Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

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

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

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

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

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

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

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

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

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

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

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

WP:AN/CXT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to move forward with Mathglot's proposal (see #Proposal), which will cause a mass deletion of the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, with the option to save certain pages from deletion within a two-week window. As part of the proposal, there is also a consensus to amend WP:X2 in the manner S Marshall specifies in this edit.

Opposition to this change revolved around the argument that the articles which would qualify for mass deletion should be improved instead of deleted. Elinruby proposed alternatively that we should focus on recruiting editors fluent in foreign languages, Mathglot initially proposed to mass-draftify the articles instead of deleting, and Sam Walton argued that the articles contained valid content that didn't deserve mass deletion.

A majority of other editors, however, argued that many of the articles involved are poorly sourced BLPs that have the potential to harm their subjects if left unimproved. Given the large number of articles and low number of editors involved, it will likely be months before these articles are improved. Additionally, a user who is not fluent in both of the languages involved in a translation will not be able to adequately evaluate the validity of the machine-translated content; the article may appear unproblematic to such a user, but the content translation tool could have subtly altered the meaning of statements to something false.

In short, the consensus is that in the long run, the encyclopedia would be better off if these articles were mass deleted. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: This link is now located at .../Archive_61#X2 revision. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support @S Marshall:'s revision or a nuke from orbit. I wasn't active when this situation was being discussed originally, but having now read over the discourse on the matter, it is clear that our current approach isn't working. No one else is stepping up to help S Marshall do this absurd amount of reviewing, leaving us stuck with thousands of machine-translated BLP violations. It's all well and good to say that AfD isn't cleanup and deletion solves nothing and we should let articles flower patiently into beautiful gardens, but if no one's pulling the weeds and watering the sprouts, the garden isn't a garden, it's a weed-riddled disaster. Give the gardener a weed whacker already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the bold edit required to X2; it's true, of course, that AfD is not clean up- but neither should it be a barrier to clean up. In any case, moving a backlog from one place to another is hardly helpful. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question @Elinruby and Yngvadottir: As users who (from a quick glance) seem to have been active looking through these articles, do you think the quality is on average worse than a typical random encyclopedia article, and if so, bad enough that speedy deletion would be preferable to allowing them to be improved over time as with any other article? I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the case, but I think it should be the bar for concluding whether mass speedy deletion is the correct answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• (I wish I'd seen this earlier; thanks for the ping. I feel I have totally let down S Marshall; I just couldn't stand it any more.) On the whole ... yes. Support deletion of those remaining that have not been marked as ok/fixed. As I tried to explain in the initial discussion, the basic premise here is incorrect: as it states somewhere at Pages needing translation into English, a machine translation is worse than no article. It will almost always be either almost impossible to read, incorrect (for example, mistranslating names as ordinary nouns, or omitting negatives ...) or both. Some of these translations have been ok; many have been woefully incomplete (just the start of the lede), and they all require extremely careful checking. Yes, what lies in wait may include BLP violations. I sympathize with the article creators, and I am usually an inclusionist; I put hours of work into checking and improving some of these, and I'm not the only one. But please, enough. We'd wind up with decent articles faster if these were deleted, and the majority that are bad do a disservice to their topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't let me down. You've given me a truckload of support with this.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still oppose mass deletion -- @Sam Walton: What she said: Thank you the ping; this discussion was seeming a bit reiterative and I had mentally checked out. Like @Yngvadottir: I have put considerable effort into some of these articles. In fact, two or three of them are my own translations, which I would not have attempted without the translation tool, btw. Some are from my translations on French law, and I think 1) they cover important and previously missing topics and 2) they are high-quality technical translations. In most cases they speak for themselves. A couple are not perfect, reflecting the state of the French article, yes, and need work. But while these articles -- I am speaking here specifically of my own translations that appear on this list -- may be imperfect they are still reasonable stubs that can be built upon, and they also support more important articles by helping to prevent redlinks in some of the top-level articles on French law and also the French colonial legacy in Rwanda and the Congos etc. See Biens mal acquis for example. That was painful but I am proud of that translation. I have also encountered other people's translations on that list that made me proud of Wikipedia; the one on a cryptology algorithm for example comes to mind, or Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. I am an inclusionist, I have to admit, and yes yes, great wrongs and all, but I do think it is important that (for example) articles on Congolese history mention that there have been civil wars (beyond "unrest", and no, I am not kidding). The worst BLP problems I am aware of are in the articles on Dilma Rousseff and I don't believe they are on this list or were created with the tool. Some of the worst PNT pages I have seen predate the translation tool, for instance Notre-Dame de la Garde, which took me years to finish, and Annees folles which is as we speak an incredible mess requiring research in addition to copy-editing and translation. Yngvadottir is correct in saying that inappropriately translated proper nouns is a frequent problem. I recall a Hubert de Garde de Vins who became "wine", and yes, this did reduce the sentence to gibberish. It's annoying enough to make me wanna regex. But. Not mass deletion. I suggest case-by-case intervention in the case of egregious problems with particular users. It's not as though more that a very few users even try to translate. Or perhaps we should revise the criteria for translation user privileges. But even there -- one of the people tagged as delete on sight has created a number of skeleton articles about Quebec. These articles should be be fleshed out not deleted; we should have articles about Quebec. Some of the authors are unquestionably notable, the equivalent in my small culture of Simone de Beauvoir or Colette or Andre Gide. It seems to me that an article that says: this author was born, drank coffee, won the Governor-General's award and wrote these books, is better than having nothing at all. The placeholder takes the topic from unknown unknown to known unknown, or little-known in this context, I guess. We do know a little more about the folk dances of Honduras because there is a very bad article, for which I have done what I could. There are many different problems with the articles on this list. Someone has created multiple articles about, apparently every madrassa in central Tunis. Who am I? Some of the articles I have rescued at PNT were about the medieval wines of Provence, which might seem equally trivial to some. Some of the important but very flawed articles I have noted maybe should not be in the article mainspace -- I am thinking of the ones about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, pretty much everything flagged Mexican historical documents, the Spanish procession of the flowers, etc)--but an interested Spanish speaker could build these out. These topics are unquestionably notable. We should have an article about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, really, people, we should. My suggestion would be recruiting. We desperately need a Portuguese speaker and additional help with Spanish. Some of the unreferenced BLPs sitting around appear to be very fine even though they are unreferenced, and may in fact veer into fluff. But they don't approach liability for libel if that's the concern. I avoid them, personally, because I have in the past deciphered Abidjan l33t about a beloved soccer player, only to be told that we don't as a matter of policy consider these leagues notable. Fine then, they should not be on the PNT to-do list. I'd love to see the translation workflow improved but we should be encouraging the people expanding our horizons is what I think. I am sorry for the very long answer but I appear to be a voice wailing in the desert on this topic and I have now said pretty much the above many times now. Nobody seems to care so oh well, it's not like I don't have other work I can do on the history of the Congo and figuring out what Dilma Rousseff had to say about her impeachment. Reliable sources say she was railroaded (NPR for one) and that is not included in the article at all right now. The articles on Congolese history airily write off genocide and slaughter as "some unrest". In a world where these things are true I really don't care whether on not we find a reference for that Eurovision winner. Someone who cares can do that and I think ethnocentrism is a bigger issue on Wikipedia that these translation attempts. Move the ones that don't meet a minimum standard to some draft space or something. Educate the people who are creating this articles instead of shaking your finger at them. The article creation process is daunting enough and I myself have had to explain to new page patrollers that this punk band is in fact seminal whether you have heard of them or not and whether or not they sing in a language that you can understand. But I have been here enough to do that and I assure you, most people will not. Wikipedia wants to know why its editors grow fewer cough cough wikipedia, lookee here. I will shortly wikilink some of the examples I mention above for easier show-and-tell, for the benefit of anyone who has read this far. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of these attempted articles (especially to avoid BLP problems laying around). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support [3] I'd say "do a disservice to their topics" is a mild way of putting it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket deletion. Having just checked a bunch of the remaining articles I found plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-BLP articles here, and any bad articles I did find were certainly not in greater number than you would find by hitting Random Article, nor were they particularly awful; the worst offenses I found were poor but understandable English. There's a lot of valid content here, especially on non-English topics which we need to do a better job of writing about. FWIW I'll happily put some time into going through this list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the 20 articles I just reviewed here; none had any issues greater than needing a quick copyedit. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9: Thanks. It's been a long, hard slog. I appreciate it if any of these can be saved. However, did you check for accuracy? It's possible for a machine translation to be misleadingly wrong. And the miserable translation tool the WMF provides usually doesn't even attempt filmographies: look at that specific section of Asier Etxeandia. This is not acceptable in a BLP. Somebody who reads the original language (Spanish? Catalan?) needs to go through that article sentence by sentence and film by film. Unfortunately it's not a matter of notability (that's almost always attested to by the original article), it's a matter of whether we have time to save this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That names of works likely don't get automatically translated properly is a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks for pointing that out. If that's one of the primary issues then I'd favour a semi-automated removal of "filmography" or similar sections, if possible. It just seems that there's a lot of perfectly good content in here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I looked at the first one you listed, it is a mass of non-BLP compliant (non-neutral, no-inline source) material. Letting stuff like that hang around is not just bad for that BLP but as an example for other BLPs to be created and remain non-compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Sam Walton, you didn't answer Yngvadottir's question. Can you speak the source languages? Remember that because of the defective way that software feature was implemented, you cannot assume that the translator speaks English and in many cases they obviously couldn't. (In practice the source language matters a lot because the software accuracy varies by the language pair. Indo-European languages are often but not always okay, and Spanish-English translations have particularly high accuracy, approaching 80%. Japanese-English, for example, has much, much lower accuracy.) So the correctness of the translation must be, and can only be, checked by someone with dual fluency in the source language and English.

            In the real world you can establish some rules-of-thumb. For example, you can quite safely assume that everything translated by Rosiestep is appropriate and can be retained. The editorial skills of the different translators varied very widely.

            All in all the best solution is for a human who's fluent in the source language and English to look at each of these articles and form an intelligent judgment. The thing that's preventing this solution is that, having looked at the content and formed the judgment, I can't then remove a defective article, because the defective wording in WP:CSD#X2 encourage sysops to decline the deletion unless it's a WP:SNOW case... so I've got to start a full AfD. Every. Single. Time. The effort for me to clean up is out of all proportion to the effort editors put into creating the damn things with a script.

            If you don't want the articles nuked (and that's a reasonable position), then please support the X2 revision I have proposed.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "the first one you listed" are you talking about Tomokazu Matsuyama? Yes, if so. it is indeed an unreferenced BLP but... I suspect five minutes of quality time with Google would take it out of that category, and it's essentially a resume, something like the placeholder articles I mentioned above. I think that perhaps we are better off knowing that this Japanese contemporary artist exists. Why not do a wikiproject to improve these like the one we just had on Africa top-level articles? It does seem to me that you could use a break from this wikitask and a little gamification might well get er done. I share your sentiment that in some ways we have our fingers in the dyke here, but the dyke does serve a purpose I think...In short I respectfully disagree with the current approach to these articles. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Break

@Alanscottwalker: I found a reference for his influences in less time than it took to add the ref code....Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Did you mean to ping me back here, many days after I commented, to tell me you found a pretty crappy commercial source? When I looked at it awhile ago, the article was filled with non-npov/non-referenced/BLP violating text. It is, thus, no comfort that since I commented, awhile ago, someone has according to their edit 'removed the worst of the puffery', and you added that crappy commercial source - its still not policy compliant (even if it is marginally better, since I flagged it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I brought you back here to tell you that while it may be have been unsourced, fixing this is extremely trivial. I don't give a hoot about this particular article, but his gallery is not a "crappy commercial source" imho and if you want people to fix then article then you should enunciate your problem with it. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a non-independent crappy commercial source is not fixing. It is selling. We are not in the business of selling. What you call "trivial" sourcing does nothing to fix just makes it worse - "trivial" should have tipped you off. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlanscottWalker: Um no.... I was using the term in its software development meaning. I apologize for picking the wrong dialect to make my point. I thought, since you were critiquing the software tool, you might know something about software even though you don't seem to be familiar with the features of this instance of it, or for that matter with a representative sample of its users. Commericial, hmm. The same could be said of my article about the thousand-year-old Papal vintages, you know. That vineyard is selling wine today. Is that article also commercial crap? Since it is a direct translation from French Wikipedia, are you saying that French Wikipedia is commercial crap? You really don't want to make me argue this point, seriously. Incidentally what is with the arbitrary insertion of a break in the discussion? Consider, for just a moment, that I might actually have a point. Entertain the notion for a minute. Why are you belittling my statement? Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Critiquing software tool? No, I was clearly critiquing an article in English on the English Wikipedia. And I was referring to the crappy commercial source - you pinged me, remember, so that I would know you added it to the article. That was not done in French, it was done in English. As for break, that is your doing, why should I have any idea why you added the crappy source, and then wanted to tell me about it in this break. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Let me use small words. CTX is software. Bad translation can happen with or without software. Lack of sources can happen without software. In software development "trivial" means "easy". Do you see now? Be careful who you patronize next time. 01:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall:I'd consider supporting your proposal, perhaps, once I have read it, but could you provide a link for we mere mortals who don't normally follow these proposals? I also disagree that all of these articles require a bilingual editor; some just need a few references and/or a copy edit. But you know I disagree at this point. And if you do, god help us, nuke all of these articles as opposed to one of the other courses of action I have (again) suggested above, please move mine to my draft space if you find them that objectionable. Some sort of clue as to what your issue is would also be nice. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• The revision I want to make is this one. The intended effect is so that a human editor, who has reviewed the script-generated content and given it due consideration and exercise of judgment, can recommend the content for deletion and receive assistance rather than bureaucracy from our admin corps.

