Template:Active editnotice

Samsara indefinitely protected Mistake using pending changes for "Persistent vandalism". The page has had no edits to it since 22 March and only 10 edits in 2019. There isn't persistent vandalism, there isn't any recent disruption on the page. I asked for it to be unprotected on their talk page The answer was to have it further reviewed so I am bringing it here for further review. I do not believe it needs to be protected. ~ GB fan 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into the history Oshawott 12 requested the protection so I will info them of this thread so they can add their thoughts as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that a discussion has been going on here User talk:Samsara#Mistake. My apologies for not finding it before I made the above post. MarnetteD|Talk 23:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to GB fan to post this at RfPP as is standard procedure. Samsara 02:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since nothing's happened at RFPP I'll comment here. After looking through the history, I believe 23 February 2018 is the latest edit (aside from yesterday's two protection-related entries) that's neither outright detrimental nor the reversion of such. That was 14 months ago. Since then, the page has had almost sixty edits, and every one of them I believe deserved reversion or consisted of reversion. This is a disambiguation page, after all; it's not something that routinely needs to be updated. Protection may be applied when a page experiences basically nothing except vandalism, even if it's not all the time, and the fact that it's disambiguation, not content, contributes to the sense that this is an appropriate protection. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ~ GB fan 13:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does your ‘OK’ signify that we can close the discussion, or does it mean you agree with him? Anyways, it was a suitable page protection, and it was put in the right place. The only thing that was wrong was my wording usage of ‘persistent’, so I believe we’re pretty much finished here then. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 16:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My OK, is acknowledgement of what Nyttend said. ~ GB fan 20:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't understand the protection policy. I have two admins telling me that it is within the protection policy to indefinitely protect a page that hasn't been edited in almost a month, 10 edits in the last 3.5 months and less than 100 edits in the last year. ~ GB fan 10:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I would not have protected...the disruption is way under any threshold for any kind of protection. In olden times we would have said: just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with most decisions of this sort, it's a tradeoff between how much effort the protection saves by preventing vandalism and how many useful edits are prevented by the protection. Yes, sixty vandalism or vandalism-related edits in 14 months is a relatively low level of disruption. But also yes, zero useful edits in 14 months is not a lot of useful editing that is prevented by the protection. I'm not seeing this as a Big Deal either way. Do you really want to pursue this? Or can it be closed? GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the big picture, the page is clearly a target for persistent vandalism, it's just that instances of vandalism are sporadic and slow-going. So, it's actually a perfect candidate for long-term PC protection, and I don't see anything wrong with implementing it here. That said, Protection policy does say Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. I don't think I would call the disruption "severe", so it should probably be converted to a year. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should revisit that part of the policy. If memory serves, it was considered important at the time to limit PC1 in terms of time as it was thought we might end up in a situation where progress is limited by availability of reviewers, i.e. changes on low traffic pages remaining unreviewed for longish periods of time. Our subsequent experience with PC1 has not yet borne this out, and it now seems it likely never will. Looking specifically at Mistake, it's had the described pattern of vandalism since 2007. Limiting PC1 to one year does not seem in proportion with the duration of the disruption. At the risk of lecturing the choir, in page protection, it's often useful to to ask if pages are being attacked by specific users or groups thereof, in which case, protecting for a definite period may lead to the disruption abating, or whether a page invites general attention from unrelated attackers simply because of the subject content