THC Science

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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 when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 30 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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 85 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 65 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 62 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]
As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 61 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 61 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 58 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 48 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 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	33	42
TfD	0	14	14
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	1	22	23
AfD	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 67 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 66 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 62 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:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 57 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 56 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 55 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 52 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 44 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 33 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 33 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]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

(Initiated 434 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.

The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.

So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo and Happy to Help! and Thank You for your work on Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 81 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 53 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 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 8 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 5 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (22 out of 7804 total) ^(Purge) WATCH
Page	Protected	Expiry	Type	Summary	Admin
Template:Timeline-event	2024-06-08 18:00	indefinite	edit,move	High-risk template or module: 2530 transclusions (more info)	MusikBot II
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation	2024-06-08 16:51	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP	Favonian
Om Parvat	2024-06-08 05:48	2024-12-08 05:48	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement revise to ec upon further review.	Robertsky
Skibidi Toilet	2024-06-08 04:14	2024-12-26 20:45	edit	Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RFPP	Daniel Case
Black Sea Fleet	2024-06-08 03:56	indefinite	edit,move	Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR	Daniel Case
Vikrant Adams	2024-06-08 03:54	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	Daniel Case
Trinamool Congress	2024-06-08 00:47	indefinite	edit,move	continued disruption by autoconfirmed accounts; raise semi to ECP	Daniel Case
Drone warfare	2024-06-07 14:20	2025-06-07 14:20	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
International Solidarity Movement	2024-06-07 14:16	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war	2024-06-07 12:38	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
User:Aoidh/	2024-06-06 22:59	indefinite	edit,move	User request within own user space	Aoidh
Al-Sardi school attack	2024-06-06 20:53	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic	Malinaccier
Dance of Flags	2024-06-06 17:57	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Indian National Congress	2024-06-06 17:51	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Telugu Desam Party	2024-06-06 17:47	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Agent Galahad	2024-06-06 02:37	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	NinjaRobotPirate
Elsett	2024-06-05 22:22	2024-07-05 22:22	edit,move	Persistent sockpuppetry	Ponyo
Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference	2024-06-05 21:16	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	SuperMarioMan
List of Pakistanis by net worth	2024-06-05 16:48	2025-02-13 08:30	edit	Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved	Anachronist
Pors	2024-06-05 13:52	2024-09-05 13:52	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli	Rosguill
Morty Smith	2024-06-05 02:51	2024-09-05 02:51	edit	Persistent sock puppetry	NinjaRobotPirate
2024 Indian general election	2024-06-04 19:32	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on potential username changes

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:Inside the Valley

Clear consensus to unblock with one account restriction. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posting on behalf of the blocked user:

Have already admitted my misconduct before - the reason for my block is, I used multiple accounts (without formally declaring it), which was found later when I used one of that a/c for edit warring and was caught by a check-user. Followed by further accounts (socks). I regret & understand my mistake and I would like to start again productively. Charles Turing was my predominantly used a/c and the name by which I am commonly known to my fellow colleagues. I mostly edited articles related to Indian film industry and Kerala. I have developed two lists into FL status and two articles into GA, & some others close to achieving it. I would like to continue contributing productively by adhering to the principles here, please grant me a probational unblock—review my edits, run periodical check-user or even impose restrictions, until you see me fit.

CU shows no activity on the IP addresses used by Inside the Valley beyond their own edits. Last active socks are too stale to check. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I previously declined an unblock request here. Given the likelihood this user has indeed refrained from all editing for six months and appears to understand the problem with multiple accounts, I support the unblock request as per WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding concurrence to one account restriction)--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support They appear to get it, and understand the reason for the block. The fact they are willing to accept whatever restrictions would be placed on them, without argument, speaks to their sincerity. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would also support a 1 account restriction. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one account restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one account restriction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk page ARB sanc notice update

Can someone uninvolved, update the talk page at Talk:Hurricanes and climate change with "Ds/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long", since it is covered by those sanctions, and there is currently what appears to be an edit war going on. Also I appreciate any efforts to settle the current content dispute (see talk newest section). Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the notice has to be added by an admin, and the add seemed straight-forward to me, so I done did it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, a editor stating in this edit summary, "Not the way DS works.", removed the notice. After moving the page, I've re-added the notice. Can an admin clarify if adding this notice to the article can be done by editors? prokaryotes (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be placed by an "uninvolved adminstrator". However, this one seems uncontroversial, and I will re-add it if it's removed again. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for placing the template, but I'm having some difficulty finding at WP:AC/DS anything which restricts the placement of a DS/alert template to "uninvolved administrators". I see a number of things which are specified for uninvolved admins, and I see that any editor can tell another editor that DS are in effect, but I don't see the specific restriction of the placement of the template to uninvolved admins. I'm probably just missing it - can someone point it out to me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see anything on point in the doc for Template:Ds/talk notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. Because its merely indicating an article is covered under a topic where ARBCOM have authorized discretionary sanctions. It is not imposing any. The absence/presence of the notice does not make the article any more/less subject to having discretionary sanctions applied against an editor - which relies on them being notified. Its generally best practice to have it on all talkpages related to articles covered by discretionary sanctions - if only to prevent people who claim they were not aware of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will go hunt through the dusty backrooms of Arbcom documentation, but I reckon BMK/OID are right, these article talkpage notices don't (shouldn't) need to be added by an admin. In any case, as above there's nothing remotely controversial about flagging that this article is within DS for climate change. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, is it correct that the article talk page notice is an alternative for a user talk page template notification, at least when the editor participates on the talk page, or after pointed out? prokaryotes (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prokaryotes: No. Notification requirements are at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware and do not mention article talk page notifications. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What GoldenRing said. Regardless of any notice on an article talkpage, an editor needs to have either received a topic-applicable DS alert on their usertalk or met the other (less common) requirements outlined here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think placement of these notices is limited to administrators; the entire topic of climate change is subject to discretionary sanctions by direct virtue of an arbitration remedy (here); these talk page notices serve merely as a courtesy notice to editors and have no effect on enforcement of the sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A notice is a notice, not a sanction. Any editor can place it. This has been discussed before many times. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. prokaryotes (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I would add as a matter of nuance, that it's usually better to have it added by an uninvolved admin anyway, because A) it usually avoids these kinds of mix ups over a widely misunderstood policy (or lack thereof), and B) it's usually better to arrange for some uninvolved admin to watchlist the page and keep an eye out for potential problems. There's often a difference between being technically correct and practically correct. Contrary to popular belief, being technically correct isn't always the best kind of correct. GMG ^talk 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem "practical", it seems "pro forma" - the hope and purpose of the warning is to head-off potential problems before they begin - it cannot be as effective in doing that, without being placed there by whoever happens to see it belongs, asap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's practical to the extent that an uninvolved admin is within arm's reach. If not, having another uninvolved experienced user add and watchlist is a close second. Either way avoids the impression that it's being used to score some kind of rhetorical points, which is an easy assumption for folks in a charged discussion to make. GMG ^talk

Suggestion I've just added the DS notice to Soil carbon feedback, Climate engineering and Arctic sea ice decline, and while i would prefer an automatic bot driven update to these pages, I think it can be considered as uncontroversial when adding these notices, as long there is no ongoing content disput. Hence, factoring in above suggestions, during an ongoing dispute an admin would be the prefered entity to update these pages accordingly. prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the clarifications and suggestions here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my old .js pages from my previous user rename

Done. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

My account was renamed in June 2017. Please can these redirects be deleted:

Thanks! – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caste rules and BLPs