  The basic problem with these articles is that they are script generated and the scripts are unreliable. Exactly how unreliable they are varies according to the language pair, so for example Spanish-English translations are relatively good, while for example Japanese-English translations are relatively poor; and whether the articles contain specific grammatical constructions that the scripts have trouble with.

  You can test its accuracy, and I recommend you do. The script it used, during the problem period, was Google translate. I've just picked some sample text and run it through Google translate in various language pairs, first into a different language and then the translated text back into English, to see how it did. These were the results:-

Source text	Korean	Punjabi	Farsi
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition	Fourth and seventh years ago, our ancestors left the continent, a new country born in Liberty.	Four score and seven years on this continent, first our father a new nation, brought freedom and dedicated to the proposition	Four score and seven years ago our fathers on this continent, a new nation, the freedom brought, and dedicated to the proposition
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	And when he saw the multitude, he went up to the mountain, and his disciples came, and opened his mouth, and taught him, saying, Blessed are the souls of the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	Jesus saw the crowds up on the mountain, and when he sat, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and the poor in spirit was teaching, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Yes: interestingly the algorithm interpolated "Jesus" into the text.)	And seeing the multitudes, he went to the mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for the kingdom of heaven.
Editors agree not to publish biographical material concerning living people unless it is accurate	The editors agree not to post electrical materials about living people unless they are the correct person.	To publish the biographical material about the editor, it is right to disagree,	Editors agree to publish biographies of living people, unless it is accurate.

I encourage you to try these and other examples with different language pairs. Can you see why you need to speak the original language in order to copyedit accurately?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is not a fair test since it magnifies any word choice errors. There *will* be errors, yes. We clean them up at WP:PNT --- ALL THE TIME. And no, it is not necessary to speak the language always, though it certainly help. I really suggest that maybe you just need a wikibreak from this task. Bad english can mostly be fixed. There are the occasional mysteries, yes. There are colloquialisms, yes. This does not justify wholesale destruction of good content. I was just here to get the link as I mentioned your proposal to one of my PNT colleagues; I need to go but I'll look at your proposal the next time I log in Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The liquor was strong but the meat was rotten.

Translation wonks will recognize the (apocryphal) story behind the sentence above, concerning literal mistranslations exacerbated from there-and-back translation. (The story perhaps originated after the NY World's Fair of 1964, which had a computer translation exhibit in the Russian Pavilion.) In any case, I'm just getting up to speed on this topic and will comment in more detail later.

Briefly: yes, you definitely have to speak the language to copyedit accurately. I'm actually in favor of a modification to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to make it stronger. I fully agree with the worse than nothing statement in the policy now, but I'd go one step further: the only thing worse than a machine translation in an encyclopedia, is a machine translation that has been copyedited by a capable and talented monolingual (even worse: by someone who knows a bit of the language and doesn't know what s/he doesn't know) so that the result is beautiful, grammatical, smooth, stylish, wonderful English prose. As a translator, puh-LEEZ leave the crappy, horrible, machine-gobbledygook so that a translator can spot it easily, and fix it accurately. Copyediting it into proper English makes our job much harder.

If it's too painful to leave it exposed in main space, perhaps moving to Draft space could be an alternative. In fact, rather than a mass-delete, why not a mass-Draft-ify? (Apologies if someone has already said this, I'm still reading the thread.) More later. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

mass-Draftify would work for me. And yeah I disagree with you too a little, but I knew that. My point is, we all agree that an issue exists so what do we do? I also have some more reading to do before I comment on what S Marshall (talk · contribs) is proposing. I have a story about the policy but I want to make sure it pertains to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elinruby is certainly correct to say this "wasn't a fair test", because going through the algorithm twice doubles the error rate. But a lot of people reading this discussion will speak only English so this is the only way I can show them what the problem is ---- without that context, they may well find this, and the original discussion at WP:AN/CXT, rather impenetrable because they won't understand the gravity of the concerns.

  It was even more unfair because it was me who selected the examples and I don't like machine translations. In order to illustrate my point I went with non-European languages and convoluted sentence structures. If you tried the same exercise with a verse from "Green Eggs and Ham" then you'd get perfect translations 99% of the time. (It tripped me up with the Sermon on the Mount because quite clearly, the algorithm recognised that it was dealing with a Bible verse, which I found fascinating.)

  The script is particularly likely to do badly with double-negatives, not-unless constructions, adverbs of time ("since", "during", "for a hundred years"), and the present progressive tense, in some language pairs.

  It would certainly be possible to construct a fairer text using more random samples of language.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: alright, I grant you that there aren't many bilinguals here. This *is* the problem in my view. I'll also specify that I don't claim expertise outside the Romance languages, and very little for some of those. But allow me please, since I know you speak or at least read French, to propose a better example. There are common translation errors that can occur, depending on which tool exactly was used. The improperly-translated name (nom propre) problem was real but is now mostly fixed. The fact that a writer whose novels were written in French gave them titles in French should come as a shock to nobody. The correct format for a bibliography in such cases *is* title in the actual language of the words in the book, webpage or whatever. Translated title, if the title is not in English, goes in the optional trans-title (or is it trans_title?) field of the cite template. Language switch to be set if at all possible. If it is not, let me know, and I can reduce the number of foreign words that English wikipedia needs to look at. So. In all languages, pretty much, words like fire and sky and take tend to be both native to the original people and likely to carry additional meanings, as in take an oath, take a bus, take a break etc. On the other hand what the software tool does do extremely well is know the correct translation for arcane or specialized terms, often loanwords, like caravel or apse or stronghold. These words are in my recognition vocabulary not my working vocabulary and using the tool in certain instances saves many lookups. When there is a strong degree of ambiguity or divergence in meaning (like the example on my user page) then THEN yes a fluent or very advanced user is needed. There are known divergences that a bilingual would spot that an English speaker would not. Sure. "Je l'aime beaucoup, mon mari" is a good example. But the fact that this is true does not prove that every line of every one of these articles still needs to be checked before they can be permitted to continue to sully Wikipedia, or that each of these lines needs to be checked by you personally. If you feel overwhelmed, take a break. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I speak English, French, German, Gibberish and Filth.  :) Joking aside -- I'm not concerned about noms propres. I'm concerned when the script perverts or even inverts the meaning of the source text. It's quite hard to give you an example because the examples I've discovered have all been deleted, and there's only the one non-English language we share, but perhaps an administrator will confirm for you the sorry history of Daphné Bürki. It was created as a machine translation of fr:Daphné Bürki and the en.wiki version said she was married to Sylvain Quimène, citing this source. Check it out; the source doesn't say that. In fact she was married to Travis Bürki, at least at one time (can't say whether she's still married to him). We had a biographical article where the subject was married to the wrong bloke. It's not okay to keep these around.

  Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. The number of editors who're competent to fix them is small, and the amount of other translation work those editors have on their hands is very large, and it includes a lot of mainspace work that's more urgent than fixing raw machine translations in draft space, and it always will; we can get back to fixing draft space articles about individual artworks when every Leibniz-prizewinning scientist and every European politician with a seat on their national parliament has a biography. (We're on target never to achieve that. The democratic process means new politicians get elected and replaced faster than their biographies get translated from foreign-language wikipedias.)

  I don't object to draftifying these articles if that's the face-saving solution that lets us pretend we're being all inclusionist about it, but it would be more honest to nuke them all from orbit.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am just coming back to this. I agree about the relatively few translators and the large amount of work, and yet, we so fundamentally disagree. Some of the designated articles do are, in my opinion, within the top percentiles in article quality. Others have in fact been fixed up. You and I consulted about one once. Others, yes, need work, and I at least do get to articles that I say I will get to. Slowly, at times, sure. I have no problem with articles that don't meet a certain standard not going to mainspace, but I don't see why you singly out the translation tool as your criterion. I mention noms propres because I have mentioned one above from Notre-Dame de la Garde where Commander de Vins came across as wine, and this did make the sentence gibberish. But that article did not come out of the CTX tool. Ihave no idea what the Leibniz prize is, but I am not sure it's more notable, in the abstract, than Marcel Proust, but fine. Work on that all you like, sure. But don't tell me it's more important that some mention in Congolese history that there have been civil wars, or I will just laugh at you. The sort of error you mention above with Daphné Büki -- I'll look at it myself shortly, if it's from French I don't need an admin -- can be made by anyone who knows less than they think they do. Automated translation not needed. Now, I propose that since we are talking about this we work out some sort of saner translation process. For instance, if African football leagues are by policy not notable, as someone once told me, fine then, the article should not be in the translation queue. Put something in there about a minimum number of references, require the use of trans-title in the references, whatever is agreed upon is ok with me. Your proposed change would preserve most of by not all of the articles that have been worked on, which is a slight improvement I guess, except you'll also nuke the 3-4 articles that needed nothing and a whole lot of biography that I've avoid because people tend to write me snooty messages to inform me that the person isn't notable, and why waste work when articles like History of Nicaragua are so lacking? Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, I've gone through this and thought about it, and I'm conditionally a Yes on change to X2 and nuking the list, with an option to save certain files.

S Marshall, I take your point about draftification being pointless, as they'll just sit there with most of them never being edited ever.

I believe you've also persuaded me that the nuke is appropriate, given some conditions below. In order to keep Elinruby and Sam Walton (and me, and others) happy about not deleting certain files we are working on or wish to work on, I had an idea: what if we agree to allow a delay of two weeks to allow interested parties to go through and mark files in the list we want to keep so when the nuke-a-bot comes through, it can pass over the files thus marked. (I don't know if we can gin this up for two weeks from yesterday, but that would be auspicious.)

More specifically, to Elinruby's (22:03, 1 April) "So what do we do?" question, I think here's what we do:

• Those of us who want to retain files, mark them with {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} to vaccinate them against nuking.
• Change X2 accordingly
• Somebody develops the nuke script
• Nuke script should nuke "without prejudice" so that if someone changes their mind later and wants to recreate a file, it shouldn't be "salted" or require admin action to "undelete"; you just recreate it in the normal way you create any new file.
• If needed, we run a pre-nuke test against sandbox files, or can we just trust the vaccination will be respected?
• Start the script up and let 'er rip

Elinruby, if this proposal were accepted, would you change your no to X2 modif to a yes? Sam Walton, would you?

Naturally for this to have any value, we'd have to agree to not vaccinate the whole list, but just the ones we reasonably expect to work on, or judge worthy of keeping. If desired, I can envisage a way to greatly speed up the first step (vaccination) for all of us. Personally, I won't mark any file translated from a language I don't know well enough to evaluate the translation. But, going through all 3500 files is a burden, since there's no point my even clicking on the ones in languages I don't know. If I knew in advance which ones are from Spanish, French, etc., that would be a huge help. If you look at 1300-1350, you'll see that I've marked them with a language code (and a byte count; but that was for something else). I could commit to marking another 200 or 300 with the lang code, maybe more. If we could break up the work that way and everybody just mark the files for lang code, then once that's done, we could all go through the whole list much more quickly, to see which ones we wanted to evaluate for vaccination.

I really think this could be wrapped up in a couple of weeks, if we get agreement. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Entirely happy with this idea.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Amisom (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• This is fine with me. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any objections to moving forward with this? Tazerdadog (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost two weeks of SILENCE sounds like "go for it". Primefac (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still good with this as proposer, of course, but just to reiterate: we'd still need a two-week moratorium *after acceptance* of the proposal before nuking, to allow interested parties to vaccinate such articles as they chose to. I assumed that was clear, but that "go for it" got me a little scared, so thought I'd better raise it again.

On Tazerdadog's point, what is the procedure for deciding when to go forward with a proposal? Are we there now? Whatever the procedure is, and whenever we deem "acceptance" to happen, can someone close it at that point and box it up like I see on Rfcs, so we can then start the two-week, innoculation period timer ticking without having more opinions straggle in after it's already been decided? Or what's the right way to do this? Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Request formal close, per Mathglot. Do I need to post on ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

X2-nuke countdown period

Wow, cool! Glad we made some progress, and just trying to nail down the next steps to keep things moving smoothly. To recap my understanding:

• we are now in the "inoculation period" with a fortnight-timer which expires 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
• during this period, anyone may tag articles in the list at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review with the proper tag to prevent nuking two weeks hence.