or the name of the page. There may be grey areas between the two, but this page is a very clear case of one that will continue to attract negative attention because of its title, so protecting for a definite period is not a reasonable remedy imo, especially when the period is short relative to the observed disruption. If a compromise is needed, I would suggest setting it to five years - PC1 has the advantage that its necessity and performance can be continuously monitored, even from watchlists, saving us a lot of micromanagement, which given occasional backlogs at RfPP, should be given some thought. Samsara 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have more admin eyes on Venezuela topics per this reddit thread, posted to my talk? It seems to be having a recruiting effect: for example, a Move discussion at 2019 Venezuela uprising has received a lot of non-policy-based input.[1] Still waiting for my government paycheck. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: - me too! Not to mention being notified of our mass secret agenda. Maybe I need to enable 2-factor authorisation before they'll tell me? In any case, the reddit thread discussions, that there are several of atm on AN, don't seem especially co-ordinated at recruiting...they have a habit to wander off into attacking us and our Kafkaesque ways. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest threat to neutrality on those articles is the "deprecation" of news sources, which has rapidly progressed from Daily Mail to TeleSUR,[2] and I suspect any other media outlet favoring the Venezuelan government's perspective would also be at risk. Our article about TeleSUR is not flattering and I doubt it is untrue, exactly, but in this day and age who would have more confidence in the BBC or any news outlet owned by some wealthy billionaire (and what other kind is there?)? Unless editors resist the calls to exclude these perspectives when there is no reason to doubt their veracity -- and administrators resist calls to censure editors who do so resist -- the resulting articles will end up reading like propaganda from whichever side has voted all the others off the island. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC, WP:3 and WP:DRN, but all of these requests have been reverted. I do not see what type of harm that closing this long standing discussion will have, so I am posting this here, to generate discussion about whether or not this thread should be listed at WP:ANRFC for closure. Two users, one being an administrator, believe that my request at WP:ANFRC was legitimate, therefore, I believe that my request should stay there until someone decides to close the thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bump - Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks to me like the thread (which has gone to archive) was closed on May 3. Do you want us to un-archive it, wrap it in a "no consensus" banner, and re-archive it? Sometimes discussions just end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I'd request admins please be careful to distinguish between the separate sub-thread about prohibition of paid editing, and the original, main discussion about the HuffPo article. While declining to close to sub-thread on the policy of "Prohibition of paid editing", User: SoWhy, as an uninvolved admin, looked at the main thread and summarized consensus on AN Requests for Closure: "regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." RfC. Any closure should reflect that finding (perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a fresh look to see if they agree.) The AN discussion's main thread was also used by an editor at ANI to find another RSN discussion of HuffPo was not warranted. "[A]s an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case." ANI. This outcome will be different, requiring a fresh RSN discussion of the whole HuffPo article, if it is implied the main thread has "no consensus." While the allegations in the HuffPo article have been removed from four articles I know of based on the AN discussions, there is now ongoing RfC about the use of this source on Facebook and Axios. It would be misleading and counter-productive to these discussions to imply all the investigations and discussion on main thread resulted in "no consensus." FYI, there was also a finding that "no consensus" would be inappropriate for the sub-thread because the "prohibition on paid editing" !vote violated the process for revising WP: PAID. RfC Thanks BC1278 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate and not a violation of our harassment policy to out another editor with the consent of the outed editor? Although I didn't see anything about this in WP:OUTING, WP:COI#Avoid outing has the following language (bolding for emphasis): When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.