Hey, I need a quick refresher on Wikipedia policy/guidelines on Indian caste identification for BLPs. Isn't the threshold for inclusion that an article subject has to self-identify as ___ caste? Am I imagining that? What's the relevant guideline? Though WP:CASTE reinforces that there's SOMETHING serious about caste identification, the relevant community/ARBCOM decisions are missing from the instruction sheet. 1) I need to know the relevant thingy, and 2) can people more familiar with the caste issue please update at least the more prominent warning templates to include clear explanations and links to relevant policies? Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#List_of_members_of_X_caste. Self-identification is required. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Thanks for the info. Wow, that's a lot of stuff to read. What about for dead people? Same deal? They'd need to have self identified somewhere? Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sitush/Common#Castelists summarises. No need for self-identification for dead people but BLP applies to recently deceased and we also have to be careful regarding caste-affiliated website claims etc. Personally, I'm not even very happy about using news sources for it: it is rarely of much significance and the Indian media in particular seem to grab a lot of filler detail from Wikipedia, creating a circular situation. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may be unfamiliar with BLP and why its applied to caste. The Indian caste system is bound up in large part with ethnicity & religion. You belong to X caste, you are assumed to belong to Y ethnic group. And vice versa, you belong to Y ethnicity, well you must be X caste! So if it helps people to understand it, a simplified way of dealing with it is consider 'caste' as 'ethnicity' and treat it the same way under BLP you would treat ethnic groups. EG, require self-identification from living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Mass protection of templates

Due to a recent wave of severe template vandalism (permalink), I've ran a query to find all unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that had over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter. I can make MusikBot report unprotected templates that meet this criteria, but there is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions which reports templates that aren't template-protected. We should probably regularly keep an eye on that. You can use Twinkle's P-Batch module to mass-protect, first pasting the page titles on any page (such as your sandbox). Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this MusikAnimal! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Thank you MusikAnimal. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my thanks too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, MusikAnimal. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MusikBot's dad! —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing your script aparently ignored is pages protected using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - anything with a "noedit" flag is protected even if it exists; ajnything with a "autoconfirmed" flag is semi-protected, while anything without is template-protected. So semi-protecting Template:Taxonomy/Eupitheciini, for example , was unnecessary. Please also keep in mind that anything transcluded in a cascade-protectred page is fully protected; human judgement is necessary to determine if this transclusion is permanent (in which case no protection is needed) or temporary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did not know about some of those features! The title blacklist has precedence (you'll see its warning instead of the page protection warning), correct? If so, is there really harm in the redundancy? Should those items get removed from the title blacklist, or if the cascade-protection of a parent page is lifted, the templates will still have 1,000+ transclusions and hence should probably not be completely open. I might argue that having them protected just-in-case is worthwhile, but anyway I can probably get Twinkle to check for cascade-protection, and looks like there's an API endpoint to see if it's on the title blacklist. I appreciate the feedback (and unexpected praise!), this was simply an effort to plug up these vulnerable loopholes of the project that allow for massive disruption. Any page can be unprotected without consulting me :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those protections. Even if currently redundant, multiple layers of security are desirable. It appears WP:High-risk templates is the only guidance for when something higher than semiprotection should be used. I suppose we will wait for further attacks before contemplating further protection but semi is a very easy hurdle. There is no need to unprotect templates merely to attain anyone can edit purity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel needed ...

... on English people (edits plus edit summaries). The edits in question are the ones that removed some 70K bytes each. I have requested semi-protection at RFPP since it's an IP-hopper, so feel free to do that too... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of the edits I believe. Let me know if I missed one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel'd and protected. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac: I found revdel-worthy edits (edits plus edit summaries) on Tamils too: [1], [2], [3]. There might be more but they're not easy to find since the IP-hopper has a huge net to hop on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - re-opening. On it. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kannada people is also under attack, though it's PC1 so it's being caught. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lingayatism too, but the edits there were revdeled in September, and the article is protected. So it has obviously been going on for a while... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a regular sock, Jimbo and I are favored targets and more recently Ms Sarah Welch. He's been at this for many months. Usually just revert, protect and block, I think Bishonen's blocked a couple of IPs of this charmer too. If this can be added to an edit filter that'd be good, sort of like the Digitalravan thing. —SpacemanSpiff 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. Some 3 months since their anger and disruption has been intensifying! This is a hopping IP. Thanks for the revdels. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User editing a close about themselves

Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)

Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?

Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing [of] a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Wikipedia editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Wikipedia project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Wikipedia to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Review

Partial close. There is consensus on endorsing closure, including the editor directly involved. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorse close. GR's close was simply a warning for Xenophrenic not to repeat the actions which have gotten him a block log full of edit-warring blocks. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing statements should not have ex cathedra opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do not, however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "think you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - a warning to stop edit warring is better than a block, and it's apparent that either were a possible outcome. Although the "when you think you're right" bit may have been better directed at a different editor, a warning that such activity might lead to sanctions is not a personal attack by a wide margin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Clearly an appropriate close with no personal attack and no opinions. It was an accurate summary of the discussion and policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction Discussion

Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm torn on this.~~ On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Wikipedia project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy interpretation

WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Wikipedia", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?

YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG ^talk 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG ^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it ([89], [90], among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106] and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ([107] [108] [109] (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ([121]).
I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct unbecoming an Administrator

NO ACTION

There is a general consensus that while Swarm should have made a reply, there is also recognition that there might have been technical issues resulting in Swarm not being pinged. Everyone is reminded that there are multiple ways of contacting someone. Everyone agrees that admins in general should be more on-top of unblock requests. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a few concerns with how Admin Swarm handled a recent interaction with an editor. Two editors were engaged in a policy and content dispute over a problematic, newly created category template. One of these editors decided to file an AN/I report against the other editor, requesting a topic ban. Within just minutes after this AN/I report was posted, Admin Swarm implemented an account block against the accused editor (me), claiming "(Edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing; see ANI report.)" So I followed this link to AN/I to see this Admin's reasoning and discovered that Admin Swarm had made a misinformed assessment and was not fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation. Since I had been instantly blocked and could not access AN/I, I instead provided additional information for him to consider on my Talk page, and asked if he would then please review his admin action with me.

Per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

All I got was silence. Just in case the ping-utility didn't work, I pinged and asked again. More silence. I even asked if he would at least give me the courtesy of informing me that he has received my communication. More silence, even as I type this, while he continues with his other activities on Wikipedia. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain it to me? (PLEASE NOTE: I am not addressing whether the block was right or wrong here; my concern is about the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) In addition to this refusal to respond to a query about an admin action, Admin Swarm also made an unprovoked personal attack by claiming there was "strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present." I asked Admin Swarm if he would please provide the diffs and evidence that warranted such an attack.

Per WP:WIAPA: "What is considered to be a personal attack? Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Again, the only response I received was silence. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain what I am misunderstanding here? (PLEASE NOTE: I make no argument here about whether the "comment on behavior" was right or wrong, until I see the 'evidence' that provoked it; my concern is about the violation of WP:NPA and the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) And finally, when another editor suggested that I be conditionally unblocked to allow me to respond to the allegations and aspersions being hurled at me at AN/I, Admin Swarm responded, "You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I."

Per WP:Block policy: "Users may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block."