A couple of questions:

• do we have to recruit someone to write a script to do the actual nuking?
• what form should the actual "vaccination" tag have? In the proposal above, I just kind of threw out that expression: {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} but I have no idea how we really need to tag the articles, and maybe that's a question for the script writer?
• will the bot also observe strikeout type as an indicator not to nuke? A possible issue is inconsistent usage among editors: for example, some editors have not used strikeout for articles they have reviewed and clearly wish to save (e.g. see #1601-1622)

As for me, I will continue to tag a couple hundred more articles with language-tags as I did previously in the 1301-1600 range, to make it easier for everyone to find articles translated from languages they are comfortable working with, and that they therefore might wish to tag. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's make two lists, one of articles to delete and the other of articles to retain for the moment. I don't think that it will be necessary to formally request a bot. We have quite a few sysops who could clean them all out with or without scripted assistance.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Primefac: thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree.  :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux can be very difficult to close because of the wording. I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on. Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll help close it, but I think the section below the actual RFC should be considered as well, since they're actively discussing the RFC and how to proceed. Maybe we should wait just a little while longer to see how that develops. Katie^talk 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. No point in cutting off productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall: I'm going to close a couple separate milieus that receive huge opposition. Casliber, the proposer, is fine with it. However, may I summarize the tally votes as just short rationales? I'll leave the others open. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me, George Ho. It'll make the overall close a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed milieu 1 and milieu 5. I closed milieu 2 as "no consensus", but I commented that another closer can summarize that better than me. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed my mind and briefly summarized milieu 2. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1, and Concrete proposal 2 are closed by Winged Blades of Godric. Give Godric thanks for the closures. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone has been dishonestly removing valid references to atheists as such

Among the pages I watch, I noticed that both John Desmond Bernal and Michael Foot had been removed from the category 'atheist'. Bernal because it was supposedly trivial and Foot because it had no main-text reference.

I restored Bernal, pointing out that his history could have made him a Deist but he was not. On Foot, it was indeed unsourced, so I added quick details with two highly reliable references.

I then thought to check, and found it was the same person, "Jobas", who had done this on a massive scale. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jobas&offset=20170323172504&target=Jobas.)

This has to be dishonest. The two reasons given contradict each other. And how could a committed Christian really think it was trivial? I suspect this person wants to eliminate 'off-message facts'.

How someone can think it a good idea to be 'dishonest to God' puzzles me, but is not my problem.

I hope you now take action, reversing every change that has not been fixed already.

I am busy with other matters, I do not want to spend more time on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Both the removals you cite look legitimate to me. See this explanation of how biographical categorization works; we categorise by what the person is known for, not every characteristic. Thus, if someone's written a book about their atheist views, recorded a Christian rock album, been persecuted for their Buddhist faith etc, they get the appropriate (ir)religious category, but they shouldn't be used for people who just happen to subscribe to a particular belief. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a talk with Jobas (talk · contribs) about this yesterday following a WP:AIV report. I reverted several examples where they removed atheist categories, incorrectly citing WP:NOTDEF as their reason. They were blindly removing the categories without checking the text of the article for assertions of atheism. They have been cautioned against making edits like these blindly in the future. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the subject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic, for example in Michael Foot article, it's only instances "atheist" once inside the article. I don't deny that he is atheist, but it isn't a key defining trait that Michael Foot was prominently noted for i guess, here is anther examples of edit Iridescent (talk · contribs) John Logie Baird, Geoffrey Pyke, Simon Pegg, Andy Partridge, Gary Kemp etc, Is it legitimate?. Thanks for your concern and have a nice day.-Jobas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also per WP:NONDEF: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. In all but one (of 40+) of the cases I reverted, this criteria was met, and the category should have remained in place. Jobas, if you're going to cite a policy as the basis for making potentially contentious edits en masse, then please familiarize yourself with the entire policy in order to avoid causing kerfuffles like this. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you guys are going to scold someone for removing atheist categories, than GregorB has been removing numerous Catholic categories from articles even when it was clearly cited, (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here and so forth). To be fair GregorB has a lot more experience than me in this field so after a brief discussion I decided to give up on the topic as it seemed the editor knew more about the guidlines than I did, however if the general concencus here is that just a brief mention and source make it notable to add a religious (or non-religious) category than in the aforementioned instances the category should be added back too. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I want to add that I am all for the inclusion of article in religious (or irreligious categories) as long as the subject identifies with them and there is a citation to back it up. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My removal of said categories is based on WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Note BLPCAT says "self-identified" and "relevant" and "living person". Note also that BLPCAT is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

My opinion on this issue: if the religious belief category in a BLP is unreferenced, then it may (in fact should) be removed on sight per WP:BLP. If it's referenced, WP:BLPCAT applies. Religious affiliation or atheism/agnosticism, it's the same.

There's nothing really wrong with the "subject identifies + reference" standard for categories - I suppose the consensus was that it would lead to trivial categorization of thousands upon thousands of biographies. However, since adding categories to bios of non-living persons is fair game according to this standard, I must say that doesn't make too much sense to me. This might be a question for WT:BLP or a similar forum. GregorB (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that WP:EGRS is stricter than the rest of the WP:BLPCAT guidelines, as EGRS categories are required to be defining rather than merely verified and self-identified. I'm not sure this point is consistently reflected in all the relevant guideline pages. The summary at BLPCAT says such categories must be "...relevant to their public life or notability..." (my emphasis). "Relevant" seems to be a weaker standard than "defining". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the text in EGRS tries to reflect BLPCAT and is just poor wording. BLPCAT as a policy trumps EGRS as a guideline and the latter should be interpreted the way BLPCAT intends it to be handled. I don't have to have written dozens of books on atheism for my lack of belief to be included in a category if said lack of faith has received significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Athiesm isnt a religion *gets coat*. But BLPCAT only takes effect once reliable sourcing is available for the category. Its 'weaker' once its reliably sourced because BLP is (primarily) about 'is it allowed to be on the article page' not 'should it be there'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): There are actually two issues raised in the original post. I looked at the example articles given, as well as several more articles where Jobas has edited the categories, and Jobas appears to be correctly adhering to the letter of WP:CATGRS when deleting those categories: i.e.; the subject's lack of belief in gods is not why they are notable (and in many cases, isn't even mentioned in the body of the article), so is properly deleted. So far, so good. The second issue raised is whether Jobas is editing "honestly", and following the spirit of WP:CATGRS by applying it only to improve articles (and the encyclopedia), or is WP:CATGRS being invoked to selectively choose and delete certain categories to advance an agenda, in violation of one of Wikipedia's main policies against such motivated editing. Has Jobas been deleting 'atheist' categories as non-defining, while allowing other equally non-defining religious categories to remain in the same articles? Administrators do need to determine if this means his/her goal is not so much article improvement, but rather POV advancement. For example, does the editor still follow WP:CATGRS when adding religious categories, especially ones with whom the editor identifies? If not, it indicates a problem which needs to be addressed. I've only given it a cursory look, but I've seen enough to raise some concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cookie blocks are live!

After 11 years of waiting, phab:T5233 has finally been resolved, thanks to Samwilson of Community Tech. As a colleague who is active here on enwiki, I thought I'd make the announcement and explain what this means. For the sake of transparency please ignore any concerns about WP:BEANS.

Cookie blocks are an extension to the current autoblock system. When admins go to block an account, they can select the option "Autoblock any IP addresses used". This is generally left turned on, and means that if the blocked user moves to another IP and attempts to edit, that IP will become autoblocked. This is nothing new, it has been this way for ages. The new functionality is that after blocking a user with the autoblock option set, the next time the user accesses Wikipedia a cookie is stored in the user's browser that points back to the original block. It will act as the mechanism that autoblocks the underlying IP, regardless of what account and underlying IP the user is attempting to edit from. So in short, if a user changes accounts, then moves to a new IP, the cookie will still be there and the user and the underlying IP will become autoblocked. Cookies expire after 24 hours (the same amount of time autoblocks expire) or the length of the block itself, whichever is shorter.

This functionality is by no means an effective solution to long-term abuse and sockpuppetry, nor is it intended to be. Instead, cookie blocks are aimed at your "casual vandal" that operate on mobile devices, or are aware that they can reset their router to get a new IP. Even those folks will probably deduce a cookie is causing the autoblocks, but the hope is this tiny improvement will be enough to fend off at least some of the less tech-savvy.

If you have any questions, concerns, etc., don't hesitate to ask. If you have a Phabricator account, phab:T5233 is the best place, but we'll be monitoring the discussion here.

To get you sincerely excited, allow me to inform you of phab:T152462, where we may use cookies when blocking anonymous users, in effect acting as an autoblock. This is still in the investigation stage, but theoretically it will have a much more noticeable impact. IPv6 is becoming more and more prominent, where the ISP will regularly refresh the customer's IP. Currently many admins will do a WHOIS check and see if it is an ISP known to allot a /64 range to their customers, and if so do a range block. Other admins are not comfortable with this, and will instead block the single IP. Perhaps minutes later, the ISP has refreshed the user's IP and they are able to resume vandalizing. Hence, cookies may offer an effective solution to fending off your everyday drive-by vandals, without having to do any range blocks. Stay tuned! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously, the right way to announce a new anti-abuse provision is to openly state how to evade it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah... at this point, Columbo would turn round and say 'Just one more thing-' ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  I've bolded the last sentence of the first paragraph based on your concern. We have to be transparent and keep admins informed, but the types of users we are targeting with cookie blocks are unlikely to be following internal discussions anyway — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  w/r/t BEANS, this sounds like something that would've been better handled via the next Admin newsletter than on AN. Just my 2¢. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Salvidrim!: isn't the admin newsletter always posted here too, anyways? ansh666 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is this even legal? While the US has famously lax data security laws, the rest of the world is far stricter about these things and most countries in which Wikipedia's editors and readers are based—notably the entire EU and those countries that base their legal systems on it—require explicit consent from the user in question before cookies can be placed on their system. I appreciate that the WMF is based in the US, but I can see some very nasty lawsuits ahead if an EU-based admin places a cookie on an EU-based user's system without consent, and there is no shortage of deep-pocketed organisations (DMG Media springs to mind) who'd be quite happy to bankroll a class action to give Wikipedia a bloody nose. There doesn't appear to be any way to turn the "automatically place cookie" option off, short of unchecking "autoblock" altogether—the net effect of this will just be that I'll now always ensure I never check "Autoblock any IP addresses used" at all. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  It might be if people when saving an edit agree to receive such cookies - but I don't see a single syllable in the TOU about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  There's this, a link to which is buried in the tiny-print at the bottom of every page, but it doesn't make any mention of this kind of functionality—the only cookie use mentioned is We use the information we receive from cookies and other locally stored data to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and interactions with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services, which I doubt anyone could realistically shoehorn blocking into. (Although, my curiosity is certainly raised by the casual mention of tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of "locally stored data" technologies, such as cookies and local storage being "actively used by the WMF"—do the Free Culture and EFF types who do so much of the heavy lifting around here realise just how creepy and intrusive the WMF has become?) ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure how you could even shoehorn "editors agree to have such cookies placed" into the existence of that link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  "improve our services..." (...by blocking undesirable users) isn't too much of a stretch. –xeno^talk 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, having now looked more closely at the current Privacy Policy, "creepy and intrusive" doesn't do it justice. Even Google would baulk at we might use cookies to learn about the list of articles you are following on your watchlist so that we can recommend similar articles that you may be interested in. FWIW, I've just created User:Iridescent 3 from scratch to see what messages new users actually get, and at no point during the signup process is any mention made of any of this, and nor (given that Wikipedia's spent the better part of a decade bleating about transparancy and intrusiveness), is it reasonable to assume new users would expect it. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  But that doesn't even make sense. Watchlists are stored server-side, so a cookie wouldn't be required to recommend articles based on it... BethNaught (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  The only reason I can think of for doing it with cookies would be so the WMF can track what other people who use your device are reading/watchlisting, or to monitor your reading when you're logged out. Locally-stored watchlists would seem like a very shitty idea, since most users are going to be checking their watchlist from multiple devices. ‑ Iridescent 16:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Surely m:WMF legal (@Mpaulson (WMF):?) should have signed off on this? Perhaps we should provide an option to control this separately from autoblocks, in any case. –xeno^talk 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  All I can say is that this has been approved by the legal team, and the table of cookies has been updated accordingly. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

“ From a legal perspective, this proposal is in compliance with our privacy policy and terms of use. However, I would like to echo the cautionary comments already made on this thread of overly broad blocks occurring as a result of this cookie, particularly in multi-user scenarios. ” — Michelle [Paulson], Jan 15 2015

This is in reference to potential collateral damage, not legality. A lot has changed since that comment,, and after thorugh testing we have concluded collateral damage should be minimal — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal are concerned with liability to the WMF, not with damage to individual editors. Unless and until I either see an explicit "We consider this legal in all jurisdictions, and will give full and unlimited legal and financial support to anyone who is challenged in court over it" commitment from the WMF (at which point I'll probably be too busy hiding from the flying pigs), or there's a way to set "never place cookie blocks" as a default rather than having to remember to uncheck an easily-missed checkbox each time, I'd advise all admins based in countries with cookie laws (there's a handy list here; the most important ones from en-wiki's point of view are the UK and Ireland) to avoid ever using the block button. ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't work in legal so I can't really say much, but it seems if you don't like cookies you might use a cookie blocker, in which case blocks will still work just fine (if that was at all a concern). Admins are also not affected with this change, only the users who were blocked, and there's no way to know where they are located unless they disclose such information — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If you are placing a cookie on the browser of a user from the list of countries above without their explicit permission, you are breaking the law - which is a particular issue for admins who are also located in that country. What I'm not sure about is whether it is the admin that places the block, or the WMF (who own the software) that would be held to be doing it. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently cookies and localStorage are used by default on Wikimedia sites, and there's no way to turn this off unless you use a browser extension or the like. The new cookie blocks feature does not change this — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If the current system places cookies without getting permission in advance, it might be illegal in some countries (including the UK). But, as I understand the issue being suggested here, that would not be a legal issue for admins as they are not playing a part in placing those cookies - but if an admin takes an action that places a cookie (as blocking will now do) that admin might then be liable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, well again I don't work in legal but I highly doubt admins will be held accountable. It is the software that is doing this. The block cookie is listed in the cookie statement along with all other cookies. Users are free to remove/disable whichever ones they so desire. Adding cookies without permission is something that is already being done, even when browsing anonymously (from my quick testing), so I don't see how you as an admin imposing them, intentionally or not, will change anything. This is tantamount to you setting up a central notice banner, or adding an item to the watchlist notice. These actions are done by the community and they also create or modify cookies — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you say, you don't work in Legal - and I don't mean to demean, but your legally uninformed speculation is no more helpful than mine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've had it explained to you repeatedly, but to explain again in bullet points:

1. It is illegal to place a cookie on any computer system within one of the countries on the list I link above, without the user of that computer's explicit consent. (We're not talking slaps-on-the-wrist, either; the penalty for non-compliance in Portugal, for instance, is a five million euro fine);
2. Because the US refuses to sign up to the relevant treaties, this law is not enforceable against companies based in the US (although it is illegal to transfer data to the US for the purposes of getting round this legislation);
3. Now this is live, there's a reasonable potential that a court will consider that the blocking admin is placing the cookie, not the corporate person of the WMF which is based in California and beyond the reach of the law;
4. If the blocking admin and the blocked IP are both located in countries on the list, and the courts do rule that the individual admin is the agent rather than the WMF, those admins are opening themselves up to virtually unlimited personal liability, since it's not uncommon for an admin working WP:AIV to block thousands of accounts at a time. To take an example whom I know is EU resident, HJ Mitchell has enacted a little over 14,000 blocks, and if only 1% of those are EU-based he'd be theoretically exposing himself to between €100 million–€1 billion in fines depending on where the users are based;
5. While normally this liability would be largely theoretical since it's unlikely that under normal circumstances anyone would take action, these are not normal times; there are people who would love to take down Wikipedia and will happily fund the lawsuits. If you think this is just theoretical, I'm sure Gawker will be happy to explain exactly how the process works;
6. If the WMF were willing to explain under what grounds they consider this legal, and explicitly commit to supporting individual admins caught up by this, there would be no issue. The fact that they haven't, implies that either they haven't thought it through, or they're willing to leave anyone caught by it to sink on their own.

Given the recent track record of making poorly thought through decisions without consultation—and given the general contempt the WMF displays towards the editing community—I'm willing to bet that there are no circumstances under which the WMF will commit to supporting anyone taken to court over this. In light of that, and especially given that they haven't even provided a mechanism to disable this functionality other than by checking a box for each-and-every block, in my opinion anyone living or working in one of the countries on that list would be out of their mind to place any block involving an autoblock element from now on. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Had a similar discussion some time ago; the admin may go free if the action is as a secondary action he can't control. If he controls it, then he is responsible. In short, if you have a box to tick, then the admin is responsible. It follows the ability to control the action. Still note that this was in a slightly different setting, so it might not apply. Jeblad (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Got an edit conflict; I apologize for taking a minute to grasp your point. We've already pinged legal here but I will also happily relay your concerns — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"The exception to this rule is when the user requests a service and that service cannot be provided without storing or gaining access to information stored on their computer." from here. That seems simple...if that is the way the system works then cookies may be required for the system to work. Our user agreement may need to be modified, maybe? ...but the software may require the cookie.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't apply here, since it's clearly not impossible for Wikipedia to provide its service without placing cookies on its users' systems without consent. ("Consent" has to be explicit; anyone who's ever used the internet in Europe will be familiar with the "This site uses cookies, click here to proceed to the site if you are willing to accept them or click here to exit" popup.) If they're going to actually try to justify it, rather than sheltering behind the skirts of the servers being based in the US, the only loophole that could apply is user‑centric security cookies, used to detect authentication abuses, for a limited persistent duration, but I wouldn't want to be the one arguing categorically that what's being proposed here falls under that. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have personally contacted legal. Sorry again for being so confused, this all went a little over my head =P While I still think we have little to worry about, you indeed raise very valid concerns and we'll get some answers for you as soon as possible — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another question - when blocking IPs, are any cookies placed, and is there any difference if the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option is chosen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Cookies are only added when you block accounts with the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option set — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify: the cookie itself expires after 24 hours, or an autoblock applied because of existence of the cookie expires after 24 hours? Or both? I ask because we currently don't do long-term blocks of IPs because of the possibility of blocking innocent users, but it's somewhat more reasonable to assume that a user trying to edit with a cookie on their system earned it by being the specific user to whom the block applies. Will there be or could there be an option to set the cookie's expiry to a longer period? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: The cookie itself expires after 24 hours. Just like the old system, any fresh autoblocks also expire after 24 hours, including autoblocks imposed because of the cookie. The expiry of the cookie itself is actually configurable (via a patch to the local site settings), but we started with 24 hours to keep collateral damage minimal. So far the data we're seeing suggests the cookies are doing their job, and the current number of autoblocks has not exceeded what we would normally expect. That being said we might get away with extending the cookie expiration, but let's get the aforementioned legal issues clarified first =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Currently, admins take no action to place a cookie on anyone's system. That is done by the site when anyone accesses Wikipedia via a blocked account. So action against individual administrators seems highly unlikely. Action against the Wikimedia Foundation is, bluntly, their problem. It's legal's job to protect the site from liability. If they signed off on this and shouldn't have, that's on them. The pre-save message above "Save changes" could possibly be amended to include a line stating that the user acknowledges that Wikipedia may use cookies as described in the Privacy Policy, but that's legal's job, not ours. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Re: "The new functionality is that when blocking a user with the autoblock option set, a cookie is stored in the user's browser that points back to the original block." That appears to mean that the new cookie is placed directly by admin action, and not when a blocked editor accesses Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Rest assured this is not the case. Creating a cookie without the user accessing the site would be impossible. I have clarified the wording — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, so the user is blocked, and then next time they visit they get a cookie - thanks for the clarification (and yes, it's obvious really). Whether that overcomes the legal concern is part of what will need to be clarified, and I would certainly not assume myself that a delay between my action and a result of my action would clear me from being held (perhaps partly) responsible in a European court. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry but delaying the action does not free the admin from responsibility. It is his action when ticking the box which triggers the delayed action. If it comes as an automated response outside the control of the blocking admin, then he might go free. That said it is still a bad solution, and in my opinion WMF will most likely break the cookie laws in Europe if they put such a cookie on the property of someone else but the blocked person. Jeblad (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• This just another prime example of shoddy software being rushed out without any thought - I'm not entirely sure why anyone has any confidence left in the WMF.. If I understand the legality concerns above correct, as an EU resident I probably shouldn't be making any `autoblock enabled` blocks until this is clarified, right? Thoroughly disappointed because this could have been a really useful feature -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's certainly my opinion that, without reasonable legal certainty, it would be risky for anyone resident in a country on the aforementioned list to make any 'autoblock enabled' blocks. In fact, as it is necessary to remember to uncheck a checkbox to avoid making such a block and it is easy to forget to do that, I personally (at least temporarily) will not block any registered users. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's cooll, our government in the US has just demonstrated it's very strong commitment to eliminating any concept of data privacy, so we'll pick up the slack. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• There'sNoTime, that's not really fair—if you look at the history of the original request it's been open since Aug 23 2005, so "rushed" certainly doesn't apply, and it was reasonable of the devs to assume that anyone with an interest would have seen it. (Because they're on it all the time, the devs have a tendency to forget that most Wikipedia editors, even the more active ones, don't even know Phabricator exists let alone read it.) Besides, it's perfectly possible either that I'm the one who's wrong about whether cookie laws will actually apply here, or that a conscious decision was made that since only about 20% of edits to en-wiki are made in Europe the benefits to the many outweigh the risks to the few. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I raised exactly the same issues as Iridescent previously but got no real response. I'm now going to have to trawl through the history to find it. In short: WMF Legal protect the WMF and (by extension) the editors/admins in the US. Other jurisdictions have much stricter data laws and editors/admins are required to comply with those laws in their respective countries regardless if the data affected is stored overseas. I cant see how Wikipedia's current cookie system is compliant with the UK's (or other parts of the EU's) regulations, but then it is not really required to. UK/EU based admins *are* required to be compliant, so frankly I would want a UK/EU legal specialist in data law to sign off on this before any UK/EU admin starts cookie-blocking people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone gets sued under UK/EU privacy law for setting a cookie on someone's machine when blocking them for vandalism, I'll upload a video to Commons of myself eating a hat. Seriously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

Well I suppose I can always raise a concern with ICO and see the response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, this seems like a good step forward which will reduce the burden block evaders place on editors and admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the majority of admins would agree with you. I don't yet know how effective this measure will be, but I welcome it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular disagreement that technically this a reasonable solution, but the legal ramifications are quite real. Consider the following scenario:

1. A two-bit Daily Mail journalist, say, Stanley McMurtry finds his article on WP, takes strong exception to being accused of racism, and blanks the text
2. A long-time Wikipedia editor, let's give them a made-up name, "Wigs on the Ping" (WOTP) reverts arguing about GNG, reliable sources, we're a wiki, yada yada
3. Upset, McMurtry blanks the context. Rinse and repeat a few times
4. McMurty tells WOTP something along the lines of "Please do not restore this content, or I will ask the Daily Mail's legal department to take action". WOTP goes straight to ANI with a thread entitled "Legal threats from editor with conflict of interest"
5. The Daily Mail already have previous for wanting to see Wikipedia crumble and squirm under their feet, and would love to knock Wikipedia down a peg or two. Who fancies blocking? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