In this particular case, I've accused another editor of having a COI and violating WP:PAID, based primarily on off-wiki evidence of the editor's identity. The accused editor has demanded that I present the evidence. The specific question is, may I post the evidence of their identity if the accused editor gives me express permission to do so?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this. I can post this at WP:COIN, WT:COIN, WT:COI, or wherever if that would be more appropriate. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mail it to any sysop. Yunshui and TonyBallioni are two names, that spring to my mind. ∯WBG^converse 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to post the evidence at WP:COIN so that the community can weigh in (and the accused editor can defend themselves). Of course, I wouldn't do that if it would violate WP:OUTING. Hence the question. Though I do appreciate the referrals. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not outing if the subject is okay with disclosing their identity. But this kind of situation is why paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org was set up. If you email the details there admins authorised to handle private information can handle it. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If they are giving you permission to "out" them, why don't they just out themselves so there's no question about whether it's proper? Natureium (talk)

Joe Roe and Natureium, it is not yet clear whether they are giving explicit permission. I think R2 is, correctly, treading carefully: if someone says "show me the evidence", it is not certain that this means "publicly post information linking my account and real world identity". --JBL (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the paid-en-wp email, seems to me that the best course is to post the evidence minus necessary details, i.e. explain exactly what you have without giving any personal information. "Hello, User:Soandso, I found someone called "Soandso" at such-and-such.com, and that account was explicitly linked to someone with such-and-such a name who lived at a certain address and had such-and-such email address. That person has written several paragraphs about this same topic on that website, and your writing here sounds identical in style and vocabulary to what Soandso wrote on the other website." As long as you don't say what website you're talking about, literally all you're saying is that the username exists somewhere else, and the user here can always reject a connection. Either the user will tell you to post the details, in which case you definitely have permission, or the user will be satisfied without saying to post them, so you won't need to do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a vaguely similar situation with John D. Haynes House. Someone claiming to be the owner repeatedly removed location information saying "Don't post the address of my home", even though the local government's GIS website provided the owner's address and said that it was something like 700 miles away. So we had someone claiming that his personal information had been posted (but not because it was his personal information, but because the location was relevant to the house article, and he was the only one claiming that it was his information), and the only way to disprove him was to provide the owner's actual personal information. In the end, we basically ignored his complaints, since the address was sourced to reliable government documentation, and any building's location is obviously significant enough to include in an article about that building. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Honest words, outing anyone for anything is not worth the trouble. Genuinely. Even if the editor has a COI, it is an area that is so muddled that you'll never know what you're ending up with. Share private information via private channels only, there is no value in arguing a consensual disclosure, at the end of it, you might have to face the schtick for it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just confirm with the person that they really consented when they said "present the evidence". Ask them something like: "do you really mean post my currently offline research, that contains what I believe is your real name, affiliation, etc."? If they say no then don't post it. Since it's private info, send it to a checkuser, not a regular admin. If suspected COI editor asks you to send the info to them privately, refuse to do so-- there's no use helping them cover their tracks; and anyway, if the info is wrong it could compromise the named person's privacy. Once the CU's have the info, leave further disclosure up to them. Also don't post identifying info (even if the editor consents) unless you're pretty sure that it's correct. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outing someone, even if they give you permission to do so, isn't a good idea and could put you into a very bad position of having to defend your actions from being met with appropriate sanctions in response. You should instead have the user out themselves on Wikipedia so that there's no chance for ambiguity or debate in that aspect, or whether or not what they said really was consent and approval for you to publish the editor's personal identifiable information onto Wikipedia. Plus, you don't really know for sure if the person truly is who they say they are. No one does. I would not mess or dance around in that area at all. The policy on outing is taken very seriously, and those who violate it can face very severe sanctions (such as an indefinite block) - even for a first offense. Don't risk it. Take the advice that others have given to you here and take it to the appropriate noticeboard for an investigation. If they disclose things on Wikipedia that can be used as evidence against them, then that's the appropriate time to mention those details. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Enigmaman has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed

Bhimavarapu007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user keeps adding links to a website that hosts and displays pirated and copyrighted material which WP:ELNEVER makes clear shouldn't be done as a form of contributory copyright infringement. They seem to be doing so in order to direct people to copyrighted material based on this edit summary [3]. They have also been re-adding this content for weeks ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) despite multiple users reverting the changes. This led to the page getting PC protected. When I saw an edit in the PC queue, I reverted and gave them a level-4 warning for edit warring [19] because while they had been warned in edit summaries they had never been warned for edit warring. The edit warring warning was the third warning (first, second) this user received regarding their conduct at this article. Some higher protection and/or a block may be in order as pending changes is no longer effective as the user has recently been autoconfirmed and their changes are auto-accepted. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This user appears to be adding links to 123Movies to the 123Movies article. That is standard practice per The Pirate Bay, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks, YouTube, etc. Now I don't have a legal degree (do I need one here?), but to my way of thinking, telling someone that there is a 123Movies or a Sci-Hub is far more useful in helping him to find it than anything that follows, while the distinction we draw in policy is between having a link where clicking it inexorably brings the user directly to downloading (including "viewing" or "streaming") pirated text, versus giving him information that might help him research out pirated text by, for example, knowing where a site that hosts it can be found. Note that judging whether a site 'purely' hosts pirated content, or hosts a lot of pirated stuff, or hosts too much pirated stuff, or hosts pirated stuff with poor oversight, or whatever boundary you would draw, is not our job. This is why the ELNEVER policy says "...This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." Clearly the policy does not conceive of blocking all links to those sites, just the ones directly to unlicensed copyrighted material on them. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that these links aren't in line with other parts of the ELs standards. We have lots of other links being added, e.g. [20] adds https://123movies.dj, https://123movies.to, https://123movies.is, https://123movie.cc, and https://123movies.st, and none of them are put in the appropriate section for ELs. (The original site appears no longer to exist: the intro says it was shut down a year ago.) Clones are not generally appropriate, especially in situations like this where more than one is provided, and the express goal. Adding an official link is acceptable for such a website, but Bhimavarapu007 is not merely adding individual links. One of the diffs demonstrates that the user's goal is not to provide background information for the encyclopedia reader — its generating only 1000 visitors per day, why cant you keep the link, atleast those 1000 visitor are able to watch Movies. I'm about to block this user for spamming. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: The other articles I cited put the links in the same position: the "url" field of {{infobox website}}. If that is the wrong place for external links, you should take it up with the maintainer of that template. Your argument about clones may carry more weight, since in that case they would not 'really' be the site mentioned, and you could make a copyright argument over the front material. We have cases like that (Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was put back up online after the original maintainer destroyed it), and there we have a URL but it is not given as a hyperlink presumably to avoid the risk of literal contributory infringement. In this case I haven't researched if the site is genuinely "cloned" (by unrelated persons) or is simply evading DNS censorship. Certainly the proliferation of links is common where individual users are encountering URL censorship or where the domain names are unstable, and is common with many of the sites I described before. Last but not least: a user cannot be guilty of spamming who only adds links to a site to one article. It's a logical contradiction. Please don't make a bad block like that. Wnt (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• When a site is shut down by government authorities, at most you put up a single replacement link, not five at once while removing others. As noted by someone else, "URL field in and infobox is for one official website, anything more is considered promotional". See WP:ELMIN; we should almost never provide more than one official link, and then only if there's something particularly significant about the secondary link. Five links, expressly done to allow 1000 visitors to watch movies, is promotional, regardless of the copyright status of the movies in question. And finally, it's quite common to block people for spamming if they persistently advocate something on one article; if you want to see someone immune from sanctions who only advertises on a single page, I suggest that you go to WP:VP/Pr and propose that such a thing be permitted. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the sites are clones, then there may not be more than one link to any given site. In any case, the intent of the links is clearly not to make a "directory" as described in ELMIN, a policy that does allow for loopholes. If there is consensus on the article talk page that ELMIN applies and this editor is defying it then you could consider a block, but certainly I see no such consensus on that page. Templating an editor is not a discussion and does not create a consensus! True, I see that might makes right here and you've blocked anyway and that is the end of that discussion (and that attempt of Wikipedians to link to something "subversive"). We are all just pretenders here; the omnipotent corporations rule over all everywhere. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody do a range block on user:2600:1017:b80f:b7c3:fc25:a670:814e:22ef and user:2600:1017:b80f:b7c3:b04b:1068:f2aa:8247. Those were both used to make terroristis threats. CLCStudent (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to any passing admins: please don't indefinitely block IP addresses, especially if they're allocated to a mobile network operator. These are recycled very quickly, and an indefinite block will just cause lots of collateral damage while doing nothing to stop the disruptive person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. We should generally never be indefinitely blocking IP addresses or ranges. If one of those extremely rare circumstances call for one, a discussion should be held first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Pharos: Just FYI the notes above. @CLCStudent: Why are you taking vandal IPs directly to random admins? —DoRD (talk)​ 02:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? Vandal IPs are routinely reported to random admins at WP:AIV, and there's nothing more random about bringing them here instead. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend - I think DoRD was asking CLCStudent why he was messaging admins directly instead of bringing the matter to a noticeboard, not why he brought the matter to this noticeboard. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I was referring to messages such as these to random admins rather than here or AIV. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thank you for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the deal. I got into a dispute with an admin yesterday at AIV. You can see it here here. In a nutshell, I am trying to only use AIV when I know my reports meets all criteria in the header. CLCStudent (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t call it a dispute, but rather a discussion at ANI (here) about an issue with AIV reporting and his actions thereafter. It was hoped this would lead to better AIV reports and not avoiding the proper forum. NJA | talk 12:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed the third criteria says that there must be reason to believe the reported user will disrupt in the IMMEDIATE future. I was not sure that criteria was met in this case. I know the criteria at ANI is much more relaxed than that at AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but random admins' talk pages isn't AN(I), and no offense to the admins above, but many people aren't familiar with IPv6, and we may end up with the wrong solution to the problem, such as the indef blocks of mobile IPv6 "accounts". —DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - An IP, who seems to be trying to "out" a line manager who was criticized in an industrial tribunal, keeps adding a bare url link to the industrial tribunal database at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the Ulster Hospital article. I have tried engaging with the IP without success. The media has published several articles on the tribunal case but did not name the line manager. It seems to me that continuously inserting the bare url link may potentially in breach of WP:BLPNAME, WP:BAREURLS and WP:ELNO. Thoughts welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now hidden 7 edits in which the IP added problematic information about a living person. I have also blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. I invite review of these actions by other admins. - Donald Albury 19:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 77Survivor has asked on my talk page if an admin could please look into blocking this range of IPV6 users:

• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:84A5:FE3D:5E83:B697 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:A0C0:4E61:BD7:7C07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:C459:90B7:1A4A:DCDC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:9FC:45B1:33D7:A8E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The issue, briefly, is that this range is submitting a ton of unsourced film genres. Looking through their edits, I see a bunch of questionable stuff like "action-drama" here for instance, when most action films are dramas. Here we get "thriller drama" when most thrillers are dramas, here we get thriller drama again. Here we get "action masala" even though by definition, an Indian masala film combines a variety of genres including action, comedy, romance, drama. If any of you cook, "masala" is mixed spices. (Coriander, cardamom, mace, cumin, turmeric, etc.) So anyone going out of their way to expand these genres are just adding words for the sake of adding words. The general range identified thus far is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70.*. If anyone can please calculate whether or not a rangeblock is possible in this area, I would be most appreciative, as it is not my area of specialty. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: A range that covers those is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:0:0:0:0/64 (2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:0:0:0:0 - 2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb - What you're describing translates to an IPv6 CIDR range of 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70::/64, which I've blocked as you requested. Since this range makes a lot of edits, I kept the block to 36 hours. We can always extend it if necessary. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah and DannyS712: Thank you both. IP ranges are a tricky business for me and maybe I don't need to be as scared of them as I am, but I do appreciate the mind power you both donated, as well as the actual blocking that you did, Oshwah. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb - No problem! Always happy to help. :-) Once you have someone give you a crash course on ranges, how they work, and what the numbers mean when they're calculated - it's really not too awful. The main thing to know is that ranges for IPv4 addresses are different than ranges for IPv6 addresses, since IPv6 addresses are longer, use hex (base-16) instead of base-10, and other things. I have a response that I made awhile back for another admin that you might be interested in reading. Take a look at it here - it explains the difference between IPv4 and IPv6 ranges and goes over everything a little bit. If you're looking for a tutorial more like this, let me know and I can type one up. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to appeal the community ban, that was imposed today. I clearly see a consensus among several editors, but this is quite ill-based. The main accusations were: forumshopping (not even a single evidence was shown; though, there may be some in 2017, but definitely not in 2019), sockpuppetry (investigation wasn't conducted, two previous ones couldn't prove me as sockmaster) and disruptive editing. Wikaviani (talk · contribs) was the only one who tried to support the latter accusation, appealed for this edit [21]. The edit was, as the one can see, well-sourced and Wikiavini failed to explain what was the disruptive in this edit. The edit was reverted by HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) and normally discussion would proceed — unfortunately, I was banned. What I ask:

• As community failed to explain my misconduct, consider my edits on pages Nader shah, Iraqi Turkmen, respective talk pages and DRN of the latter and check whether they are disruptive or not. If they are, please explain what is wrong and what I should do instead, so I can start from the new scratch when I'll return 6 months later. If they are not, reconsider the ban.
• Resumption of old discussion on the talk page of Qizilbash article was considered as disruptive, but this time with explanation. I regret, if it is disruptive, but I think, presence of the big amount of sourced statements, analysis and appeal for discussion clearly show my good faith.
• On the whole, recall, reduce or uphold the ban on the basis of, how many of these accusations proved to be true. Give recommendations of how I should behave after I get "released". John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• One more. Whatever the result for topic ban is, I ask to remove restriction for ANI, 3O and etc. as it makes impossible to contribute to the project even if editing pages, that don't relate to the restricted topic. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You acted in direct contravention to your page ban by making a new section at ANI. Presuming it was a mistake, I have moved it over to AN (as was stated in the closing summary). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing a community ban when the discussion was posted on one of the ANs and lasted at least 24 hours, even considering the relatively low level of participation, seems destined to fail. Maybe in a bad way for you. (It was a 6 month topic ban rather than an indefinite topic ban or site ban.) I would strongly suggest you withdraw this ASAP, but if you don't want to, it's your funeral I guess.

Note that the community doesn't really owe you an explanation of why your behaviour is problematic. We generally try to help people learn how to edit here and when and why some of their behaviour may be a problem, but editors also need to be willing and able to learn, and are also to some extent expected to read and understand themselves. And importantly, just because we try, doesn't mean we take well to editors demanding an explanation. (To put it a different way, if you want help, politely ask for it at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse or somewhere appropriate or from other editors. Don't demand help.)

BTW, the point about "read and understand for themselves" seems to be particularly pertinent here since the boomerang topic ban came about after you complained about "such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG." in relation to someone deleting a comment you posted on their talk page. This is despite the fact TPG clearly says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (Again if you'd politely asked somewhere "are people allowed to do that?", maybe someone would have pointed out the section of TPG or UP that deal with it. If you open up a pointless ANI thread expect the response to be different.)