I suppose Admin Swarm could be genuinely clueless about this fairly common practice of allowing accused editors to defend themselves in real time. However, given the above two examples of Admin Swarm's aversion to discussion, I must admit my good faith has been exhausted when I consider why he also might not want me engaging in discussion in my defense at AN/I. If I've misunderstood our blocking policy regarding this, please explain it to me. You can find all of my failed efforts to communicate with Admin Swarm starting here: on my Talk page; and you can find the full AN/I thread conducted while I was blocked archived here: ANI Thread. Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sort of resolution you seem to be after, it is highly unlikely you are going to get it. I suggest you drop the stick and go take a break for a bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The resolution I seek? (1) For Swarm to respond to my request regarding his Admin action, and also his "POV-pushing" remark. And (2), for clarification regarding whether I've interpreted the above policies correctly (both wording and "spirit") or misinterpreted them. As for your "drop the stick" comment, I suggest you either offer productive commentary that helps to resolve issues keep your unhelpful comments to yourself. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xenophrenic: Could you please desist from edit-summaries such as this; you may not like the advice you have been given, but is is certainly not trolling, and accusations like that are firmly within WP:NPA territory. — fortunavelut luna 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you are right, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but that was a one-off. I do know better than to put anything questionable in edit summaries, as I can't redact it, but the frustration from the above discourse got the better of me and carried over here. Apologies to Only in death; I'm sure you meant well, but "taking a break" is probably the worst option I can consider right now. I'm hoping instead to see productive resolutions to all of the above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good chap, nice one. — fortunavelut luna 17:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: pings don't always work and some users can turn off the notifications. I have no idea if Swarm has done so, but I do see that you did not try to write on their talk page. Talk page posts trigger a different kind of notification, and maybe Swarm would have responded if you had done so. You're also required to post such a notice when you start a thread about a user on this noticeboard: the instructions in the big orange box above the editor say that the use of "pings" is not sufficient. Please do that now, and then see if Swarm responds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will notify them on their Talk page of this discussion immediately. As for my previous notifications of Swarm to my requests, I used the "ping" utility, and I used the "User:" notification function, and he was alerted by other editors at the AN/I discussion that I had responded to him, and he had posted a comment at my user Talk page (which is when most editors put the page on their Watchlist), so I feel fairly confident that he was aware of my many attempts to communicate with him. As I was blocked at the time, there was no way I could visit his Talk page. But hey - technology can be a funny thing; I'll wait to see what he says. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, brother. The situation was self-explanatory in the ANI complaint and my response to it, you were edit warring and beating a dead horse, as you are now. Nothing was preventing you from shooting me an email, or coming to my talk page, which you didn't do, so spare us the ridiculous rogue admin implications. The block was justified and accounted for. Accountability isn't the issue. You disagreeing with it is. Swarm ♠ 18:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You say the "situation was self-explanatory", and I say there was more to it than that; and since I was actually involved in it, I might actually have a clue. Are you saying that since you felt it was "self-explanatory", I didn't deserve an explanation or justification for your Admin action, despite my several petitions to you? Are you saying I didn't even deserve a response to my request to simply let me know If you will not be commenting further? And now that I formally complain about such treatment, you say that I should have emailed you, or waited until my long block expired and then visited you at your talk page? Do I understand you correctly? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really discussing a review on a block that expired 35 days ago? --Jayron32 14:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't arrived at a "review on a block" yet, which I certainly wouldn't file (Spoiler alert!) before first discussing the block with the blocking Admin. What we are discussing here is WP:ADMINACCT. The issue isn't stale, but was delayed a bit first by my interaction with Admin GoldenRing, and then by news that Swarm's attendance here would be strained in the aftermath of hurricanes in the South East US. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't know if there's anything to be done at this point, the events were certainly less than ideal: an ANI thread is opened against Xenophrenic; 30 minutes later, Xenophrenic is blocked for two weeks; the next day, Xenophrenic responds in detail to challenge the basis for the block and the allegations at ANI; after a couple days of no response, Xenophrenic pings; after a couple more days, he files an unblock request; none of these questions, comments, or challenges received any response at all, as far as I can tell, until a procedural decline after the block expired. This seems like fairly standard ADMINACCT business, no? (the responding to queries about admin actions and/or justifying them beyond what's in the block template).

Regarding The situation was self-explanatory in the ANI complaint and my response to it, if the complaint was self-explanatory, Xenophrenic's detailed response to the accusations should be relatively easy to shoot down. You're not obliged to rehash/repeat every little objection someone brings up, but even a terse response to what he wrote would've been better than nothing. As it stands, it looks like within a half hour of the complaint being made, you made a judgment about a situation and didn't feel it necessary to take the blocked person's point of view into consideration. I would understand that in the case of a vandal or if it were an uncomplicated 3RR issue, but it wasn't either.

Again, I don't know that there's anything to be done at this point aside from a trout, but it's a shame to see this simply dismissed based on time (is the statute of limitations for people to get over what they perceive as an unjust block, being entirely ignored for two weeks, only a month?) or pings (if you're making blocks, that seems odd that it would be acceptable to turn pings off unless you're very good at watching pages -- doesn't seem like this was the issue, though). Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. Not ideal, but unlikely to result in much. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then yes, that is a problem: If a long-standing user contests a block with a reasonable defense, they are entitled to a reasonable response in a reasonable amount of time. What we do going forward, given that the block expired a month ago and that nothing can really be changed, is to perhaps admonish all involved in ignoring the requests to in the future do better. So please everyone, do better. We do owe it as admins to be able to explain our actions, and reasonable requests to explain them at the time are not onerous. Still, on the "what do we do now to fix the problem" is "there's nothing to fix anymore. Sorry!" Just do better. --Jayron 32 15:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable response was provided by the blocking admin in the ANI report. "This would be a typical block for continued edit warring". This is Xenophrenic's block log. A 2 week block was lenient in the circumstances. No further explanation was necessary or required. The only defense is a credible argument they were not edit-warring. I have yet to see one put forward. Even those editors vaguely supportive in the discussion do not deny they were edit-warring. Xenophrenic's continuation at this point is just being disruptive. They had an explanation for the block. Its unarguably within the remit of the admin to give given their history and actions that caused it. I repeat there is no outcome to this that will make Xenophrenic happy. Since they have declined the advice I gave earlier to willingly drop the stick, I am now suggesting they are told to and this report is closed. ADMINACCT has been more than satisfied. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. That was not a "response", as it was made even before I returned home and discovered the AN/I thread and the associated spurious block. There has been no response, which is the basis of this complaint - no, seriously, go read it. As for your personal conclusions and comments about whether the block was valid or not, and what you "have yet to see" or completely fail to see, or whether my "history and actions" justified the Admin action or actually did not -- none of this is germane to the issue at hand. Have I declined your "advice"? Of course, as I find it uninformed and unhelpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a post-block question asked; even if the response had been "Look, I explained this already in the ANI report, please read it again" would have been sufficient. It is expected that blocked people will often ask for clarification, and it is not unreasonable to expect a response, no matter how terse. I agree, if Xenophrenic had repeatedly pretended to not understand once he was answered, that would be one thing. No attempt, however, was ever made to respond even once. That's very different. A single request for clarification is not unreasonable, and should be responded to promptly in some manner by some body, whether the blocking admin or anyone else. The proper response to the first request for an explanation should not be "nothing". Of course, people sometimes refuse to "get the point"; I don't see that in this one case. I do agree, however, that 35 days later is past the dead horse phase, which is why I said the proper response at this point is "do nothing"; not because Xenophrenic wasn't entitled to some answer back in late August, but because at this point there's no possible remediation. In the future, all admins should be reminded they are required to at least acknowledge reasonable questions; even if only to direct the blocked person to the rationale (if such rationale is sufficient). Ignoring all attempts at communication is not acceptable. --Jayron 32 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: - To be clear (and I really should have indicated what I see as a "fix to the problem" in my original post), I'm not looking to have Swarm stripped naked and marched around the Village Pump while the community shouts Shame, Shame, Shame. I outlined above three issues, and the 3rd one I'm fairly certain will be handled differently by Swarm in the future. That leaves his refusal to discuss his Admin action (a long block), and his refusal to discuss his accusation that an editor is editing to strongly push a POV instead of NPOV editing. Swarm's only response here is to insist his reasoning is so "self-explanatory" as to not even warrant a response to my disagreement. So I must beg to differ with your conclusion, Jayron, that this is a "dead horse" issue. To the contrary, it is less than 24 hours old. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not taking these accusations seriously but this just seems a little disingenuous. So I didn't see someone ping me. My bad. But seriously, nothing was stopping them from actually contacting me. You know, like we did before pinging was imvented? But instead, they come here, after all this time, with a completely manufactured controversy about me ignoring them, in spite of them making no actual attempts to communicate with me after they tried pinging. Again, I fully stand behind the block as justified and accounted for. That's it. Swarm ♠ 22:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, I think we can all AGF and accept that you missed his pings, and didn't simply disregard them – mistakes happen. But, also assuming good faith, can you not see things from Xenophrenic's point of view? Really, this whole thing could probably be resolved immediately, if instead of a flippant "My bad", you offered a sincere apology. How difficult is that? You'd earn a shitload more of my respect if you did, instead of digging your heels in. A little bit of courtesy goes a long way – especially here on Wikipedia, where it seems to be in short supply. Mojoworker (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely and utterly disagree. That would require ignoring the gravity of this situation. It's no light thing to bring somebody to AN/I, particularly to make a spurious bad faith accusation of admin abuse, with a sensationalist section header that will attract as much drama and attention as possible. Surely you understand that it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who's publicly accusing you of malicious intent in the most dramatic way possible, when in reality they made no sincere attempt to address the issue with you in any way. This user could have done something as simple as posting a talkback on my talk page. Or a single sentence asking why I didn't respond. But they didn't. Why? Why would they rather go through all this time, drama and effort, before posting a single sentence on my talk page? It doesn't make sense, unless they wanted the drama. And that smacks of typical block vendetta that we have to deal with when we block someone, and I'm not in the habit of accommodating that. This user has a penchant for grudges, as evidenced by the situation that led to the block, and in my view this is the very same problematic behavior manifesting itself. Sorry, I'm not playing into it. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I can see your point as well. It's a bad situation all around. I hope the way his unblock request was mishandled is a rarity – it could easily be misconstrued as admins closing ranks. The whole thing saddens me. Mojoworker (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:Swarm gets pings very well (testing). Relying on a ping is not a good idea with any user. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to receive pings, as I assume every user is. I can't confirm whether these pings worked because my notifications don't go back that far. They could have just been buried in my notifications, or accidentally marked as read. Regardless I can't guarantee I'll catch and respond to every ping I receive. I'm far too busy both on this project and in real life. To demand perfection in this regard would be foolishness. If you need to talk to me, just contact me directly on or off-wiki. It's not that hard. Swarm ♠ 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need for timely unblock reviews