... two-bit? Surely not. Yours, with rats at my feet, Uncle Tom 123 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a technically bad idea - I think it should be a very effective one. The problem is that many of us cannot be sure it is legal for us to use it personally, and that's a very important issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and There'sNoTime: The EU cookie directive addresses "service providers" not service users or administrators.[4] Also, the directive specifically exempts this type of cookie, i.e user‑centric security cookies used to detect authentication abuses, for a limited persistent duration.[5] IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your argument falls down, I think. Cookie blocks are not for user-centric security, they are for our security. "Authentication abuses" I would read to mean "stop person B from logging in to person A's account maliciously". Moreover the wording of the specific UK law is stricter. As I read it, section 6 of the 2003 regulations, as amended by the 2011 regulations, applies to any person. IANAL so please correct me, but with specifics. BethNaught (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. When it talks about security cookies in that section it means cookies designed to show 'Yes person A is Person A'. Which arguably is what the cookie from the cookie block does. It says editor A is editor A. However when it (the regulations) talk about authentication abuses the intent is that it means cookies designed to prevent third parties masquerading as Person A. Thats the iffy bit. As the cookie block cookie is not designed for the protection of person A at all, only wikipedia. (The UK law however is correct, individuals are generally prosecutable/fineable under almost all data law in the UK - other countries vary). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why "authentication abuses" would be limited to logging in, as authentication just means checking someone's identity/credentials, which is exactly what this cookie is designed to do. Regardless, the exemption doesn't really matter for administrators. The directive is targeted to service providers. In the case of the UK law, regardless of who breaks the law, the service provider is liable for the penalty (a £1,000 fine). (See section 5.) Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The £1000 fine in 2011 §5C applies to breaches of §5A, not §6. It is also about personal data breaches, not cookies. You got that completely wrong. Note "regulation" means section of the regulations, not the whole law. The enforcement is a complete mess of amendments. BethNaught (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, so what's the penalty for violating section 6? Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The theoretical maximum fine is £500,000 per offence, but ICO is never going to level that on an individual. As with English libel judgements, if they decided to get heavy the amount ICO would likely seek would be whatever amount they calculated likely to bankrupt the defendant—the purpose of ICO enforcement is to send a message to others, not to raise funds. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Geez you guys, calm down. This is good news and all this amateur lawyering, when the actual WMF lawyers have OK'd this is just silly. Nobody is going to get the cyber-cops at their door over a Wikipedia block. Nobody. This is just something that is going to make an incremental difference in recidivism amongst schoolboy/throwaway vandal accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The actual WMF lawyers have OK'd it based on US law, with not a word relating to UK/EU law. Unless you know better and can point us to their relevant statement - can you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. A riff on Wikipedia:Systemic bias. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to where lawyer or legal scholar familiar with EU or UK law has explicitly said that this kind of cookie would be valid grounds for a lawsuit with an actual chance of succeeding? Look, I understand your concerns but I think you are overreacting and that it is extremely unlikely some vandal is going to pop up and sue you over a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tortious interference with a legitimate expectation of being allowed to vandalise. Sounds like a rock solid basis for a claim to me!—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The real problem isn't the vandals, but people being blocked as collateral damage. Jeblad (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't point you to "where lawyer or legal scholar familiar with EU or UK law has explicitly said that this kind of cookie would be valid grounds for a lawsuit with an actual chance of succeeding?", but then nobody is actually claiming that is the case - we don't know, we are cautious, and we are *asking*. One thing we are asking is whether WMF Legal folk have actually examined the possibility - and we have no answer yet. As for "unlikely some vandal is going to pop up and sue you over a block", no, of course it's not likely, but we block far more people than just everyday vandals - and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of high profile people out there would would do anything they could to damage Wikipedia. All I'm saying is, let's be sure of the legal status - is that really so unreasonable? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And even if WMF Legal's opinion would be that it is not an issue, it only needs one monied litigant to find a lawyer who thinks otherwise and begin a test case. Yes, that would resolve the issue for good but it would likely put a lot of stress etc on the unfortunate admin. Daily Mail, anyone? - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why we have the Legal Fees Assistance Program of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The one that says "No one should rely on the receipt of assistance or take any action with the expectation of receiving such assistance", and which seems to be close to 50% escape clauses? Yep, that's me reassured. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and "Assistance provided by the program only includes lawyers’ fees and costs and may cover only a part or all of those fees and costs (at WMF’s sole discretion). It will not include payment of any incurred fines, damages (including any award of attorney's fees), or other judgments." So that means that if cookie blocks actually do violate EU law and render an admin liable to fines and/or damages, then the WMF explicitly will not cover that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that first part is in there to avoid functionaries from picking a fight with people or organisations and then expect the foundation to pay up. Like challenging another organisation over the interpretation of a legal principle, with the sole purpose of getting the foundation to pay for testing this principle in court. You can count on the program if you just do your normal work, but not if you are being an inconsiderate, an idiot or a dick (for some reason we apparently need to put such things in writing for some members of our community). And yes there are limitations to the support (because which organisation would ever upfront decide to take on any damages). But as an editor/admin, I know that legal will fight for us. And this is exactly why sometimes they will refuse to make a statement. So that at a later point in time, they will ALWAYS be in a position where they can still fight for us, as remote of a chance such may be, they need that space. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're happy in your knowledge - the only thing I'm confident of is that the WMF will protect themselves. Obviously I wouldn't expect WMF to agree up front to take on any fines or damages, but it actually says a lot more than that - it explicitly says they won't. And that's what makes the Legal Fees Assistance Program explicitly irrelevant with regard to the cookie block issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This mechanism has the potential to be extremely disruptive in countries where one or more major ISP use IP addresses with short lease time. When a blocked user goes through one of those networks the impact can be quite large. If someone use a range block on a user from an ISP the other ranges will most likely also be blocked in short time. Add phab:T152953 and you have a wildfire. No this is not a good idea. Jeblad (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Aww… It is pretty easy to abuse this to create a DOS-attack on editing. Lets say a country that controls access to internet wants to stop everyone from editing about a conflict. It is also possible for someone to block editing from a subnet, given that they have access to that subnet, for example a cell phone network (an ISP). If an adversary can poison the cache, then any targeted person can be blocked from editing. I have not set up a test, so I might be wrong. (Darn, I hope I am wrong!) Jeblad (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There are much much easier ways for a state actor that controls access to the internet to block someone from editing an article. Kaldari (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, they can pull the plug. Jeblad (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have a technical question. I'm not an expert on this at all, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding something. These cookies are files that are placed on a user's computer by the wiki software. However, how does the cookie know that it was placed there by the wiki software? Would it be possible for someone to duplicate the cookie file and manually implant it on another person's computer? If so, wouldn't this be a security issue, allowing a malicious user to block any number of users by implanting this cookie on their computers? Mz7 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really. In most circumstances if you can control someon'es computer sufficient to implant a cookie, you have much more effective ways of blocking them from ever editing wikipedia. Of course you're more likely to install ransomware. For that matter, unless for some reason this access is only very temporary and won't be repeated, you could install a keylogger and steal their financial details and use them later (at least those without 2FA). Note that barring major browser bugs or an intentional change on the part of the user to disable the same-origin policy that all websites have including for cookies, other websites cannot put a cookie for wikimedia sites. (If third-party cookies [6] are enabled then another website could allow wikimedia sites to put cookies when someone visits them, by getting the browser to access WMF sites then setting a cookie.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Note from Wikimedia Foundation legal

Hi, everyone. I'm Aeryn, an attorney on the Wikimedia Foundation legal team who works on privacy topics. I've spoken with my colleagues, and confirmed Michelle's approval for this feature from 2015. We've reviewed this under US and other rules. Like other features on Wikipedia, any cookie issued by the autoblock system is going from the Foundation's software to the affected user. The Foundation hosts the websites, operates the software that places cookies, and bears the responsibility of ensuring its software follows the law. Even if a Wikipedia administrator is involved in turning on "autoblock" for someone, they aren’t involved in setting the cookie's configurations or receiving any information back from the cookie. That is done by the Foundation's software. We’ve included the cookie set by this feature in our cookies table.

If you, as an administrator, face a legal issue related to the use of cookies, you should contact the Foundation’s legal team at legalwikimedia.org so that we can review and respond to the issue as appropriate. Legal cases related to a user’s work as a functionary can qualify for the Legal Fees Assistance Program, which the Foundation runs specifically to help protect the volunteers who do administrative work on the projects. If you have a case like this, please let us know at legalwikimedia.org so that we can review and see if we’re able to help. APalmer (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@APalmer (WMF): So have you, or have you not, examined this issue with respect to UK/EU legal requirements, and are you or are you not of the legal opinion that this does not fall foul of UK/EU law. Will the WMF commit to supporting anyone in the UK/EU facing legal action, and will the WMF commit to covering any penalties and/or costs should the use of WMF software by an admin resident in the UK/EU be deemed by law to be illegal? These are straightforward yes/no questions, so please be specific in your answer rather than giving us more evasive legalistic flannel. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think WMF Legal is going to be able to give you such a guarantee. If you believe that there is substantial legal risk (and that the Legal Fees Assistance Program isn't an adequate hedge) you are welcome to not use the autoblock feature. If lots of admins feel the same way, we can of course remove the feature entirely, but that seems like it would be an unfortunate over-reaction in my opinion. The reason we implemented this feature was because it was asked for in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey, so we know there are a lot of community members who want this feature. We will, however, respect the consensus of the community if a majority feel like it's a bad idea. In my personal opinion, the legal risk has been overblown, but I can't say there is absolutely zero risk. I take a substantial risk of being sued every time I upload an image from the National Portrait Gallery or send the WMF a DMCA counter-notice, but ultimately I think such risks are worth taking if they improve Wikipedia. There is always a chance that the law will be abused regardless of how it is written. In this case, we don't even have an actual legal threat, just tenuous speculation. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Plus, regardless of getting any specifics about EU/UK law, you have confirmation above that any legal implications will be directed at the WMF, not the admin, so it's now a non-issue as far as any individual admin should be concerned. Sam Walton (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, please read it again - there is no specific confirmation that UK/EU law will not be aimed at the individual admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"any cookie issued by the autoblock system is going from the Foundation's software to the affected user. The Foundation hosts the websites, operates the software that places cookies, and bears the responsibility of ensuring its software follows the law. Even if a Wikipedia administrator is involved in turning on "autoblock" for someone, they aren’t involved in setting the cookie's configurations or receiving any information back from the cookie. That is done by the Foundation's software." While that doesn't mention UK/EU law specifically, as I said, it does say that if you click a button that sends a cookie, the WMF is still to blame if that cookie is somehow illegal because it was ultimately sent by their software. Sam Walton (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As you suggest, that is not a statement that the WMF is of the legal opinion that UK/EU lawmakers will see it that way. And do you really think that people who initiate a software-mediated action can never be liable because "the software did it"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Everything you do in the world you could get sued for, it's up to you whether you want to do any of it. You can either accept the analysis there is no reasonable risk or not, but no one will predict the future for you.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I asked the simple question "have you, or have you not, examined this issue with respect to UK/EU legal requirements, and are you or are you not of the legal opinion that this does not fall foul of UK/EU law" - what do you people think is so unreasonable about asking that specific question? It should be easy to answer, yes? (And I wasn't asking general Wikipedians, I was specifically asking it of User:APalmer (WMF) - the non-legal opinions of random others are of no value here.) bit snarky, strike. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I think the WMF have already sort of said they did, but I agree there's nothing wrong with asking for a direct answer. I think the bigger issue which raised an eye brow with your post was whether the WMF would "commit to covering any penalties and/or costs". Technically there's nothing wrong with asking, but I think it's fairly obvious the answer is going to be no so probably if you made it clearer you understod that people wouldn't have been so surprised. Also because of this, your question did IMO miss the bigger issue namely whether the WMF will consider "Legal Fees Assistance Program" to cover fines, damages etc although still at their sole discretion etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Legal Fees Assistance Program" specifically says it won't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a beautiful piece of fobbing though. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 11:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I left out two key words there. I meant to say "will consider expanding the". I read the page so was well aware it did not currently, hence why I said "still at their sole discretion etc". There may very well be reasons why this will never happen, including legal ones. But IMO this has at least some non-zero chance of happening, compared to asking the WMF to guarantee they will pay all fines and penalties (which realisticly has zero chance of happening) or some of the other suggestions in this long thread. Of course, there's nothing stopping the WMF offering to pay even if they don't have a specific public policy in place which allows it. Aand a "we may pay, but it's completely up to us" isn't great reassurance still it's better than nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actual impact of any legal issues which may be relevant

Keep in mind that, in order for you to be punished by legal authorities for any legal violaion by your use of Wikipedia, they need to have proof that you are the peson behgind the account in question. This would tend to be nearly impossible without checkuser data; this information is held by the Foundation, which is in the US. To make things evenm harder, the European authorities probably don't know you're in a relevant country, so they probably won't even bother asking for this information. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would want to see a declaration from the WMF they have never handed over editor details to avoid a legal case against them before I would believe that. Given the amount of times various wikipedia editors actually have been embroiled in problems, I suspect the answer is not zero. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The answer is definitely not zero, as they've handed over data associated with child protection and blatant copyright violations, I'm sure. But I guarantee it's zero when you restrict the scope to "legal cases by foreign entities that have no basis in US law". There would be no legal case that applies to the WMF that's based in EU law. The WMF isn't based in the EU. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death, the privacy policy has always contained loopholes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through, and could reasonably be summarised as "we won't disclose your personal information unless we want to". Whether the WMF leaks or not isn't really the issue, since the IRL identity of plenty of WP admins is publicly disclosed, and all anyone wanting to administer a punishment beating to Wikipedia would need is to identify one of them, look through their block log for a block on someone who's themselves identifiable, and approach that person and ask them to take part in a test case. (If I were a Daily Mail hack right now, I'd be trying to engineer a situation in which Wikipedia's highest-profile EU resident admin blocked me.) The fact that it's now four days since I asked if the legal implications had been considered, and thus far not a peep from the WMF, makes me think that possibly the answer isn't as clear-cut as those dismissing my question above seem to think. If there's genuinely no potential issue, then the WMF will have no problem in making a "we will provide whatever support is necessary" commitment. ‑ Iridescent 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been involved with legal people regarding web sites and data protection, etc, issues before (unrelated to Wikipedia), and the usual response has been that if you can't say anything with certainty then you shouldn't say anything at all - to the extent that I and colleagues have been instructed to simply not answer questions. I don't expect a wildly different outcome here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. I want to note for this issue, that we record all the info about user data requests and disclosures at the Transparency Report. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Foundation has definitely released IP addresses of editors before: this incident is the main one. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this was a case of what appeared to be an issue according to US law. Block cookies aren't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio or just a breach of a website's T&Cs?

Via an OTRS ticket I've been made aware that we have over 41,000(!) links, mostly used as references in visa requirement articles, linking to http://www.timaticweb.com. This site is a subscription site but the links inserted include a set of log in details, hence the links go through to the final page rather than a landing page. The owners of the website are naturally a bit distressed that we are hosting so many links to a trade site that users have to pay for. As they are also the owners of the public site http://www.iatatravelcentre.com there is not objection to this site being linked to instead.

By having in the link the necessary information to log into the site this would appear to be a breach of timaticweb T&C let alone security and not an action we should condone?

Suggestions for actions? I'm thinking

1. suggest the site owners disable the account that appears to being used in the links
2. we remove all the links and consider replacing with links to www.iatatravelcentre.com, however I think this needs a query completing for each combination of countries. (Bot task?)

