, nor indeed copy-paste break out articles, and no I do not think that Spanish wikipedia is a reliable source:

Yes (1) Around 1 September 2018 I created a break out article for The Cathedral (Honchar novel) and including two sentences from the author article into the book article without sufficiently re-wording it, re-editing it. Yes guilty. I left my PC and didn't come back in time.

Yes (2) On 2 December 2016‎ I created an article on a Spanish song including the chart information from es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez#Sencillos in good faith I believe, but yes it may be that the Spanish discography is incorrect. I have apologized already for defending the article at AfD, pressed to find evidence to support what was evident in Spanish wikipedia I did not have time to do a proper job, and in addition I was feeling somewhat flustered by the approach taken. But these are two edits. The edits as far back as 2017 I'd have to investigate but habitually I do not copy-paste break articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Oppose. To be fair, they apologised for the copyvio and gave a reasonable explanation for why it was an honest mistake. Having several AfD nominations on their talk page is potentially a red flag as far as autopatrolled is concerned, but considering they've created over 8,000 articles, their 'error rate' is actually minuscule. I don't think adding ~20 pages a week to the NPP queue for the sake of catching these odd mistakes would be a net benefit to the project. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 or two sentence stubs or dabs take very little time to patrol (and something like 60% of their creations are dabs and the remaining are stubs), and a good portion of the actual articles they create don't seem notable and/or need redirecting. Overall I think patrolling wold be a benefit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I'm not saying NPP would buckle under the pressure, it just seems like IIO is a conscientious editor overall and this is an overreaction to a small number of mistakes. Notability being somewhat subjective, I'd want to see some of those articles actually go through AfD and be deleted, before agreeing that they were grounds for them losing autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These are kind of old mistakes. I hesitate to do more than give a strong warning for an article created in 2016. I'm not saying give a free pass, but this isn't an ongoing issue that I can see, and considering the total volume of edits, it is a small error percentage. I would say In ictu oculi needs to be on notice as this is exactly the kind of mistakes that can lead to a loss of bits, not as a sanction, but as protection for the encyclopedia. You really need to pay better attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Accepted, sorry. Particularly as I can read Spanish so could and should have not taken the es.wikipedia numbers as gospel. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dennis, if the problem was just the 2016 creation, I wouldn't have been here as well. However, their edits at the AfD and at the article from this week are what caused the request. If the reaction had been an "oops, no idea what I did there, seems rather stupid in hindsight", then nothing further would have happened. But when the reaction to a poor creation is to make things worse (by defending the veracity of the article and adding another unreliable source to support it), then it doesn't seem as if any one-off error is the cause of the problem, but an underlying and continuing lack of care or knowledge about what constitutes reliability, how to check sources, and so on. Doesn't mean that a warning may not be sufficient this time, but it is not al "old mistake", it is a current one. Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oversimplifed in my reply for the sake of brevity, but I understand your point. I think their attitude now, after their recent problematic edits, on the old article, are enough that I think they get the point. In ictu oculi has been around a while, which means they should know how things work but they are still human and screw up. Since they are not being defiant and are accepting responsibility, I think the warning is still the best solution. If this becomes a pattern, then that is a different situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal of PCR, this is primarily an antivandlism tool and there are no indications that it has been abused. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a warning (they already even get that now) will suffice here as they really understand the problem. I am perturbed on the fact that they understand Spanish and went ahead to copy unverified info from eswiki, it's serious issue of course, but they tendered a sincere apology on that and have been good all this while; so what else can we do. In all I don't see a recurring pattern that may warrant removal of all these rights. –Ammarpad (talk)
• Oppose removal per Joe. Anyone creating content prolifically will eventually make a small mistake or two. That aside, copyright paranoia should be avoided. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this issue is more about In ictu oculi's activities around page titling and moves than anything. As I said in the ANI discussion last year, In ictu does have something of a pattern of creating stubs or making edits to justify moving another article that has the same title. In most cases, this is perfectly fine, but in a number of cases, the stubs he creates are poorly cited, contain copyvio, or are just plain wrong. Here are a few I've noticed from the last several years:

• July 2014: In ictu repeatedly introduced changes stating that the album Best & USA was titled "Best II", initially with no sources,[8][9] then with questionable sources.[10] This was to justify their RM of the "Best II" dab page to Best II.[11] They argued about it on talk, citing the Korean Wikipedia article. As it turned out, the album was not called "Best II", but one of its two discs was released under that name.
• March 2016: In ictu created a stub at Misfortune (Chekhov story).[12] This was to justify their RM to move the "Misfortune" dab page to Misfortune.[13] Having read the story, I knew that it's known as A Misfortune in English, so I moved the article and expanded it with sources.[14] In ictu reverted the move without comment,[15] and did not respond to talk page comments.
• November-December 2015, & March 2016: In ictu created an article on a supposed Leo Tolstoy work at Toil (Tolstoy book), based on out-of-date sources.[16] This supported their RM of another article called "Toil" to Toil (album).[17] Later I discovered that this work was not titled "Toil" and is not by Tolstoy: the subject is The Triumph of the Farmer or Industry and Parasitism by Timofei Bondarev. I moved the article and rewrote with current sources. Amid another RM at Toil,[18] In ictu used technical move to move it back to the demonstrably incorrect title.[19] In the ensuing RM, In ictu acknowledged that the title was wrong and that their objection was tied only to wanting to see the Toil article moved.[20]
• January 2017: In ictu moved James Taylor At Christmas to the incorrect title At Christmas (James Taylor album).[21] This was to justify moving At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album).[22] In ictu did not respond to questions.[23]
• December 2016 & September 2018: In ictu created Tal Vez (Marta Sánchez song) with an unreliable source, presumably to support moving Tal Vez (song) by Ricky Martin.[24] They expanded the former with more unreliable sources[25] amid an RM to move the latter[26]
• September 2018: In ictu created The Cathedral (Honchar novel) with copyright violations[27] to justify moving The Cathedral (novel) to The Cathedral (Huysmans novel).[28] I didn't look but I imagine the earlier copyvios were also tied to moves of other articles.
  