I have not reviewed the merits of this dispute. However, I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance. (I have stayed away from contentious unblock reviews this year because of the possibility they will come to arbitration, but perhaps I ought to reconsider that.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, essentially. Thanks for the reminder. I'm off to work through that backlog myself. --Jayron 32 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to clear out or at least respond to anything substantially older than 1 week old. I hope that helps. It's a good reminder that we should be, as admins, checking in to common backlogs to stop things from getting out of control. --Jayron 32 20:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin and I haven't looked at that particular backlog in some time. I'm part of the problem and I'll make more of an effort to address unblock requests going forward. A Train^talk 16:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron, for clearing the queue, and A Train for acknowledging the problem and pledging to help do something about it. I know I'd be hopping mad if my unblock request had been mishandled the same way. Is this another clarion call for RfA reform? I fear things will only get worse as time passes. It's a shame that User:Huon didn't pass on to other admins that the unblock request was languishing. As I mentioned above, this could easily be misconstrued as admins closing ranks, which does our overworked admins a disservice. But the fact the ball was dropped in this instance saddens me. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Swarm ♠ 23:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

62.151.64.39 and WP:COMPETENCE

blocked 48 hours. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

62.151.64.39 (talk · contribs)

A stream of unwanted and unconstructive changes, with plenty of warnings. Some are trivial, the non-trivial are factually inaccurate. I'd raise this at AIV, but AIV doesn't seem to handle COMPETENCE any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a "stop this now or I'll block" note on their talk page. I'll keep an eye on their contribs, and if they ignore that, I'll block. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted another totally unnecessary edit from this user. [122] – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Electricity Supply Board (Ireland) logo.png

I have updated and then rescaled ESB logo per their request at Ticket:2017100610009671. Please remove old revisions of the file. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we have automatic systems that take care of that. I've done one bit manually; the rest will be processed by bots in due course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will remember this tag for my future uploads. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working toward correcting Issues with article The Marketer (Building)

Admin Team, I was working with another admin to keep a page from being deleted. But have since had my thread removed by the admin. Can someone please help me resolve a page being deleted that I do not believe should have been. I am willing to put in the work necessary to make sure the page meets the standards required by Wikipedia. The page was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketer_(Building)Arachlow (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow[reply]

I completely agree with the deletion. The page was spam from the very first sentence onward. "The Marketer is four floors of forward thinking"? The building MIGHT be notable, but is needs to be rewritten from a completely neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing the underlying content, It's been deleted for unredeemable Advertising. It would require a fundamental rewrite. In the future you can try using Articles for Creation to start building the page so that you can get guidance as to how to improve the page prior to being in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I observe the prose that you, Arachlow have added is quite... flowery. Please review WP:COI and determine if you have something you'd like to declare regarding The Marketer (Building) and Empower MediaMarketing (the company that built the building as it's headquarters). Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making further observation that after the above was observed the user removed content they added earlier today to support the usage of the Marketer building. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) User has put a pseudo COI declaration on Empower MediaMarketing so I think that wraps this issue up. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

The discussion has changed from "give one editor an exception" to "is this technically possible" to "should we even do this at all". There is a VPP RFC ongoing, and until such time as it is concluded (and the technical possibilities worked out) there's nothing more to do in this particular thread. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMvHO, it would be useful if The Rambling Man was granted the template editor privilege to allow him to fix errors that appear on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Granting such a privilege would mean that the associated templates would need to be dropped from protection at admin level to protection at template editor level. Doing so would mean that other template editors could also assist in the maintenance of the Main Page.

This is an issue which, I feel, should be discussed rather than an admin boldly going ahead and doing it. I've asked TRM whether he would like the privilege, and he says he would. For all his faults, he is not a vandal and I feel it would be safe to grant him the privilege. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM informed of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, absolutely. I can think of a few other editors that regularly post to WP:ERRORS that it might be worth granting the right to as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand I do not know any reason not to do this user right change. On the other hand mainpage templates are cascade protected and can only be edited by admins, not template editors, so it might not work for the proposed scope. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why not, but I share the same concerns as JoJo Eumerus above. While I have no doubt that TRM will use it correctly (he's a brilliant content contributor), I'm not sure the proposed scope will be accessible. (consider this a support !vote). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a technical issue, then that can be discussed at the appropriate venue once it has been agreed that the proposal has consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Xaosflux was the last person to cascade protect the main page (after an admin account was hacked and unprotected it), so he would be a suitable starting point to suggest if it's technically doable or not, and if there are any risks. I would further suggest that any changes to the Main Page's protection should get a firm consensus here and also be publicised at the Village Pump, possibly by an RfC. We don't want somebody to turn up a month later and yell "why wasn't I informed?" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing. It's possible to drop things like the DYK Queues down to TE protection, but that would be it. Further, TE guidelines for granting includes no behavioral blocks in the past 6 months. I see no reason to deviate from that here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, BU Rob13, it's a guideline, not something that has been set in stone. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing." - what policy covers that? The main page has been around far longer than TE protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: From a technical standpoint, we can only cascade full protection. This is unchangeable without giving all editors access to protection up to the level that they have access at (e.g. any TE could TE protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page). See WP:CASCADE and Bugzilla:8796. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, looks like it's technically impossible, and short of Plan B we're stuck:-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing TRM was granted TE privileges, could he edit the template for tomorrow's OTD? Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is is technically possible to allow cascading full protection and cascading template editor protection, but not cascading semiprotection and cascading (anything else) protection? Also, @BU Rob13:, I think it's worse than that, the policy to me reads that any TE could FULLY protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right actually. I misread. It's completely technically infeasible to cascade TE because the cascaded protection is always full. I doubt the WMF will change that in the software. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deja-vu - didn't we already have a discussion about TE-protecting DYK a few months back? I'm pretty sure we did. Back then, there was no support for it for various reasons. Imho, if we consider this, we should consider this outside TRM, because other prolific DYK contributors such as Cwmhiraeth would benefit as well. And I think WP:VPP should be the correct venue to discuss it. Regards So Why 09:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said 'prolific' when a more accurate word would be 'error-prone'. There is little point in giving TRM the authority to fix problems, if you also give the same to the very people who cause them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on! But then, since when did Wikipedia ever solve its problems without creating more :) — fortunavelut luna 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should discuss the proposed change to how we protect the relevant pages first in a general context, then the grant of TE to those that would need it. This affects more than one editor. WJBscribe (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about making software changes, the logical step to me is to unbundle the ability to edit and protect pages from the other admin tools, and then hand the new user right to all our OTD/DYK/ITN regulars who would not qualify for adminship. Both common sense and technical reasons suggest that reducing protection levels is not the way to go. I've no issues with giving TRM the user right, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to him at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to implement a way for non-admin regulars at the main page processes to edit the main page directly, this is the correct conversation to have. If we want to have it though, we need to fire it up as a full RFC, complete with WP:CENT posting, and the whole nine yards. This also might not be the most appropriate venue (a village pump is probably better.) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. I predict a front page full of cricket items. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