Nthep (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words we are using URLs that provide a login access to content, rather than plain links which point to a landing/"subscription required" page? Well, I guess it'd depend on whether the content of the public site iatatravelcentre is of the same quality as the timaticweb one. Something to compare with: What would Wikimedia do if there was a website that lists accounts with login details, allowing violations of WP:SHARE? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is some previous discussion of these links at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#links to TimaticWeb. There are also tmeplates that use Timatic Template:Timatic and Template:Timatic Visa Policy which may need to be looked at. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I would say that without permission from both Timatic and the airline whose login we are using we really shouldn't have these links. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that the user details are coded into both these templates (it's appears to be a Gulf Air account). The difference between the two sites is that timatciweb gives travel trade practitioners a one page summary of visa requirements whereas iatatravelcentre gives a more personalised result based on the input of more information that just home country and destination. Nthep (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation, probably just a breach of the other website's terms and conditions. We're not hosting any copyrighted content, and we're linking to a website that is legitimately hosting content. If the account information is being used illegitimately, that's for them to handle (or not) how they wish. We have no legal obligation not to host such URLs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps no legal obligation not to make our users fraudulently access another website when they follow our links, but I would suggest a moral one, to our readers if no one else. I for one would like to be warned before clicking on such a link. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's on the operators of the website to not have a login system which can be accessed by passing credentials in the URL; I would argue this makes it publicly accessible. On the other hand, if they have clearly stated that this material is meant to be accessed only by subscription, then the link probably violates their copyright (i.e. the editor posting the link here has violated their copyright) and yes Wikipedia can be legally liable for hosting links to copyrighted content in such a situation (IANAL, but see contributory copyright infringement). It's probably in our best interest to remove the links and perhaps blacklist the site, at least temporarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no policy-based reason to change anything. Ignoring subscription access procedures is not a copyright issue (contributory infringement is impossible unless someone else is copying in an infringing manner; if we're linking to something put up by the owner, nobody's infringing copyright), and we're not bound by their T&A. However, I agree that this simply isn't the right thing to do; we shouldn't be helping someone get content that they should have to pay for. What to do? Do the links go to born-digital data, or are they merely digital versions of print originals? If the former, we'll have to replace something. If the latter, removing the links will be sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the obvious solution is to not allow users to login to your site via a URL, which seems like incredibly poor security, however this is a good faith request and I see no reason not to 'fix' or remove these URLs. Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the credentials used to 'share' access to timaticweb have been disabled by the site. As it looks like a lot of the 41k links are via the {{Timatic}} I suggest the template is temporarily locked to prevent another set of credentials being substituted (something I think has been done before looking at the template history). This now leaves us with a lot of non-working links, attempting to follow a link brings up a 503 error not a redirect to the landing page.

Now while I originally labelled this section as a possible copyvio, I accept that the content being linked to isn't copyrighted just a very convenient repository but I share the sentiments of others who feel it isn't right that we are hosting a method of sharing account information and possibly undermining a commercial operation whether or not we feel they need to address their site security. Nthep (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have placed both templates under full-pp for two weeks while we work out what to do if anything. I have a feeling that replacing the links with links to iatatravelcentre isn't going to achieve anything as it requires quite detailed information submitting into the query field to produce a result. Nthep (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We were discussing this on several occasions before but never came up with a definite answer. There are two issues here, copyright and the use as a reference. When it comes to copyright in all likelihood the information stored does not pass the threshold of creativity to be copyrighted, it's just facts that by definition can't be copyrighted. It's not even originally created by Timatic, only compiled as the data is provided by the national governments and in most countries government-produced material is not copyrighted. However I've always removed direct copy/pasting of content from Timatic just to avoid any possible copyvio claims. So for that matter there is very little grounds to claim any copyright violations as we don't store any of the material which could be copyrighted here, we only link to it. The more complicated issue is whether we can use it as a source. Timatic is openly accessible, links with credentials are to be found on airline websites or forums like FlyerTalk, there is absolutely no log-in required or any warning whatsoever, saying that it is a subscription service would make very little sense. Credentials are changed only if one of the airlines ceases using Timatic and switches to another service like Delta or KLM did meaning the KLM was switched to Gulf not because KLM blocked access but because it switched to klm.traveldoc.aero. But even if it was a subscription service it shouldn't prevent us from using it as a reference, just like any other paid source. This is how landing page access looks like - https://www.olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic but it takes you to the same page as the ones used in links. But if a bot can replace all of the links with a corresponding link on www.iatatravelcentre.com which is supposedly OK then it should be fine.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The only objection is that use of credentials in templates on Wikipedia breaches the terms and conditions of use of Timatic T&C clause 1.1. Whether these credentials are widely available elsewhere is not the point, this is about whether Wikipedia should be participating in such conduct. Now if all 41,000 links are via the two templates mentioned above then changing the link to point to the search page of iatatravelcentre.com or using olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which seems to me to be an easier interface i.e. not as much detailed travel information required probably isn't a huge job. Nthep (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

But does the "IATA Timatic Service(s)" refer to the database? Timatic is a big system used by the airlines, it's mostly automated these days. The terms of service refer to the Timaticweb2 which should be the program used by airlines to screen passengers against visa and health requirements. In the FAQ it says "TimaticWeb 2 is based on the Timatic database.". What we are linking to here is as far as I understand the Timatic database, I don't think we are using the Timaticweb2 subscription service. But if it can be all easily replaced to www.iatatravelcentre.com or olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic then of course we should do that.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just had a good look about the T&Cs of Timatic. It seems like that those who access Timatic as a member of the public are considered "users", per the definition:"'[u]ser' means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Also under section 4.2: "The Subscriber may provide Users with IATA Timatic Information using interfaces developed independently of this Subscription (when subscribing to IATA Timatic AutoCheck) or as may be provided by IATA. The Subscriber may provide public access to IATA Timatic Information on their website including mobile websites and mobile applications, provided the Subscriber ensures that any public user is notified of the statement in clause 7.3." So it seems that each individual request is made as a user and is covered under section 4.2 (hence the KLM or Golf Air authentication), and the section 1.1 only applies to subscribers which definitely does not apply to Wikipedia in this case. Put it this way: we are just accessing the information provided by the airlines as a member of the public. Let me know if I'm missing anything else here. C-GAUN (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, IMO there's nothing we did to breach the T&Cs on the use of Timatic services. We have not violated the terms of use in section 4. The fees are between IATA and the subscribers, and do not concern the users. The information we access is provided by the IATA and none have violated section 7. C-GAUN (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A bit more details on the compliance of terms. 4.3.1 is not violated because at none of the time the information has been extracted, resold or transfered; none of the information is stored on Wikipedia as a compliance per 4.3.3; there is no application that retrieves the previously accessed version of Timatic hence 4.3.4 is satisfied. Section 5, 6, 7 mainly concern the terms between subscribers and IATA and are not applicable in this case. Would love to hear your opinions but please read the T&C thoroughly for more constructive comments. C-GAUN (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@C-GUAN: thank you for your assessment however I contend that what is lacking is visibility of consent from the subscribers (i.e. the airlines) for members of the public to use their credentials to access the site - the wording is "

Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription" - my emphasis on facilitation. Where is the evidence of that facilitation in the templates here on Wikipedia? Did KLM or Gulf Air give permission for their credentials to be used or as alluded to by Twofortnights were just picked up off a fan forum and changed from KLM to Gulf Air by the same process when KLM stopped using Timeatic? IATA as the owners of Timeatic obviously think the T&Cs are being breached otherwise why would they have bothered to make contact. I suggest para 4.2 allows airlines to give unfettered access to the public to Timeatic through their own interface as part of that airline's subscription, for example, olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which is why I suggested that if the templates are modified to access the data via an airlines interface that is in compliance with the T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the main problem is that there is NO T&C governing how the users may access the information via the subscribers or Timatic as a whole. Obviously the Timatic T&C here is followed. If you can find other information on the KLM or Golf Air website stating that users are somewhat restricted from accessing the information then I don't see if there's a problem, as IATA can unilaterally change their TOS but chooses not to. Also 4.2 stated the subscriber may provide the access via their own interface OR the Timatic interface so long as 7.3 or 7.4 is satisfied, which is the case here. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So where is the authorisation of KLM, Gulf Air or any other airline to use their credentials to access the Timeatic website directly? A query via the airlines own website that returns a result from Timeatic I understand but not using a set of credentials without confirmation of a) where the credentials came from, and b) do the airline agree to their being used via Wikipedia? Regardless of how we feel about this we have the owners of the website saying that the access to Timeatic in the way it is currently being done is not in line with their T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are asking for something that never existed. The airline provides access to the information and the users access them directly via the Timatic site or the airline's website as long as conditions set out in section 7 are met. The airline may refuse to do so as well, but there are no rules governing which user can have access to Timatic and which may not. Back in 2013 Delta abruptly ended the ability for customers to access Timatic and removed the tool from their site, hence the links also became invalid because Delta no longer provides "B2C", but it was a unilateral decision and there were never any rules stating that the information must be accessed from Delta. If your so-called "credentials" were obtained from the site then there needs to be a username and password, but the URL clearly stated that the information is obtained as a user via B2C (which stands for business to customer) and hence are not different from the information accessed from the airline's website. AFAIK there are no rules governing how a user may access the information as long as the airline provides the access point to the system. Again, please read the T&C more carefully.

Also I wonder if there's any proof to support that your "request" came directly from Timatic or the airline, as the OTRS is in no way affiliated with IATA or Timatic. So if the airline or Timatic wants people to stop accessing the database then they need to do so directly, not via some third-party websites that has nothing to do with either IATA or the airline. C-GAUN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, if the airline wanted to cease user access to Timatic it could do so easily, there is precedent.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

C-GAUN I'll just answer the last point as far as I can. As part of the OTRS agent I have to maintain confidentiality but I am satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source. If any other OTRS agent wants to confirm that the ticket number is VRTS ticket # 2017041110015924. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to communicate further through the ticket? Is there any explanation as to why the airline wouldn't restrict access to third party users by themselves and what in particular is a problem with using the information they openly provide on their website as a reference? If the problem is direct access through the use of credentials (although here we go back to the first question), would it be fine to switch and use through https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no objection to the public interface at http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/travelinformation.php# being used to access the same information. The objection is to using the subscribers interface. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But as explained by C-GAUN, the B2C is not a subscriber interface but a user interface.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, I have no idea how you would be "satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source". If you have taken an actual look at the Gulf Air's own T&C here, you can clearly see that there are no TOS or T&C related to the use of an external source on their website. However, as I have pointed out below, Emirates's TOS clearly stated that the use of IATA materials falls out of their jurisdiction. So I suggest that you communicate with them to see what's wrong on their end instead. C-GAUN (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you start at the top of the thread you'll see the request to stop using timaticweb.com comes from IATA who own that domain. That's why we have had so much discussion about the T&Cs of timaticweb.com. Gulf Air only comes into this because the templates on Wikipedia use Gulf Air's user and B2C codes to produce results - having previously used KLM and Emirates at different times. That really smacks to me of less than honest use of various airlines' user and B2C details to access timaticweb.com. IATA would like us to stop, at least in the current fashion, because timaticweb.com is a subscription service and instead IATA offer <www.iatatravelcentre.com> as an alternative as it is a public facing website. What is the objection to routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA? Nthep (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, my problem is that the request itself was unreasonable as the users have broken none of the Timatic's TOS. If they really have a problem, then they should take it up to a subscriber instead of the users here. As for the "less honest" thing you claimed, it was totally unreasonable and would offend a great number of editors as accessing the information as a user is completely legal regardless of how it was accessed. You have repeatedly failed to state that how the editors, as generic users, violated their TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I did invite IATA to participate in this discussion but as the page currently under semi-pp, I'm awaiting further information via the OTRS ticket. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have an update from IATA: "The subscriber is only providing access to the public when the requests were being made from the subscriber's interface on their website using their interface. In this case, the Wikipedia users have reverse engineered the site to bypass the interface developed by the subscriber and access Timatic information independent of the subscribers' website. This is unauthorized access and this way of accessing Timatic is in violation of the End User Terms of Use and is not permitted."

I reproduce here the definition of user from schedule 1 of the Terms of Use "Users means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Nthep (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA, but does anyone have the technical knowledge how to do it? As for using different users before, it was already explained, changes were done when certain airlines ceased using Timatic (or perhaps switched off public user access and kept it to their subscription only).--Twofortnights (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @C-GAUN: here. After carefully looking at the terms, it seems that what we were linked to here initially are the terms of service for subscribers and not the users. The terms of service for users are here - https://www.timaticweb2.com/userterms. The subscriber terms of service clearly say that a Subscriber can make the IATA Timatic Information available to Users via a publically available website. As I've said before, KLM did not make it publicly unavailable but simply switched from Timatic to Traveldoc which is another service. This was the reason to change and as for whether the Gulf Air makes it publicly available or whether the credentials were obtained secretly from a forum, the Gulf Air makes Timatic publicly available on their website here - https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information. Industrial solutions that the subscription is for are for example Timatic AutoCheck and such, which are big automated systems for passenger control, not a simple data that we can look at in publicly available Timatic. Additionally we don't store any of the Timatic data here (even though we can argue on the threshold of creativity), we simply use it as a reference. I am not sure if subscription service can be used as a Wikipedia reference, for example a book also needs to be purchased and it can be used as a reference, but it doesn't apply here as the service is obviously publicly available (and as per Subscriber terms - to the extent a Subscriber wants it to be - so they can limit it if they wish to do so).--Twofortnights (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute the right of a subscribing airline to make the Timeatic information available through a public website but routeing a query via gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information legitimately is a different bird to coding a template that includes a direct url to timaticweb.com even if the end result is the same page. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether the airline wants to provide access to Timatic is at the sole discretion of the airline. If it decided to do so, however, then there is no restriction on how we can access the information (either via Golf Air's own portal or the Timatic portal) so long as section 7.3 and 7.4 are satisfied. Also, as Twofornights pointed out, the user TOS is not violated as well, as we are not providing Timatic information here. Only those who access the link to Timatic can be considered as a 'user" per the definition of Schedule 1 of the subscriber's TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything on Gulf Air regarding the use of the information, however founded the T&C on Emirates's rules regarding the Timatic portal, which reads:

This Website (emirates.com) may contain links and pointers to Internet sites maintained by third parties. We do not operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on such third-party sites. Third party links and pointers are included solely for your convenience, and do not constitute any endorsement by us. You assume sole responsibility for use of third party links and pointers.