All this is to say that, in my opinion, the real issue here isn't so much about page creation as it is to article disambiguation and moves. In ictu has strong opinions about titles and has a habit of making stubs and changes to support their preferences, and sometimes these have problems. But while I've been at odds with In ictu, I've never known them to be deliberately misleading or lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, just sometimes careless and hard-headed when trying to move articles around.
At this stage, I don't think removal of rights is necessary. I just don't see how it would fix the problem, and it runs the risk of alienating a good editor who already seems to understand what went wrong. In ictu, I'd suggest that you don't focus on disambiguation so much, and be much more careful with the material and articles you add. And if someone brings an issue to you, don't dig your heels in, but step back and seriously consider whether you're wrong. If that sounds doable, I think we can consider the thread closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, okay thank you for that which seems balanced. Really. No, I 100% absolutely shouldn't have had a quick kneejerk reaction on the AfD Spanish song. I was away from desk, quickly went to the Spanish page, didn't pay attention that it was the song above the one under discussion which was sourced (and that the three country entries for the AfD song were unsourced) and I reacted foolishly and quickly assuming that chart info in a Spanish-language singer's discography wouldn't be fake. Wrong, wrong. But regarding creating new articles, as I browse Wikipedia, and including subjects raised by move discussions, I see gaps to be filled and if the "X is" test in books indicates that there are sources I sometimes fill them. I hope that stub tags and expand German/etc tags will encourage other editors to expand, but the nature of neglected subjects is inevitably such that other editors don't, why should they. Having said that I did recognize your comments last year to take more care and have been trying to. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with your responses. Hopefully we can chalk this up to a learning experience and consider the matter closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like my userpage to be created. User:69.130.153.83 69.130.153.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless for a dynamic address, or a vandal. It's not going to happen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you want a user page, register. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all y'all should be more welcoming. Hey, IP, I suggest you start by pasting this code on your user page. All the cool kids have it. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So true. (With a salute to Michael Auprince and Arinn Young.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 62-7 victory? You are a triumphalist, Drmies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328, those who know me know I was there during the lean years. These fat years, yeah they feel pretty good. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Category:Candidates for history merging :: someone has dropped 31 basketball-related history merge requests on me. Help with them would be appreciated. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh! I haven't done any of those in a while. I'll clear some. :-) Katie^talk 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie and Anthony Appleyard: a lot of these appear not to actually need histmerges because they were created by the same author in draft and/or mainspace, got draftified, and then got recreated by the same person (i.e. attribution is fine). Histmerges in these cases create semi-mangled page histories like at 2018–19 Southland Conference men's basketball season when they aren't required. Redirecting would likely be the best option here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The backlog is back under control. Many didn't require a history merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So...just created, none of them with edits, 济南办证电话131-2389-2398微信-济南办毕业证, 福州办证电话131-2389-2398微信-福州办毕业证, 合肥办证电话131-2389-2398微信-合肥办毕业证. Not sure what to make of these names or these accounts. Not sure if there are editors behind them, or even whether to notify them. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the same spambot similar to the one back in January, see [29]. I am not familiar with filters, pinging zzuuzz. Alex Shih (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a handful of them earlier with different numbers - they're obviously just spam usernames. The last attack created something like 1,000 accounts per hour, so I don't think we're in the same ballpark. It's worth keeping an eye on the account creation log though. Filter 895 stands ready. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alex Shih and Drmies: Google Translate translates them into English as "Jinan Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Jinan Office Diploma", "Fuzhou Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Fuzhou Office Diploma". "Hefei Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Hefei Office Diploma". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked at this a bit more, it seems likely that in the past few hours most accounts containing Chinese characters created on this wiki - and there's a definite increase in them - were created by the same entity. There seems to be three solutions: 1) ignore it 2) throw around a lot of huge range blocks, or 3) target the filter at the creation of Chinese usernames. I've done the latter, as a temporary measure. Filter 895 - feel free to disable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the work on this. I applied for blacklist at meta, but probably not going to help much. Alex Shih (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex Shih: the blacklist was updated for this. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had request those spam accounts for global lock. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question — how would we distinguish between the creation of completely new Chinese usernames and the creation of a local username by someone who's already registered it at a different project? After all, WP:SUL doesn't create an account at every project simultaneously: it creates an account in the global database and automatically creates an account at a wiki if you visit it while logged in, but only when you visit it. I've presumably never visited the Volapük Wikivoyage (if it exists), so I don't think I have an account there; and probably a lot of people who have previously registered Chinese usernames at Chinese-language projects come here later and have accounts created automatically. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: while not 100% authoritative, looking at Special:CentralAuth/Nyttend (replace with username) is generally useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Xaosflux said. This question however is probably not applicable to the current situation, where they are obviously spam accounts (I am not sure if it's as obvious to non-native Chinese speakers). Alex Shih (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I'm sorry: I wasn't clear in my question. I'm meaning how do we distinguish from a technical perspective? I'm a human, so I can see that it was automatically created (and you're a human sinophone, so you can see that this is a spammy and unrealistic username), but how is a filter supposed to tell the difference? Can the filter read the account creation log and see that it was automatically created for someone from another project or that it was a totally new creation, or can it merely observe that someone took an action that should result in the creation of a new account? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: it may require some testing, but from the abuse filter point of view, autocreateaccount and createaccount are separate values that may be in the (action) variable. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case it's a lot simpler than I had imagined. Thank you for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you can locally utilise (( action == 'createaccount') | (action == 'autocreateaccount' )) in a filter to prevent things. I know that something similar is used at meta to stop things happening at login.WMF; or we can utilise m:title blacklist. First is logged, second is not. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst and Xaosflux: They are now back again with the username telephone numbers "186-7275-9878" when I visited the report for global lock at meta:SRG, have you all added the text into the meta:Title blacklist? SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be suggesting that the ability to block these number patterns is something that can be managed by abuse filters; or if we have a global problem then we should be looking at advanced regex for title blacklist. For an advanced regex, as they are generic, and that can be a problem for file uploads, or possibly random non-encyclopaedic pages, I would think that it should be an RFC type submission on that page that we can at least note to other wikis for their involvement. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SA 13 Bro: as far as 'they are back' - and doing what? Just registering SUL accounts, or making edits? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added '.*186.?7275.?9878.*' to the meta tbl. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am challenging the close here: [30]