It's hard to talk about unbundling page protection without unbundling the ability to block. Not having the latter ability would lead to editors using the former inappropriately as their only way to directly control disruption (rationale along the lines of WP:Relist bias). I'm generally supportive of unbundling, but unbundling protection alone would worry me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be totally unprecedented to create a separate protection category of "main page protection" similar to templates, to step down from full, and allow editing for a select group of non adims. GMG ^talk 13:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely would be unprecedented to create a new protection level intended for a single page, but more importantly, it would be unfeasible without substantial changes in how cascading protection works. Cascading protection is always full, even if you cascade off of a semi-protected page, so everything transcluded on the main page will always be fully protected unless we get rid of cascading protection entirely (which we will not do for obvious reasons). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to this on the merits, but as noted above, I think this would change a WHOLE lot of ways the main page works in terms of protection of the various templates and the usual way we what is basically an admin-level provision. If it were as simple as "grant someone permission X and they could do it" i'd be fine with that. The discussion above leads me to think there are doubts that it is that simple, and if so, we should probably have a discussion as to how to implement such a policy first. If I am mistaken, that is, if it is as simple as "flip a switch and he can do it" then please correct me. --Jayron 32 13:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically its not a real problem. The question is 'should we?' I have zero qualms about letting TRM fiddle around with the main page to his hearts content. I have many many qualms, a qualmcano, about letting lots of the editors involved in DYK at the finished page. Apart from the inherent conflict most of them have with chasing credit for getting their stuff on the front page, the DYK archives are absolutely full of quality-control issues. You don't let the people causing problems have control of the keys. Without some sort of decent vetting process beyond the usual nepotistic 'this admin thinks editor X deserves the right' applied to many user-rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle I think the idea of devolving, ever so slightly, some of the rights to edit the main page is a good idea. And more specifically TRM, setting aside his recent controversies, is one of the best editors we have for all things main page, especially ERRORS. Unfortunately my command of tech pretty much peaked with the advent of the electric typewrite so I am going to have to defer to our more tech savvy editors as to the practicality of the suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is another way around this. Would it be technically possible to allow an editor to edit a specific page/template through the normal protection when said editor would normally be excluded from editing said page/template? This could also work in reverse to exclude an editor from a specific page/template when they would normally be able to edit it. Could be useful for reducing disruption by certain editors. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its called being an admin ;) (short version, that's part of the admin rights). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death, you seem to have misread what I wrote. Have italicised the important bit to make it clearer. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I got what you meant. To edit through any normal protection you either need a user-right that allows you to (template-editor etc) or be a member of a group that has those rights auto-granted for that particular protection level. Short of being an admin, those particular pages would need to be shifted away from cascade protection which would only allow admins to edit them. As the page inherits the protection from above - you would need to take it out of the protection tree or create an entirely new user-right - effectively unbundle the particular user-right from the admin set in order to allow non-admins to edit through it. Granted I don't think its inherently bad allowing certain editors to edit through various protection levels, its just in this particular series of pages there are a number of issues coming together. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked whether or not this would be technically possible at WP:VPT#Editing through protection. No point running a RFC until we have the answer to that one, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alsee has come up with an interesting solution. Have subpages of the templates that TEs can edit, with an admin bot tasked with copying over to the actual templates that make up the main page. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Isn't this similar to what's being done at DYK already, if the queues were TE protected? Not sure how similar system can be implemented in ITN though since it's always changing. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. I'm speaking as an editor/admin here, not as an Arb, and not having discussed this with my fellow arbs. Note: all the technicalities involved aren't so interesting to me; the principle, that TRM has been good to the front page, is what matters. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would take some seriously funky stuff to make this useful, but I'd note that cascading protection doesn't appear to apply to a user's own .js pages; if one's .js page is transcluded onto a cascade-protected page, one will get a warning about the page being cascade-protected, but still allow the page to be edited, even for a non-admin. To illustrate, I applied cascading protection to User:WK-test/sandbox, which transcludes User:WK-test/sandbox.js and User:WK-test/sandbox2; WK-test was able to create and edit sandbox.js, despite not being an admin account and the page being subject to the cascading protection, while sandbox2 was full-protected as usual. Probably too janky to be effective, but in theory this could be used to make user-by-user exceptions to cascading protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that TRM was recently blocked in service to an ArbCom remedy. If a experienced user cannot restrict themselves from gegging into problematic issues, how much trouble do you think they could get into willfully? I express my "No" opinion on this request per WP:TPEGRANT The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. ArbCom enforcement blocks are effectively the Red-est letter behaviorial blocks there are. If TRM can keep their nose clean from September 25 2017 + 6 months, then we can re-investigate. Otherwise I don't see the benefit to the community of fixing these errors sooner vs granting a permission to an editor who prima facie does not meet the requriements. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are utterly missing the point of this thread.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the general principle posted at WP:VPP#RFC: Proposal to allow Template Editors the ability to indirectly edit the Main Page and listed on CENT. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reference desk discussions

'Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς.' Of possible interest, now as much as the future. — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link amended to point to correct venue. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link still wasn't going to the right place so I amended it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone reading the straw poll to pay extra attention to the threaded discussion section. I have been moving threaded comments out of the Straw Poll and intro the Threaded Discussion in response to an editor who really, really likes to WP:BLUDGEON. If we allow him to insert replies into the straw poll section, that section will quickly become a huge mess with that one editor's comments taking up over 90% of the space. The downside is that there are some really astute comments that may be missed if the reader doesn't read the threaded comments section. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one? There are at least FOUR editors that you're refusing to talk to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of জঙ্গলবাসী

Can somebody please create this category? Could the creation of such categories be automated? Rathfelder (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, an older account was found, the cat is now at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bishal_Khan. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bengali username was real good!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly User talk:Devsharma Bajpai showed up on my radar this morning after an odd posting at the village pump. I don't speak hindi, related? Apparantly his usertalk is poetry.. I don't generally believe in coincidences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably, I fail to spot any coincidence.I have sufficient knowledge of both Bangla and Hindi and there apperars to be neither any account-name-similarity or contribution-similarity.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, perhaps you can find out what Devsharma wants then :D I will drop it in your lap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death:(edit conflict)Anyways, Bajpai looks to be the usual sub-continental editor, eagerly wilful to use WP in self-promotion.His t/p post would read:--Devasharma Bajpai from Seetapur, Uttar Pradesh, is the brightest doyen of Hindi literature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has not solved my problem, which is existence of the red category attached to User:Nidhi Tumar which I am not allowed to create. Why can the template not create the category? Rathfelder (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our software just doesn't work that way; only human edits (and edits by bots, which MediaWiki can't distinguish from edits by humans) are able to create anything. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Procedural unblock" template

I declined Draft:Template:Unblock procedural recently, mostly because we already have {{unblock}} and {{unblock reviewed}} (and {{Unblock request declined}} was deleted at TFD) and because I didn't see much of a reason to have another unblock template. However, just because I wouldn't use it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Bringing this up here since it's (clearly) an admin issue.