This, in principle, applies to all third parties' websites. So you cannot ask an airline to be responsible for the access to a third party's website and the information contained therein. C-GAUN (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:XPanettaa

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

---

I wonder if one of you with some time on their hands can look at the unblock request on this talk page, and spend a few words explaining whatever your decision is. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can't respond to this as I was the original blocking admin, but the details are in the block section at this revision of Xpanettaa's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to hear others' opinions, but the explanation — inasmuch as I can make it out at all — just doesn't seem credible. As far as I can tell, the story is that a guy he knows also edits Wikipedia from his flat, on a different device (though not at the same time), while another guy from the same school edits as an IP, which explains the technical evidence. But the evidence isn't only technical; in fact AFAICT a CU has never been run. The evidence behind the block was behavioural; they are also all editing obscure recording labels and related topics. I guess if you stretch AGF thin enough then I can imagine a bunch of friends all interested in editing the same things - but then why are they never at the same time? Colour me unconvinced. Add to this that the account claims, on their userpage, to be a native English speaker, and compare that claim with the content of their talkpage; either this is flat-out untrue or their writing is so informal as to be without use in an encyclopaedia. I'm struggling to believe their explanation and I'm struggling to see the benefit to unblocking them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'll state it here since this might not be what Drmies meant by having a few words with the editor. My words would be "Talk page access revoked". After looking, I don't believe him and do not think that the community can trust him. Also, due to the TLDR responses, he is sinking too much time.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) It certainly appears to be a case in which they are actually defending themselves against a charge which has not yet been levied (that of IP socking)- aaaand thus letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Already levied and the case is here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• On further reading, I've declined the unblock request and removed TP access. The explanation is simply not credible; not only have they allegedly got friends who edit the same articles as them at different times while "borrowing" their IP address (like you can lend it to someone while you're not using it???), the same thing has also happened at commons and at nl-wiki. I just can't see it, with all the good will in the world. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi kind of has a point above; AFAICT, the only CU that's been run was at commons and the result was 'Inconclusive'. So being all defensive about the technical evidence is kind of giving the game away, too. If anyone feels like investing more time with this editor in the hope of something productive coming out of it, take this as permission to undo my actions without specifically checking with me first. I wish such an admin luck. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Sudden onslaught of sandboxes in Tamil

As I go through the list of new userpages I ran across a lot of (easily 100+) closely spaced creations of sandboxes in Tamil [7]. A run of a random few through Google Translate shows that they are all about things related to Singapore. A few have AFC tags. I suspect this is an unregistered student project...but I'm posting this here since Wiki Ed only deals with English-language courses as far as I'm aware. Any Tamil-speaking admins able to figure something out? – Train2104 (t • c) 05:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

More likely, a wiki conference of some sort, rather than a specific class, given the small time period in which all of them were created. Maybe leave a note on Tamil WP? --Izno (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff lists Tamil as his cradlespeech, so I've asked him for help. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and ping Nyttend, based on just two pages I saw (I haven't looked far into the new page listing), it appears to be some sort of chronology of various elements related to the political history of Tamils in Singapore. There was something related to the main topic at AfD a while back, I think Lemongirl942 might be able to provide some context, from the looks of it, these appear to be non-notable topics and I doubt anything useful would result out of transwikiing this to ta.wiki. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing of mass readded "nominated for deletion on Commons" tags

Kj1595 has been going around and removing {{nominated for deletion on Commons}} tags from files that have versions on Commons up for deletion. Is there a way to mass readd them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done them manually as there's only 56 of them according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. The same editor is not removing the {{Deleted on Commons}} templates you added. I've re-added one for File:Golemi FC Logo.svg, but haven't touched the rest yet. While I can kind of understand the editor feeling embarrassed over this since they were the reason behind c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595, it seems the usefulness of this template in possibly preventing a similar good faith mistake is more important. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. (By the way the ping did not work, because the ping and the signature have to occur in the same edit.) I've restored the tags and left a more detailed explanation on the user's talk page as to why they shouldn't be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...I re-signed when I pinged, so not sure why it didn't work. Anyway, thanks for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy-and-paste move from draft to article

Resolved

 – Seems to be sorted. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Edvin Polyanovsky appears to have been a copy-and-paste move to Edvin Polyanovsky. Most likely was done in good faith by an editor not familiar with moving pages. Putting any notability issues of the subject aside for just a moment, I am wondering if a history merge is needed.

Now, if notability is indeed an issue (hard to tell since the sources cited do not appear to be onlne or in English, neither of which is something prohibtted per se), then maybe it should be moved back to the draft namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with copy/paste moving is that it breaks attribution and obscures the edit history, but in this case, the editor who did the move was the only one who edited the draft (i.e. attribution is unaffected), and when the source of the copying is a draft all written by the same person, it doesn't really matter if we lose that, either. No comment on the notability side. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this Nyttend. I don't think that both a draft and an article are needed. Should the draft be taken to WP:MfD or can it be speedily deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability is fine, this is a pretty well-known author, though more references would not harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to @Nyttend, Primefac, and Ymblanter: for taking a look and sorting this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also a machine translation from Russian; I do not have time right now to clean it up, will mark as a bad translation.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Violation of community ban

Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Light show was community banned from all uploads here in November 2014. He has twice before violated the ban. He was indeffed at Commons in November 2013. The ban there was lifted with restrictions in October 2015. On December 30, 2016, he was community banned at Commons.

I've been moving a lot of files to Commons over the last few weeks. Not long ago, I was able to remove 2-3 like this one File:Louis B. Mayer and wife.jpg from the CCI page and was thinking about whether or not those files should be moved to Commons; went to the upload log and found this: File:Saul Zaentz1.jpg Despite many appeals, the last one in July 2016, the upload ban here has never been lifted. We hope (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been dealing with this a long time ......thank you Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. What would like to see happen?--Moxy (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Has the community ban been violated or are you seeking guidance on whether past uploads here from an editor banned on Commons can be transferred to Commons? If the latter, you must direct that question to the Commons community, not us. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The community ban here has been violated by this upload [[::File:Saul Zaentz1.jpg]]. We hope (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for upload#Saul Zaentz ..but did he ask?--Moxy (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no record of his asking the community for a lifting/exception to the ban outside of his last appeal in July 2016 I'm aware of. We hope (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

He's linked to User:Moonriddengirl talk page as the reason he can upload the image. Perhaps they can explain more?--Moxy (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MRG hasn't been active as an editor for a while. This looks like the last post by him re: permissions-from last year. In the thread, she explains that he needs to come to AN to do anything about the upload ban. We hope (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem may be able to shed more light in the absence of MRG, as he's aware of the history here. We hope (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Best I know the ban is still in effect, per We hope. That said, I can track down the original [8] and can't really tell if that's a commercial work or not, but it does seem to be a otherwise valid NFC image. But I think that Light show should have saught approval or request someone else to upload it as this is a technical violation of the ban. Perhaps a gentle reminder that the ban still exists and the next time will be a block? --MASEM (t) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this, he initially did ask for an upload "Note: I can upload this with approval." Then he said he could do it himself. "I can upload it. Thanks. --" Not sure how MRG ties into this because she explained previously that he had to seek community approval before resuming any uploads. We hope (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My read is that Light show should not have uploaded that; they needed community approval to remove the ban, not for a case-by-case upload allownace. (They are certainly free to ask to ask another editor "can you upload this image for me", presuming that editor takes responsibility if there's a NFC problem). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you; FWIW, this is the third time he's violated the uploading ban. We hope (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF that they really believed they could do it in limited circumstances. They can't though, and I have issued an explicit reminder that they are still topic banned and that if there are further such misunderstandings in the future, blocks will be forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is quite an amazing discussion. It's been pointed out to me numerous times that it's OK to ask others to upload an image, which is what I did. I even made clear as part of the request that I was also seeking approval from MRG in case she would simply let me do it and save an editor the effort. A regular uploading editor obviously read the request and stated clearly, Approval granted.

As for why this is amazing, in case it's not self-evident, it's because all someone would have had to do is add a note about the issue on my talk page. At a minimum, We Hope, or anyone else here, should have first or also contacted the approving editor, User:Majora, about this apparent and/or ultra-petty violation, which it seems no one has attempted. If there is some violation worth considering, it would clearly be the continual hounding and targeting. To again see another AN about this easily fixed triviality is quite something. I would have been happy to delete the image and let another editor upload it.--Light show (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you have been told that, you didn't get someone else to upload it, you did it yourself. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that it's not the case that any individual editor can excuse you (even for a single edit) from a community ban. Sam Walton (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this reply from Light Show is really not helping their case. You didn't ask "can I have approval to violate a topic ban?" so it's completely spurious to say you had approval. Don't upload any more images unless and until the topic ban is lifted. Period. It's not complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to apologize here. I did not actually read the ban and I was under the impression that they were fine as long as they got approval. I did ask if they wanted me to upload it for them and they said they would do it. They did not put the right tags on the image but I went ahead and fixed that. I'm sorry if I caused issues. Probably should have read the actual ban discussion before agreeing to grant "approval" of some sort. --Majora (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that, given Majora's comment, this has been resolved. Light show should now know that their ban is still in effect, and that they can ask other editors to upload images, but cannot do so themselves, even if the other editor mistakenly gives "permission" for Light show to do so. Light show should also be aware now that they shouldn't ask for permission. If something like this happens again, I feel sure that an admin will issue the appropriate block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old is severely backlogged

Resolved

What the title said. The old revisions of files in this category are essentially copyright violations which do not fall under the fair use exemption, so this should be high priority. I wrote a bit about how to process these at User_talk:BU_Rob13/Archive_7#Non-free_files.2FAN. If you're willing to help and have further questions, let me know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'll hack away at this heap as I have time. According to your instructions, the priority is just deleting the old, large revisions and removing the template; is it a priority to do stuff like check the free-use rationale at the same time and fill in the 'image has rationale' field? Or is it better to just get through the CSD backlog? GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not as high-priority as revision-deleting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick question for admins who've never done much in this area - I had a look at File:Half Girlfriend Poster.jpg and thought, well compared to one of my uploads such as File:Firth of Fifth.ogg, that FUR isn't very good, and two of the rationales are missing. Should we delete anyway because incomplete is incomplete (it's not what I read from WP:CSD#F7, but what do regulars do?), fix the rationales which ought to be doable, or decline outright as at least having some sort of FUR compared to none at all? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I had similar questions - but given the scale of the backlog, I've been pretty shamelessly plucking the low-hanging fruit and leaving anything complicated to those more knowledgeable than myself. How hard would it be to write a bot to spot and process the obvious ones? GoldenRing (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's a pretty standard NFUR. There is no free alternative to an official movie poster, so that field is correctly "not applicable". There could be a better rationale in the respect for commercial opportunities bit, which would read something like "Reproducing a promotional movie poster to identify the article subject is believed to have a minimal effect on commercial opportunities, especially when done at a low resolution." This isn't high priority. The actual "problem" that we need to solve in this backlog isn't the NFURs themselves but the presence of old unused revisions. Old revisions of non-free images must be revision deleted because we can't claim "fair use" on an old version of an image which we no longer need to retain for any encyclopedic purpose. Personally, I don't worry about the NFURs when going through this backlog unless I happen to notice something particularly egregious. We have separate backlogs to verify NFURs, and editors do actively work through them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've installed the script and I'll pick away at these in my spare moments. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: Thanks for raising this. I'm working through the backlog as well. One thing worth mentioning as well to look for is editors repeatedly re-uploading high resolution versions of images after the bot resizes them. I've just run into an image where the uploader did it three times. This creates a lot of work for admins and we should be educating them on why not to do this. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also finding a number of logos that should be PD-logo, and some images that flat-out fail NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Be very careful calling things PD-logo. Things you would think would be simple may not be, especially in certain countries (e.g. Australia) where the threshold of originality is just barely above "it exists". We'd rather have some things be non-free which should be PD-logo than vice versa. Things that fail the NFCC should be nominated for FFD, typically. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Or alternatively call them {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. enwiki does follow only the US copyright law, and US copyright law applies its treshold of originality to foreign works as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unless it is a clear cut, 100% without a doubt, PD-textlogo it is better to leave it as fair use. Logos aren't generally used on more than one article anyways and I doubt third-party reusers are clamoring to use logos we have marked as fair use when they shouldn't be. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've left the dubious ones - but things like File:Current, KOSU, logo, January 2015.jpg and File:Crescent Capital group logo 2.png are straightforward. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nice work all. Squeaky clean. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to create a redirect to SOS

Resolved

 – the answer would appear to be "no." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create a redirect to SOS with the titles ***---*** and •••---••• (this is the morse code for SOS). Can you create it? It is on the blacklist. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We already have four variations of SOS in Morse code. We don't really need any more. Those particular ones are on the blacklist due to disallowed characters. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to go to the effort of typing those characters into the search box? It seems very unlikely. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mangled history?