You also failed to notify the person who the thread was about, mentioning something about the Russian wikipedia when this is the English wikipedia and things may operate different here. And the big template at the top of the page and when you edit the page says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to notify people, when they say that if I make another edit on their talk page, they will demand by ban).

So, as I understand, if I am not satisfied with the result, harsher punishment should be imposed? If it works that way, well, I will withdraw it, but I feel that it is inhumanly harsh to deprive someone from appeal and reconsideration. But also I'll be very grateful if you will still look on my edits (I don't demand, just ask, as I really want to be better 6 months later). John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, but note that JFT wrote the above before I posted this) I would like to echo Nil Einne. By far the most likely outcome of this request is that you are banned by the community, especially as you violated your topic ban before Nil Einne helpfully moved this discussion from WP:ANI to WP:AN. I strongly suggest you withdraw the appeal before someone officially suggests a WP:CBAN. Note that my statements are without prejudice. I don't see a compelling argument to overturn the unanimous consensus of the community, but you may possibly have a compelling argument. The topic ban placed on you was instead of a broader community ban, but as you are now challenging that topic ban, all options are back on the table. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for this mistake. It was unintentional and I just misunderstood it. I don't see the reason why I can get CBAN. If community will do it in revenge for my appeal — well, I withdraw it, as I don't wish to be banned forever. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I call back my appeal, as was suggested by comrades. But I still find the topic ban as unjustified and harsh. Also I personally ask users Yamla and Nil Einne consider my edits on their own and help me improve. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment. Remember that the point of the topic ban is the community feels it would be best if you stay away from certain areas because for some reason your behaviour there is particularly problematic. There are still vast areas of the English wikipedia you can and should, edit if you want to learn the norms here. This is what should prepare you to return to the banned areas in 6 months. Note there is rarely a need to start an ANI thread for normal editing. In the rare cases there is a need, it will be very uncommon you will be the only one who notices it. In fact it's quite likely someone with more experience will open a far better discussion at ANI then you will. Likewise while 3Os and RfCs are useful and sometimes necessary to resolve WP:content disputes, if they are needed, this implies there's at least one other editor involved. So if these are likely going to be useful way of resolving the dispute, someone else will can and probably will do it, and maybe more effective then you. (Remembering though that you need to try and resolve the dispute among existing editors first.) Again observing when and how others use these tools should help you learn when and how to do so useful. If you refuse to edit anywhere else on wikipedia, then you're right you probably won't learn and we may be back in 6 months. It's you choice, the community in this instance has given you ample opportunity to learn. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions, because I'm confused in two ways. (1) What's the point? I can't remember the last time I heard of a ban being successfully appealed so soon after it was enacted. Someone might appeal the close (i.e. the closing admin marked it as "ban" when it should have been "no ban"), but it doesn't sound like you're meaning that. (2) Why would an appeal at WP:ANI be a ban violation if an appeal here isn't? For topic bans, WP:BANEX makes an exception for ban appeals. The point of prohibiting new ANIs, 3Os, and RFCs sure sounds like it's inspired by the boomerang ("you're starting bad-faith discussions"), and if ANI were the normal place to put ban appeals, it would be absurd to sanction a user for appealing a ban in the proper place. We shouldn't go sanctioning someone merely because he accidentally or ignorantly appealed a ban in the wrong admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please protect Antonio Valencia and Al-Sadd SC? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection applied by Favonian. Nthep (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:STEM_School_Highlands_Ranch I started a discussion as to why "Revision 11:18, 29 April 2019" was deleted. I was advised it was deleted per RD3 by GorillaWarfare, this was confirmed with the reason being it is a threat.

I started an RfC as I do no believe RD3 criteria has been met. However, Jorm removed RfC stating in the edit summary "We are NOT having an RFC about administrative actions."[22]. I subsequently reverted this edit, as there is no policy ground preventing me from challenging administrative action [23], this was again reverted by Drmies threatening me in the edit summary stating "Reinstate that and I will gladly block you" [24]. And then he left me warning on my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism. [25]. This is totally unacceptable, I should be allowed continue with my RfC to gain a consensus from other editors whether that administrative action is consistent with WP policy, and the RfC was made in Good faith, the deleted revision contained no threats, it was a question. I should be allowed to put this argument for community consensus. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]