So I guess the question is - do we need a template that gives a "procedural close" of an unblock (i.e. a very specific instance of declining an unblock) as opposed to just declining using the standard decline template? Primefac (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big user of procedural closes. I often do so when a user is complaining about an IP block but does not include their IP address. I typically word it something like, "Procedural decline only. You did not include your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS." Note that WhatIsMyIP uses ads, so may not be the best choice. For the record, I have no idea who runs that service and am completely unrelated with them. Note also, I add the user's talk page to my watch list; people sometimes follow up just with their IP address rather than a new unblock request. So, anyway, yeah, I'd use a template like what I just outlined. How useful it'd be to others, I'm unsure. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest http://myip.dnsomatic.com/? Absolutely no ads there. —Wasell^(T) 19:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, like the idea of a procedural template. When someone makes multiple unblock requests and those requests get declined, it's routinely taken as a solid indication that we need to cut off talkpage access, or at least it's seen as a good indication that future requests should be taken with a grain of salt. For this reason, when running across an unblock request that's malformed, I generally don't decline it — I nowiki it (and give an explanation of course), lest a later admin think that it's an outright rejection. There's a big difference between This request doesn't deserve an unblock and There's a good reason why I shouldn't unblock you, but it's unrelated to the merits of your request (especially when there's a technical problem preventing unblock, e.g. Yamla's situation where we need to know an IP address that the user didn't provide the, or when user simply forgot to specify an unblock rationale); the former is a rejection based on the user and the latter a decline based on the situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, see the BlackAmerican discussion several sections below this one. Right now, this user's talk page has five unblock templates — three that were rejected and two that were declined on procedural grounds, basically because the user's gotten a checkuser block that mustn't be overturned merely by an admin coming along. When your request is declined because Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request, it would be nice if there were a template different from the one used to reject your request because You have been using this account to evade blocks on other accounts. The fact that you have got away with it for months does not make it acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the idea of a procedural close template too - I usually nowiki them too, and that's not entirely satisfactory. Maybe one with a "What you should do next" section? In many cases it should be obvious what to do next (like "procedural close because there's a new unblock request"), but with things like the BlackAmerican one, some guidance is needed - and, of course, what might seem obvious can be surprisingly not obvious at all to newcomers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because it is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

We hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pub

Not going to happen. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village Pub which is headed for WP:SNOW delete. ansh 666 19:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's a warning that article talk pages are not to be forums. But discussion of life in general can generate ideas that can be edited to Wikipedia.

Therefore, unless it is illegal, I have started Wikipedia:Village Pub and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_Pub

If you think this is not permitted, do not get mad. Just let me know. Happy Editing! AGrandeFan (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM? Also, perhaps with a glance towards WP:BIAS, it doesn't look much like a pub on the Falls Road, you know :p :D — fortunavelut luna 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, isn't the old social working element of WP a perennial proposal? Or sumfin like that anyway... — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 in 3 new pubs close before a year is out... Primefac (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of keeping it, per WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM, but if it's going to be kept, it needs a different name, as it's too similar to WP:Village pump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point; I don't know what to think about the idea of having such a page, but yes it ought to get a different name. Maybe go with the Wikinews idea and call it WP:Water cooler. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - We already have the ref desk that we can't get rid of. The last thing we need is another enclave of exception to WP:NOTFORUM. Best case scenario is it gets popular enough to have behavioral problems the community can't address because you've already violated one of the fundamental tenants of the project. GMG ^talk 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but WP:Village pump already covers all that is needed, including an idea lab. The problem with starting a chat forum is that it would encourage people to focus on chatting, and those people will assume that the procedures that apply at other webforums also apply to pages on Wikipedia, with a likely increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. There is also WP:RD where too much chat occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, can we also discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink. Or, in the spirit of these things, can we discuss holding a RfC to discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink...? Vis á vis, the Augean stables... — fortunavelut luna 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's to discuss? Start an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and advertise it on WP:Centralized discussions, and away we go! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No: as duplicate and unnecessary (as much as I'd like a drink). WP:Water cooler would be a better title indeed if it was ever going to be kept although the initials would be synonymous with water closet (!) Alex Shih ^Talk 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure WP:WC would love to take a break and have a pint; I'm sure we could usurp the redirect Primefac (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thoughts of referring newcomers with the lines of "Have you checked our WP:WC? It's a great place to relieve yourself from the stress of editing Wikipedia." ... I've proposed the pub for MfD. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"What the hell kind of pub is this? The beer is watery and smells funny." --Calton | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we have IRC, if you want to chat to wikipedians without being strictly on topic then bumble over to #wikipedia-en on freenode. (disclaimer: important stuff is disscused there sometimes). Dysklyver 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: That just links back here atm — fortunavelut luna 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O sorry you need to see Wikipedia:IRC and look for the channel #wikipedia-en. Dysklyver 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or use #wikipedia-en ^connect. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Volunteer Marek 23:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No - We have entirely too much social media grade activity as it is. We are a collaborative project, which means some side discussions are expected and tolerated. Having a place to do nothing but that, is not a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a practical benefit for this? Real world for business corporations do sometimes have company celebrations and company holidays or company parties and the like; perhaps there is some (morale? socialization?) benefit of having occasional chat fora as opposed to solely business oriented fora such as ANI or the Village Pumps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible decade-old hoaxes

I came across this after another editor (Slashme) did so. Neither he nor I can find what he is talking about (I've searched the pages at Category:15th-century Russian people, but none seem to contain the hoax). Is there a way of searching contributions in general (i.e. not by a specific user), or some other way of finding these supposed hoaxes? Thought this should be posted here as the person has said he'll be adding more such hoaxes in the near future. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility, of course, is that the post itself is the hoax, since some of us would probably bend over backwards trying to figure out exactly what was posted by this guy. If it's a wasted effort, then their opening statement ("my hobby is fucking with Wikipedia") would be fruitful. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's a possibility, but if there's even the slightest chance it's real, it should probably be investigated. Hoaxes are not to be taken lightly. The post looks credible. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He wants to fuck with Wikipedia? Can we get him a job on the board, keep it in-house...? :p — fortunavelut luna 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also considered the possibility that it's a meta-hoax, and the details are clearly not trustworthy, but it's definitely credible enough to warrant investigation. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no cardinals until the 18th century in Russia (Cardinals is a notion from the Roman Catholic Church). If someone can run a search on Russian personalia before 1700 which contain the word "cardinal" I can take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Shein contains the words "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" - and also has this "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica" - wondering if this is it? AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit adding this was the only one ever made by an IP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @AusLondonder:, I removed the cardinal, he was clearly not in his place. Shein is actually an important figure in Russian history, and it is a pity that the article is based on the 1911 source. I will see whether I can find smth better.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same edit made by similar IP also in 2009; this time to a 16th century German religious figure. This sad little fucker calls this a hobby apparently. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "cardinal" is mentioned in this self-published book available on Amazon, apparently what that guy means about it being in a book. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some googling to see what turned up and after a lot of sleuthing found quite a few hits. This is in addition to the one in the Shein article.

Removed by User:Andreas Philopater and was present from the time of its insertion in 2009 by 209.203.104.177, until today.
Also removed by Andreas Philopater today. Inserted in 2009 by 63.173.58.164.
Inserted by 64.129.196.204 and removed by DivermanAU in September this year.
Found this one by 204.212.10.124 in 2009, but picked up in 2014 by Parvulus scholasticus
And this one by 24.63.31.232 in 2008 and removed this April by 2a02:8084:20:b900:fdb0:a516:7555:fafe
This edit by 24.127.231.98 in 2008, removed in 2015 by Concord.
Added in 2012 by Iamthecheese44 and removedby 86.69.180.220 in 2015. In this case, I think it was because Iamthecheese44 read it in the Countess Ina Marie article, who was spouse to Prince Oskar, and thus matched the info up.