This should be a very easy challenge. The close did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion and it closed the section shortly after the section was created. It was simply nothing more than a WP:Supervote for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for the purpose of stifling discussion. Not even a citation to any policy was given for the close. How much easier of a challenge to a close can you get? -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you got the answer you deserved. It's not that you can't challenge the ongoing RfC because the question is not neutrally-worded, but the way you went about it is not appropriate. I might also point out that challenging an RfC that has already attracted so many votes and so much discussion is not going to be greeted with joy by the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the appropriate way if not to seek consensus on a solution? I'm aware that with so many votes and discussion that some people may feel for that reason they do not wish to go through the effort of starting over. But people should make the claim, and if there is consensus on that we can resolve it that way. But an early close (after one other !vote), is not an appropriate close. -Obsidi (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note, I asked at WP:Help desk what is the appropriate way to handle this and the only response I have received so far is I would strike (<del>...</del>) the original request and replace it with a more neutral one, or even close it and open a fresh one if the statement is way off. But these solutions may be controversial, and I’m also very eager to see what other editors recommend. Which, in my opinion, would generate even more controversy than what I did. Is that the appropriate way to handle this instead? I somehow think we would be right back here for a close review... -Obsidi (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidi, the first step in challenging a close is to contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Also note that a request for review at Administrators Noticeboard is supposed to include a link to the discussion with the closing editor. After examining the closer's talk page and the challenge here, it appears that you have done neither. However shutting down your hasty and malformed challenge, to have you go chat with the closer and then re-open this challenge, would be a waste of time.

Regarding the closure: I wouldn't have closed it so quickly, but only because letting a few more rejections pile up there would have been less nuisance than wasting time on it here. It can be difficult to foresee which doomed proposals need a few more opposes piled on for the most efficient and quiet burial. We only kill and restart a heavily-participated in-progress RFC when it is egregiously malformed and result itself is credibly in doubt. I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect you have enough clue to see where community consensus lies on the issue. Any attempt to kill and restart the RFC would be a time-wasting delay of the inevitable. I suggest you voluntarily withdraw the challenge. Otherwise I:

Endorse close as unfortunately swift, but accurate. Alsee (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close it's a perfectly reasonable close of an unreasonable motion. I am going to list the discussion on WP:CENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Obsidi, this is the kind of facepalm-worthy obstructionism (both the request to close and invalidate a massive and extensive RfC basically on the grounds that you don't like it, and now the challenge of the excellent close of that request) that makes people examine your contribs to see what other kinds of wackiness you might be up to. For instance, you seem to be majorly obsessed with climate-change denial. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basis was not WP:IDLI, it was based on policy, specifically that the RfC question should be neutrally worded. Do you disagree that is WP policy? This has nothing to do with climate change at all, neither in the question, nor in the proposal, nor in the close. If you wish to discuss unrelated topics I would be happy to do so, but this is not the proper forum. -Obsidi (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see it being valid for an involved user to make a separate motion to close an RfC (or any discussion) in their favor, for a procedural reason. The given procedural complaint is not a valid reason to close an RfC, although WP:RfC#Suggestions for responding does address this situation: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." That seems to pretty unequivocally invalidate your procedural motion, which in turn would render the closer's assessment of "Quasi-dubious process wonkery" to be dead on. Given all that, running to AN and challenging the close, after the uninvolved closer told you to "move on", and when you have no procedural grounds to stand on in either your original proposal, or your close challenge incredibly WP:POINTy. I will repeat the closer's advice: move on. You're standing in the path of a boomerang. 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 06:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you finally presented me with a policy based rational. Specifically the last line there. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.. As that is the case, I will withdraw my challenge. I would request that be added to the closing statement for further clarification to those that read the close. -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would note that one of the criteria in Ending RfCs is The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. Although it doesn't say if that is consensus of the RfC participants or if it means all of the participants. -Obsidi (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify my statement. If it is the consensus here that per policy at WP:RfC#Suggestions for responding, that even with consensus for my proposal it would not be appropriate to close the RfC, then I would accept that as a valid policy close to the challenged section. I would merely ask that policy be cited in the close so that people know exactly what policy the close is based upon. But I am not sure that is the actual policy, because one of the specifically cited ways to close an RfC in Ending RfCs is: The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. That is all my proposal was trying to do. Gain consensus by the RfC participants that this RfC should be ended, and a new one started. As such, I believe such a proposal is allowed by Ending RfCs. If I am mistaken about that (and the consensus here is that an RfC cannot be ended in such a way), all I would ask is that the closing statement cite that policy.-Obsidi (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close- The motion was obstructionist nonsense, and I commend the closer for acting swiftly and sensibly. Reyk _YO! 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the RfC is non-neutrally worded. Is the descriptive " partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy" inaccurate? Are there exculpatory facts that were not mentioned? I've seen two editors (both with a reputation for not-exactly-moderately-right-wing opinions) complain about this, but no-one has done more than simply assert that the wording is non-neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I'll play devils advocate and try to answer your question: I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Furthermore the listing of the RFC, and feedback-request-service advertisement of the RFC, contained that rationale. Non-neutral RFC advertisement constitutes canvassing, and anyone who arrived via advertisement was therefore canvassed. I believe there is particular concern that the RFC says Breitbart "admits to pushing fake news", sourced to an AmericanConservative article using essentially those words in the title. However it does not appear that Brietbart's editor used the words "fake news". It is debatable whether the behavior-admitted-in-that-article is technically "fake news" or whether it's merely grossly-immoral, psychopathic, and utter violation of any standard of journalism. Therefore we need to invalidate the RFC and permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source. (Because if this RFC goes away, my imagination sees a future where no one opens a new RFC on the same question.) Taking off my devil's advocate hat, if this were the standard for invalidating an RFC then half the RFC's I've closed would have been invalid. And when *my* imagination sees a future with no replacement RFC, it involves a rather large asteroid saying hello to the planet. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to correct one thing said, my proposal explicitly proposed that "a new RfC with a neutral worded question concerning Breitbart be started." So it is NOT true that under my proposal we would need to "permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source." I would be happy to personally open such a neutrally worded RfC if I was allowed to do so by consensus, specifically the one that was proposed in the discussion: "Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same way as WP:DAILYMAIL?" I agree that resolving a RfC consensus on that question is important. -Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Yeah, that's pretty much what's been said already. I already pointed out that WP:NPOV directly contradicts that, too. If one side is supported by policy that doesn't mean admitting it is a POV push.

I also agree with you about the debatability of the source linked, but I think that very debatability cuts both ways: If you can't cite the source as a verified fact, you also can't characterize the bit mentioning it in the question as deceptive, which leads back to WP:NPOV again.

All in all, I think it's pretty clear that some editors want Breitbart to be taken seriously (though others merely fear the precedent being set by treating other sources like the Daily Mail), and I think that, right there, is one of the weaknesses of the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 06:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link of https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017606e1f806e37476

Needs to hire 10 Freelancers Review and Accept submission of Recording Artist Famoe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Famoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.205.249 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I was also notified on my usertalk) How does it happen that you saw that upwork page; it's apparenty restricted to those with an account. Please email me from my user talk page; or email arb com at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In either case your identity will be considered confidential, but I do not like to proceed upon anonymous accusations where I cannot see the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The apparently identical article appears at German Wikipedia and possibly others, if that assists in investigation. I also corrected false song titles, which were modified to include Famoe's name. I consider that a significant indication of promotionalism. Alsee (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit by the account, creating the entire article at once, has the edit summary We just added a Biography & Discograpgy Profile with all links for the Record Artist Famoe that Charted in several Countries. The account is being operated by, or on behalf of, multiple individuals. This is a violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy. I have posted this issue on the account's talk page, but an administrator may want to follow up on this.