Just doing a Google search of "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" and "Wikipedia" shows that this hoax has extended to a number of other sites that use Wikipedia's articles. Also, they were using {{1911}} not {{1885}}, which was to throw us off the trail. --Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: There are apparently "6 fresh edits". Perhaps there's something to be said to closing off Wikipedia to IPs. It would still be the encyclopedia anyone can edit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could have registered a throwaway account instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we need not only to ban IP editing but to implement some sort of significant hurdle for registration, such as solving a captcha and providing a confirmed email address. Instead for some reason WP romanticizes being The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Vandalize.™ Carrite (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to check the recent changes for the 6 fresh edits, but it only shows the last 500 edits, so we'll be lucky to see anything from more than about 10 minutes ago there. Is there any other way to find them? Adam9007 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted a mention of him on Polish Wikipedia. Is this the same? (add: another one on Italian Wikipedia) Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using PetScan to try to find these 6 edits, but have no idea where to begin looking. Adam9007 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would an edit filter perhaps be useful to stop any new insertions? ansh 666 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really impressed! Great work. --Slashme (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few mentions in other languages, which I've cleaned up or asked editors there to help with. --Slashme (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:SummerFunMan

Based on reviewed CU data, block has been changed to a checkuser block. Recent socking means that the Standard Offer is not applicable, so this discussion is being closed with no action. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posted from the appelant's talkpage:

"Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three (3) years. So let's say that if I had waited for the originally prescribed 6 months, and you, the reviewer of this request, were to have said that you felt like you could only trust me if I had paid the price with even more time for some interesting reason, like say... 2 more years, and then even another reviewer said something like, "Nahh, he still isn't sincere enough; let's have him wait another half a year," then I've waited both of those periods out already too. So I've done my time and then already done it again and then some, and then even some more, and really am doing my very best to be very sincere with you now, I promise.
Now, as you may have already seen that the blockage information here states, I was blocked for sockpuppetry instead of being patient enough with the prescribed discussion process back then as I will be now, and this is my master account.
I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay?
One thing you may remember the standard-offer guide saying is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now.
When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style.
But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on, with the kindest wording that I can think of to try to help other editors stay willing to keep discussing with me until the concern is resolved, just like I'm doing my best to do so right now.
I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now by following the expected boldness/reversion/discussion cycle--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project."

Please see the page history at User talk:P004ME2 for additional context. When I ran a CU for that appeal, I found no other activity beyond these two accounts. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See here: [123]. The user had been socking as recently as the rejected appeals above on the P004ME2 account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @RickinBaltimore: What is that diff supposed to show? A blocked editor editing their user talk page from an already blocked account isn't a reason to oppose, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's honestly stupid vandalism, and adds to the fact the user isn't here to work constructively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RickinBaltimore. Patient Zero^talk 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BU Rob13. — fortunavelut luna 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to the SummerFunMan sockpuppet investigation on User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" - is this the same user? Peter James (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm always one for giving people another chance, so if there's been no recent socking (and I don't see any sign that there has - the unblock attempt at the long-blocked sock P004ME2 really doesn't count), then I say let him back and try again. We have little to lose and potentially a lot to gain if he becomes a productive contributor - and as they say, blocks are cheap, so I don't see much risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 100% guaranteed to be a timesink. Stupid graffiti on user talk page while blocked. Requests unblock of User talk:P004ME2 because they prefer that name. Reams of wikilawyering on sock's talk page. Whether this should be a block that lasts another couple of years while they mature some more, or this should be an infinite block because they are never going to mature, I don't understand the expected benefit (any expected benefit) that would outweigh the obvious cost now. Suggest declining request, removing talk page access, and allow an OTRS request to restore talk page access in 2 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if User:Master of Puppets, User:Yunshui, and User:JamesBWatson would like to estimate the amount of time they've spent dealing with this person the last 3 weeks? "Outweigh the obvious costs" is not a rhetorical device; there are real, concrete costs associated with dealing with people like this, and those costs increase dramatically when they're unblocked and allowed to goof around sitewide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I would tentatively oppose this standing offer based purely on the request reason. I've done my time (not a valid rationale), I would like to learn why they (multiple accounts) are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay? (shows inability to distinguish illegitimate use of multiple accounts), I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on (Really? WP:GAME?). I don't think the user still understand the reason why they were blocked, and the subsequent response by the user on their talk page just further consolidates the point. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am not overwhelmed with confidence that this will end well based on their own statement, but it has been three years and everyone deserves a second chance. Blocks are cheap, and many eyes will be on them, ensuring a fast block if needed. Given the two options, unblocking is more likely to produce a positive outcome, but just barely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWpose - the appellant, as they have been dubbed, has continued the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. I also have the exact same concerns as Alex Shih regarding their appeal. I want to believe its sincere, but, I just don't think it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current Socking

It's been confirmed via CheckUser evidence that SummerFunMan has been editing while logged out in recent months. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have confirmed this result also, and add it's been across several months. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that when looking at the P004ME2 appeal, but I've just taken another look and the likelihood of a relationship with the User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" IP sockfarm is pretty evident. On that basis, I'm going to close this discussion and convert the block to a CU block instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:CLEANSTART and victim blaming

I made a tweak; I know, I'm being bold... Please see the talk page for my concerns and my reason for the tweak. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect issue

Hi
This issue is about a rude subject, it is a genuine issue which I can't send to RfD due to page protection, not an attempt to stick rude words on WP:AN.
I have noticed an issue with a redirect Shit hole. Why does it point to the totally unrelated Asshole?.
The defintion is: according to the Oxford Dictionary Shithole - noun vulgar slang. An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place. ‘this place is a shithole, I hope you know that’.
It seems to have nothing to do with its current target. Dysklyver 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can post it at RfD on your behalf, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Shit hole in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there are 2 good ways to handle the tagging of such redirects: Either leave a notre on the RFD discussion (and a passing admin will fix the issue), or leave a {{editprotected}} request on its talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the latter is that redirects don't often have extant talk pages at all, so you'd have to create one, and thus we get into the same blacklisting problem. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an issue for blacklisted titles, not those which are either directly protected, or protected via cscade protection of a transclusing page. Most often, the protection is done directly. And there's always the opion of leaving a comment in the RFD discussion - this may end up delaying the earliest possible close by 24 hours, but many are closed late anyway. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 rangeblock

I just blocked this range, based on the last two IP addresses at Super Mario Land. I cannot find a "damage calculator" for IPv6 addresses, so I'm dropping this here in case someone wants to tell me I blocked the entire SE USA or whatever. Ferret, you have run into this person too, and there's a ton more IPs (I suppose you can drop down the rabbit hole with this list). In other words, if these or others aren't included in the range I blocked and it needs to be expanded, go ahead and jump on in. I'm trying to learn this stuff. Oh, DoRD, I was trying to impress someone in the car the other day, editing from my phone, and guess what--ran into your rangeblock again. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi, you too... Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first run in with the user, noticed because they hit multiple articles on my watchlist. Once I saw they had four warnings already and how extensive, I blocked and started cleanup. (Thanks to all the others who helped revert). For anyone who hasn't looked yet, the IP edits the leads of articles and removes the usual article title formatting, Nihongo templates, etc. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The /67 on the end is better off being /64 (although in this case it did the job). Effectively, with IPv6 a /64 address is usually one editor. You only need to worry about blocking the entire USA when you get to /32 or below ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite beat me to it. Tweak your block to a /64 instead of /67 and you'll be sure to get everything that guy can access at the moment. Stick to blocking /64s and you'll be absolutely fine with collateral. You made a rangeblock! I'm so proud of you! :-) Katie^talk 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh thank you Katie! This means a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, what Katie and Black Kite said. Non-wireless broadband is almost always parceled out as a /64. And Drmies, that serves you right for trying to edit without logging in. ;) —DoRD (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "67" came out of this rangeblock tool...it's linked on Meta...hold on...this tool. Just saying. Thank you all for your help. I was surprised to find this was a fairly prolific vandal, doing his business over a few days. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a poor workman who blames his tools :) --S Philbrick (Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on needless blocks