They have added a userpage COI notice[31], but no declaration of paid editing. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been tagging a LOT of images for no source (F4): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ShakespeareFan00&namespace=6&tagfilter=&start=&end=

based on https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29748

I'd like admin feedback on how a backlog this big possibly built up without anyone knowing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on File:DESFINA.jpg at the top of the list. It looks like the only issue there is that the author didn't specify "own work," which is (for better or worse) the default and what is presumed (again, for better or worse) when someone declares that they can license the image in a particular way. Is there a reason to assume the uploader is not the source? A reverse google image search does not return hits predating the upload and it certainly looks like an amateur snapshot (i.e. there's more reason to doubt the uploader of what looks like an obvious publicity shot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the image was taken with a Fujifilm FinePix A series, which pretty much guarantees that it is not a professional photograph. Since it was not previously published before being uploaded, there can be absolutely no reasonable doubt that this is the work of the uploader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was told previously not to assume own work unless there was something more obvious to indicate a connection. Hence no obvious indicated source = tag it, and let an admin make the call on whether it was in fact own work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote {{img-unclaimed}} and {{img-claimed}}, and these could be used more widely, if someone was able to do the legwork in getting tools to implement them in TWINKLE with a suitable notification to users. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(see also: - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Template:Media_by_uploader_and_how_to_confirm_uploads_are_in_fact_own_work?)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the image has the original meta data, and you cannot identify any earlier images online through an image search, then you should probably not be tagging these for deletion, especially ones which are of a quality or composition that is consistent with own work. That's not doing very much other than saying "Dear admin, please check the meta data, see if you can find an older version via image search, and check if the quality and composition are consistent with own work." If these should all be blanket tagged for deletion for review by an admin, then we can probably have a bot do it, but you don't need the toolkit to manually check these indications that it most likely belonged to the uploader to begin with. GMG^talk 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The query I linked currently had a 20,000 image backlog. Most of them probably ARE own work, but the images tagged so far had practically no information on them other than a non-self style license tag. I will stop tagging for now, so that there can be a fuller discussion. (I'd very strongly recommend an RFC).

If in the meantime any admins wants to review the currently placed F4 ( re-tagging them as {{img-unclaimed}} or even {{img-claimed}} would be my recomendation), it would be appreciated, as the query drops images with those tags out of it's results.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an assumed self/own work is the default for certain licenses ( and I'm not exactly comfortable with that given various advice I was given in the past off wiki.) , then can I have a link to where that is documented clearly in policy?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00: It's not explicit in policy anywhere; it's just a thick layer of common sense and critical evaluation, especially considering that the current upload wizard wasn't implemented until 2012. The original meta data plus no previous online versions means there's virtually nothing we can do on our end to say it isn't own work, and very little anyone else can do to say contrary either. If it fails either of those tests, then delete away. If someone challenges it, then err on the side of them being right and delete it regardless. If it has some other meta data, like meta data from Photoshop or from a scanner, original meta data from a photo of a non-pre-1923 2D work, or original meta data plus a photo obviously uploaded by the subject of the photo, then err on the side of delete, at least in my opinion, without any compelling reason to think otherwise in some particular case. GMG^talk 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So. where do we go from here? Some recommendations:

1. That there is ONE consistent position on this.
2. Document the reasoning you expressed above as actual policy, as opposed to undocumented guidelines.
3. A suitably worded, {{tl:img-unclaimed}} and a suitably worded user notification is added to TWINKLE.# There is a central notice reminder about the need for media sourcing to be appropriately indicated.
4. After a suitable RFC, the 'implied' sourcing/own work policy is sunseted. I.E have a policy (given the upload wizard) that media uploaded after Jan 1st 2019 all media must be appropriately sourced (or marked as Own work ) at upload.
5. There's a site-wide effort to add full {{information}} to all othewrise freely licensed media. When I was doing this, I seemed at times to be the only user (on this and my alternate account) doing it.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00, just a reminder — we didn't require sources for the first several years this site existed (I can look up the precise date if you want), so the earliest images need to be grandfathered because they were compliant with policy when uploaded. You probably know this already, so this comment is more for casual readers than for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... sometime around 2006(?) was when sourcing was made more enforcable IIRC, this was something I've tried to take into account when tagging images. I've tended to take images that old to FFD, or use {{bsr}}, {{img-unclaimed}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've stared replacing the F4 tags (which are contested) with {{img-unclaimed}} which isn't. I still think this is merely postponing the problem, but may as well at least attempt to give a longer period than 7 days to rescue the images that can be.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, clicking through some of these, many of them are so old that any waiting period is essentially the same as no waiting period. If someone hasn't edited in five years, the chances of them fixing the issue in seven days or 30 days is still pretty much nil. GMG^talk 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee invites the community to comment on candidates for appointment as functionaries. Comments may be posted on the candidates' subpages or submitted privately by email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org through September 29.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed again. It seems that the only extant place for discussion about this editor is at his own talk page. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request for Interface administrator access under the stop-gap process for User:Pharos is currently open at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#IAdmin_temporary_access_request_for_User:Pharos. Community commentary on the request is welcome at that page. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone else help me with a delete-and-move? I'm trying to move E.C. Stoner to E. C. Stoner (which requires the deletion of the current version of the target page) with a rationale of Per request of User:Etzedek24, who moved the article to this title a few weeks ago, but somehow I can't do the deletion. Whenever I hit "delete" during this process, I get a "page not found" error — not an HTTP 400 or 404, but a message that my computer's having trouble loading the page, as if my network fails when I try to delete, even though I'm otherwise not having network issues. Could someone else do the deletion and move the page? You'll have to delete the target's talk page and move the article's talk page there, as well as moving the article itself. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the target page, Vanamonde93 moved the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I guess it's one of those weird quirky things that happens sometimes, where the computer's just throwing a little temper tantrum :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My money would be on a problem on Wikipedia's end, rather than your computer, but yeah, these inexplicable things happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a temporary problem on my end because of the error message, which was along the lines of "Cannot connect to this page", and because I'm mostly having normal operation otherwise; if it were a server problem I'd expect it to persist, but I've just deleted Draft:Fawn-napping (sounds like kidnapping baby deer) and Draft:Jaiden Animations without any surprises. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) @Nyttend: Done: seemed to work fine for me (I was not prompted for deletion, though). I wonder if some tech-minded folks could help figure out what the issue was. (Added post EC) perhaps the deletion as a separate action did the trick? I wonder why? Vanamonde (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it; I didn't feel like clicking the "yes, delete this page" box, so I tried to delete first. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They all have all of three edits, each one spamming in reference to Dogecoin:

• diff with edit note: The exchange kraken lists the cryptocurrency it currently provides a platform to buy and sell, however this excluded one currency, namely 'Dogecoin'. I have updated this and it can be easily enough verified by checking the kraken website its self. www.kraken.com (I Know you guys have it but hopefully this makes a very easy job even easier :), we here at the dogecoin community are friendly like that! Haha. Thanks

• diff- restored the SEO spam I had removed from their diff above

• diff.

I had given them notice of the GS earlier today. Please banninate them. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DogeTruths came to the IRC help channel today following Jytdog's revert on Kraken (bitcoin exchange). They understood our policies requiring reliable sources. I assisted them in correcting their unsourced edit to the Kraken article to address the sourcing issue. Frankly, I bear some blame, as I should have alerted them to the community sanctions surrounding cryptocurrency. Also, I will accept a block as well (if the community feels it appropriate), as I did instruct them that it was acceptable to perform the second edit on that page with that reliable source as a reference. My reasoning was thus, the revert by Jytdog was expressing concern that it was unsourced. I feel it is a mis-characterization to call it "SEO spam". Genuine attempts were being made to directly address the concerns of other editors and learn Wikipedia. I do not feel that a block is warranted at this time. I see sourced, if perhaps a little misguided, edits by a new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I agree that we should make them aware of the situation on Wikipedia surrounding cryptocurrencies, including the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest, but I would hope that we can not be too zealous in enforcing sanctions if someone is trying to learn the ropes here. Waggie (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waggie, we added "holding a cryptocurrency" to the COI guideline because people come from reddit and other boards where fans/holders/developers of the various cryptocurrencies hang out and they think nothing of coming here and spamming the hell out of WP as though it were reddit. Adding it to the COI guideline wasn't enough so we have put GS in place. I gave them notice of both things on their talk page immediately after their first edit. Their edits are spam. Not ambiguous.

Admins DogeTruths came here only to promote Dogecoin, which if they were successful at, would directly financially benefit them. This is not what make editing privileges freely available for. Please indef them. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an logged enforcement is needed for this case; a simple spamublock would suffice in my opinion, in which I have done. Alex Shih (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Droid small icon.tiff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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