This morning I was blocked "until 2020" because the CenturyLink internet provider did not inform me that they had changed my IP address and I needed to restart my receiver to get onto the new line. This scary experience, and needless effort on all sides, could be avoided if those who are involved in blocking the line realize it may be only a changed IP on the provider's part: give the guilty editor an option of restarting his/her receiving box before panicking. (Your system interpreted the old address as something you don't allow: I forget the name for it since all evidence of this affair is at my old, inaccessible IP address.) Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, are you familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY? Basically, it sounds like you were reassigned to an address that either was subject to an autoblock (to prevent a blocked editor from editing while logged out) or that had formerly been an open proxy. If it's an open proxy, you're correct that we might want to add such a notice, but with autoblocks that would be a bad idea — we don't want you to get around the autoblock if you've already been blocked, so people who don't know how to get around it shouldn't be told. If my words remind you of any of the circumstances of the block, it would help if you mentioned it. Finally, please note that you can use {{unblock-auto}} if this situation ever happens again. This template should be linked in the block messages; if it's not currently, it's time to add it. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over this. No I'm not familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY and though I have an MS in math I keep wanting to write (and see) Wikipedia for Dummies pages! As to the {{unblock-auto}} I believe this is what it told me to save on my talk page, but I was unable to save anything there. Next, my understanding from the CenturyLink technician is that I was using a discarded address which got me in trouble, since I didn't know to restart the receiver and so connect to our new IP address (I just heard that we did go down to a cheaper CenturyLink package). If I understand you correctly, you don't want to tell editors to restart their receiver since this may educate them on how to evade a block. @Nyttend: Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to tell them that if it's an autoblock, i.e. they're using an IP address recently used by another account that's been blocked. However, it would be good to include such instructions (or a link to them) in the block message used by User:ProcseeBot; if you're using an IP that was identified as a proxy, either it's no longer a proxy (so it shouldn't be blocked anymore), or changing IPs will mean that you're no longer attempting to use a proxy. By the way, you're not the only one falling victim to blocking problems — while investigating your situation, I accidentally blocked myself and couldn't reverse the block without help :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link from MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext to the unblock template. ProcseeBot's block rationale uses {{Blocked proxy}}, which gives unblock instructions quite clearly but doesn't address redoing your receiver. However, I don't myself understand how this is done, so I don't want to add any instructions there. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be out-of-date but I believe the software used to list the blocked editor when auto-blocking, I had a good attempt at trying to explain to the Foundation that this was a serious breach of privacy, that could be avoided or at least reduced, which is why I remember it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, it still does. When I autoblocked myself just now, I was logged in as Nyttend, but the autoblock message said Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked... Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK queues empty

If anyone here would like to "do the biz". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Long-term abusive behaviour by user FrankCesco26 and recent abuse of checkuser request

User FrankCesco26 recently opened a sockpuppet investigation of a number of IPs that I used (as an unlogged editor) on another version of Wikipedia (specifically the Italian one) to notify Italian readers about the fact that he (FrankCesco26) was moving his problematic activities on Italian Wikipedia after having been blocked here on English Wikipedia. Given the fact that there was no behaviour against any of Wikipedia's rules from my part, and there was no abusive behaviour whatsoever (since I didn't create the semblance of a consensus by editing as different IPs or as different IPs and "Wddan", but I used the different IPs on different articles and never edited as logged-in "Wddan" on Italian Wikipedia), I think that FrankCesco26's report has to be intepreted as a mere provocation moved by pure retaliation, and therefore as a severe abuse of Wikipedia's regulations.

I ask therefore that FrankCesco26's abuse be appropriately punished.

This episode is just the latest (and I hope the last) one of a long chain of abusive behaviours by the reported user. The reason why I reverted his edits on Italian Wikipedia (see 1, 2, 3, 4) is that he was reproducing precisely the same edits that led to a block on English Wikipedia last June, that is to say the utter expunction of a source he didn't like from the article "Religion in Italy", and its replacement with another source of his liking, unduly mixing it with another source which is utterly incompatible and ignoring the consensus that had formed around the established version and data synthesis. His bad-faith motivations were debunked by user Ita140188 (read discussion) and he was blocked by admin MSGJ after having been reported by user Iryna Harpy, who also witnessed his bad behaviour.

Later in September, he was reported again by me for erasing sources he didn't like from a number of other articles about religion. The result was another block by admin EdJohnston. The checkuser report against me comes as a retaliation after my September report and the fact that I notified, unlogged/as an IP, his bad-faith edits on Italian Wikipedia.--Wddan (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these for I am not an administrator but I think this is something best left to WP:AN3. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war going on this time, but mere provocative behaviour and abuse of Wikipedia tools driven by retaliation. So, this is a general case and I am not sure it fits 3RR reports' section.--Wddan (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:LTA is the place you're looking for. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the case.--Wddan (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I got blocked for not having followed the 3RR, and I already paid for that.

You openend that section with your IPs in order to finish your purge of the sources you didn't like[124] [125] [126] (against the consensous [127]), after my block. I opened a legit sockpuppet investigation because you used a very unfair use of socks, insulting, provoking and ridiculing me [128] [129] with two sockpuppets. You also obstinately continued the edit war in the Italian Wikipedia ([130] and [131], again against the consensous[132]). So stop, this is not a good use of sockpuppets, I think it's a valid reason to report you for the WP:NPA. Also, I never insulted or provoked you, the only things I did is to remember you to use a Neutral point of view, thing that you often forget. There is no need to remember my blocks, I already paid for that.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA is for tracking longtime sockmasters; we use it to study their past socks so we can more easily detect future socks. The issues at hand here are totally unrelated to LTA, so I've nominated this page for deletion. Please restrict your discussion of this situation to "ordinary" project pages like this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

User:BlackAmerican was given a Checkuser block by User:Ponyo in January, and requested a Standard Offer unblock in July. Ponyo said "I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way", but it's dragged on and the request was declined simply because no admin had addressed it.

There's a new request now at User talk:BlackAmerican#Standard Offer, and some resolution to it is needed. So, Community, do we support or oppose an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - In the strongest possible terms. If anyone needs a refresher, BlackAmerican is CrazyAces489 -- the same user who harassed me, wasted the community's time for months, and never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't). When CrazyAces created content, he never adhered to the advice of several experienced editors, deflecting it with the excuse "I create so others can contribute". I promised CA back in January I would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. Instead he avoided the issue and eventually went back to blaming others. He is a total timesink who I am convinced is just here to troll us one last time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Do you have anything to say in response to CrazyAces489/BlackAmerican's accusations that you were multiply voting with socks to have articles deleted (for example, using User:ALongStay)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee no disrespect but why? Where is the relevance? I admitted to my mistake, apologized to those affected, and I hope after a year removed from the incident that I have proven I am of value to the community. That, I believe, is the major difference between me and CA, and why I am still editing today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity for others considering this, as it does seem like an issue of contention between you. Oh, and for the record, I'm staying neutral on the unblock question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: (edit conflict) I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving rope to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the competence/clue is simply not there. The current request is pretty much identical again to the previous request, despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to rewrite the request. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem is this the type of person you want to give another chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 558: / Line 558: @@
 *'''Oppose''': {{ec}} I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving [[WP:ROPE|rope]] to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the [[WP:CIR|competence]]/[[WP:CLUE|clue]] is simply not there. The [[Special:Diff/805253392|current request]] is pretty much identical again to the [[Special:Diff/797211500|previous request]], despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to [[Special:Diff/803356640|rewrite]] the request. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Weak Support''' mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
+:*{{u|Ad Orientem}} is this the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/731410184 type of person] you want to give ''another'' chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.[[User:TheGracefulSlick|TheGracefulSlick]] ([[User talk:TheGracefulSlick|talk]]) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 22:01, 14 October 2017

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

Deletion discussions

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

Other types of closing requests

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

RFC on potential username changes

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:Inside the Valley

Talk page ARB sanc notice update

Please delete my old .js pages from my previous user rename

Caste rules and BLPs

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

Mass protection of templates

Revdel needed ...

User editing a close about themselves

Closure Review

Sanction Discussion

Policy interpretation

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

Conduct unbecoming an Administrator

Need for timely unblock reviews

62.151.64.39 and WP:COMPETENCE

Working toward correcting Issues with article The Marketer (Building)

The Rambling Man

Reference desk discussions

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of জঙ্গলবাসী

"Procedural unblock" template

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Village Pub

Possible decade-old hoaxes

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:SummerFunMan

Current Socking

WP:CLEANSTART and victim blaming

Protected redirect issue

IPv6 rangeblock

FYI on needless blocks

DYK queues empty

Long-term abusive behaviour by user FrankCesco26 and recent abuse of checkuser request

Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

Leave a Reply