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

---

At Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis the original nomination s referred to by some of the !votes, but is not on the page or in the history, nor do I see the usual indications of a deleted history. Could someone take a look, and if possible restore the original nomination? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the talk page - no idea why people are !voting there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally missed that. Note to self. Next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia. ..--Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe :-) It looks like those !votes have been copied over, so at least they're not being missed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Please move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 -->

Please move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident

Keeps with same nomenclature for all deletion discussions about same page.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No - since the title of the article at the time was United Express Flight 3411, the discussion page is titled correctly. ansh666 23:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There may be, occasionally, a justification to move open AfD discussions; there certainly is no need to move closed ones. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes there is – when the original AfD is mistilted, which prevents it from being listed in later AfD's under the same title (e.g. [9] ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "this AFD is clearly misnamed" and "this page has since been moved." As has been rightly pointed out by both sides, the former should be renamed and the latter should not. I will agree, though, that it can sometimes make subsequent nominations be off by an ordinal, but that's what the talk page records are for. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Barring actual problems with the AFD, don't move a discussion — move it if there were a mistake when it was created (IJBall gives a good example of such a thing), or move it if the title itself is somehow causing problems (I'm meaning something much more significant than "3rd nomination", something that's quite rare), but if the title were correct when it was created, don't move it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review to close

This one appears to be ready to close [10].

Looks to be 6-3 for Endorse.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc re MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext

Resolved

 – Edits to MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext reverted and IP blocked by other admins. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have started a Request for Comments at MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext#Rfc re style of message. Anyone is welcome to come and join this discussion. 120.17.172.248 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI this is a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Tarage (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from user Edday1051

• Edday1051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Edday1051 has requested consideration of the standard offer, apparently via UTRS however there's been some breakdown in process and their request was never posted here (partly my own fault). Details of the disruptive behaviour which led to his block can be read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive#31 August 2016; the account is also checkuser-blocked by Bbb23. Edday1051's unblock request is reproduced below:

I would like to request an unblock of my account per standard offer. I understand what led to my block, which includes use of multiple accounts and edit warring, and do not intend on engaging in this behavior going forward. Edday1051 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A subsequent SPI on 15 September 2016 suggested he had also been editing through IP 50.29.199.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked at the request of SPI clerk L235. A number of other reports from the same user around the same time and with similar evidence returned negative CU checks, which I think adds doubt to L235's determination (i.e. there's a lot of disruptive editors in NFL articles). Edday1051 himself has denied the connection, passionately enough to have had his talk page access revoked at the time. That being said, I have just given the IP a 4im warning for gravedancing and personal attacks from earlier this week.

I am posting on the user's behalf and am neutral unless I make subsequent comments. Please check User talk:Edday1051 for additional comments from the user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• My general thought for cases like this is that if the editor genuinely keeps way for six months, then the default position should be to unblock unless there is anything especially egregious. There is the suspected block evasion in September, but I don't see the evidence as really being strong enough and I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, we have someone who has been contributing constructively for a long time and who previously only had a few blocks back in 2011. I support unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Adminstats bug

FYI, the template {{adminstats}} seems to be broken. I've commented at Template talk:Adminstats#Bug - says I'm not an admin. Fences&Windows 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Cyberpower678#Adminstats_error --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Has happened before, see here. Lectonar (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennepicfoundation: move from topic ban to full ban

There is consensus among the community of editors that Jennepicfoundation be banned indefinitely from editing any and all pages of the English Wikipedia. Following the indefinite block already enacted by Ks0stm, Jennepicfoundation will also loose the ability to edit her user talk page. I have notified her about the ban and the option of appealing it via WP:UTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

After a series of blocked sockpuppets and a discussion on ANI, an article ban was put in place for Jennepicfoundation (talk · contribs) related to her boss (the only subject she has edited) in December 2016. Since then, she has abided by the restricition, not editing the article itself but the repetitive requests on the talk page have diverged into WP:GAME where she was caught placing pieces in the press to then use them as sources.

Her latest request makes it clear that she is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, rather to use Wikipedia as another channel in he Epic Foundation's efforts to promote its leader. I believe it is time to stop wasting time dealing with her requests on the talk page and replace the topic ban with an WP:SBAN. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried really hard to work with her but I agree this has gotten to be a pain. She was page-banned in December (after copy-pasting a "foundation approved" biography into our article), but allowed to make comments and suggestions on the article talk page. Since then she has posted "now can we add this?" comments to the talk page on January 5 (pinging me again on January 10 when I hadn't responded), March 8, and April 19. In every case she proposes new sources in an effort to get us to restore information that had been in the company bio, but was declined by us Wikipedians as not independently sourced. In her latest request, she tries to get us to accept as sources things like Seekingalpha.com, DNAIndia, SXSW (apparently a conference whose program includes his canned biography), a Huffington Post blog (a profile whose neutrality can be divined from the opening sentence, "Alexandre Mars has a special radiance around him"), and the Jordan Times (a one-sentence quote from him). I have been the primary person working with her in the past, which is why she pings me, but I have to admit I have become slow to respond; my reaction has become "here we go again!" Her entire goal here appears to be, to make the Wikipedia article duplicate as closely as possible the "foundation approved" biography she copy-pasted into the article in December. I'm afraid Todd is right; she is not here to build an encyclopedia. She is only here to do her job, namely, to create a Wikipedia article that promotes her employer. He is notable and deserves an article, but it has to be an encyclopedia article, not a puff piece. And it's clear that "puff piece" is her only goal. I reluctantly endorse Todd's suggestion of a siteban, per WP:NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is of interest: Earlier today, someone suggested she work on other articles instead of being an SPA, and she asked whether doing that would further her "overall ambition to edit Alexandre Mars' page", and she complained about the "backlash" she has received in "trying to update his page." [11] She could hardly have been clearer about what her purpose here is. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what this editor is doing here. Support. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support I've just read through the editor's history - user talk page, the article tp, etc. I'm actually surprised how long NOTHERE has been tolerated, we should strive to shut this kind of editor down faster. Leading them on for months is counterproductive at every level; it wastes not only the editor's time, it also wastes the time and goodwill of those dealing with the endless requests for edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support very clear SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Editor has breached a whole lot of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT in order to continue a campaign of promotionalism. Not to mention the GAMEy and POINTy behaviour referenced above. It's a fair point, of course, that they have breached these codes of behaviour at least in part becasue we have alowed them tto. By that token, this is now the point at which we do what we we didn't do, in the spirit of good faith and reason, some months ago. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wouldn't just extending the topic ban to include talk pages achieve the same thing while appearing a bit less heavy handed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the responses below make sense, so I support a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support AGF is not a suicide pact. Enough time and energy has been expended trying to allow this user to subvert Wikipeida's purpose; a clearer example of WP:NOTHERE would be hard to come by. With regards to Boing's suggestion, such an extension would be tantamount to a site ban anyway, since she has no interest in any other aspect of Wikipedia. Might as well make it official... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Kind of self-imposed anyway. Lectonar (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This conduct is clearly not OK, especially as it means that unpaid volunteer editors are having to regularly spend time dealing with someone who is trying to bias the article as part of their paid employment. I agree with Roger's comment that it's surprising how long this has gone on for. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Enough is enough. MelanieN has had the patience of a saint here. Katie^talk 12:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This isn't heavy handed, this is an editor who is solely here to promote their employer, and has stated as much. We don't need this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - COI edit requests are already consistently backlogged with editors trying to abide by our rules. Having this one jamming the queue with obviously frivolous requests is clearly harmful to the project, and enough of our time has been wasted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - the purpose of any limited ban (including topic ban, interaction ban, etc.) is to find a way to benifit from a user's usefulness while reducing his/her disruptiveness. A user who declared that any usefulness is just a method to forwars his/her disruptiveness is clearly not a candidate for a limited ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• note. After Jennepicfoundation was indefinitely blocked per block log by User:Ks0stm, citing this discussion, I closed this. The OP requested that I revert it to allow the siteban to be decided upon, and I have done so. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  It was my original intent that this block was made in my personal capacity as an admin based on the overwhelming consensus here that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Though I didn't care enough to reopen the discussion myself, I am perfectly happy to have this discussion keep running until a final outcome regarding whether to supersede my block with a formal, community-issued site ban is decided. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Uncooperative paid promotional editors are the herpes of Wikipedia. Harsh, maybe, but there you go. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Quite clearly necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Might be a minor

I just came across this user during page patrols, now he's not revealing a ton of information, but I'm concerned with what he is revealing. Based on his page, he's likely a minor, and has revealed his name (first and last ) and a partial phone number, which means location. I'm pretty sure that's not too safe. I've removed the information that reveals his name and location and I've left him a note on his page about why this isn't safe. Perhaps an admin could chime in or remove the unsafe information.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I have revdeled the info, but do not see your messsage on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar It's there now. I contribute from work and got interrupted before I could piost the message. Thanks for the assist!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Work happens to the best of us; thank you for catching this. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OccultZone siteban rescinded

The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:

• OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
• OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
• OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:

• Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
• Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:

• Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
• Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
• Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone siteban rescinded

archive.org is down

• https://archive.org/

• archive.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.archive.org

After seeing this, I went to check and although I can't find an RS to support it, I will say that the site is not returning DNS lookups. This affects a huge number of archived references and a vast number of articles. Hopefully the edit is incorrect and the site being down is temporary...but right now it doesn't look good. Can anyone else reach the site?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, ran a few "down or not" checks and it's down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See this tweet, apparently a power outage. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org is based in San Francisco, which had a major power outage from about 9am to 2pm PDT, due to a fire in a substation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it really the case that something as important as this can be brought to its knees with a local power outage? No mirroring?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the wide-world scheme of things, I doubt that archive.org counts as "as important as this" compared to, say, San Francisco's Financial District, which also went down - but I assume in the wake of the outage, the folks at the Internet Archive are probably talking about their options for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has some level of data backup in other countries and are proceeding with plans to make a mirror site in Canada. Jason Scott has spearheaded a distributed backup stored by volunteers that doesn't rely on any Internet Archive hardware. (Here's some more info on their data storage process, and did you know its headquarters is in a former church (more photos from Jason Scott)?) isaacl (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):

• The "Expectations of administrators" section
• The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section

A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.

The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

CAT:UNBLOCK

Hey, I was going to kill 5 minutes and attack something in CAT:UNBLOCK - something I admit I haven't done in a while - and noticed a pretty large backlog (40 users), many with 2-3 weeks since the last edit to the page by anyone. We should probably deal with these, even if it is to decline them. If everyone with experience accepting/declining unblock requests dealt with 2 of these, I imagine the backlog would disappear fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Emil Bachrach

Resolved

 – The issue has been dealt with amicably. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you guys help me to sort this out with Todd?. I guess wiki has changed a lot since the start.--Jondel (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite that there is a notification "In Progress" , he is now blatantly removing Jewish categories.--Jondel (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with just leaving the categories out until you provide a source for them? Once there's a source, you can re-add them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jondel, I haven't been around as long as you have, but verifiability has been one of Wikipedia's core principles at least since I started editing in 2007; that you're required to provide references for your information isn't exactly a new development that any admin could be forgiven for having overlooked. Frankly, I agree with many of Toddst1's concerns; you've failed to notify him of this thread, abused the rollback function in a content dispute, and added (and restored) unsourced and contested information about living people. As for the Bachrach categories, I'll AGF that you were still getting around to adding sources for the unsupported claims (descriptive categories need to be verifiable just the same as prose). There's always the option of working on new entries in the draft namespace or a user sandbox so you can fully develop the article in peace without having to worry about editors challenging your unfinished material. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I've recently added sources, such as a book and articles from Embassies. The person is notable.--Jondel (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'm apologizing to him and restoring to the version by Todd.--Jondel (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just stumbled upon this thread. Glad things got worked out. I wouldn't have brought this here as I've been trying to work things out on Jondel's talk page, but now that it's here, I'm starting the subsection below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

CIR as an admin

Resolved

 – Toddst1 has made a request (voluntarily de-sysop), Jondel has said they'll brush up on the admin policies, and Toddst1 may or may not be taking Jondel to ArbCom over that (which, as mentioned below, is really the only non-voluntary option). There's really nothing more for us to do here. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about Jondel having the admin bit with his demonstrated lack of knowledge of the basic workings of Wikipedia. @Jondel:, I think it would be best if you asked for your admin privileges to be removed. As you say, wiki has changed a lot since the start. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted I will be reviewing the workings.--Jondel (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at their recent administrator actions, Jondel has:

• Blocked 112.202.14.185 for 3 hours, 5 hours after they made 2 edits, at least one of which seemed to be an effort to undo vandalism.
• Blocked 124.168.174.252 for 72 hours for a single edit.
• Blocked 38.132.34.58 for 1 week, a day after they made 2 edits.

Going further down the log (into 2014, 2013) shows a mix of similarly (in my opinion) bad admin actions and more sensible actions. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam, those are good points. Some more:

• None of the these IPs were warned before these inappropriate blocks were applied.
• None of these blocks were followed up with any WP:EXPLAINBLOCK action.
• Regarding the block of 112.202.14.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in January 2017, here are a couple of important points:

• All edits from this editor appear to have been reverting vandalism [12] [13]
• Jondel fully-protected the page that the IP had reverted vandalism on for no apparent reason.

We have a pattern of abuse of administrative privileges in addition to the basic issues called out above. I'm not content to have this admin "reviewing the workings." It's time to give up the bit, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Just throwing this out there: if you're seeking an involuntary desysop unless they voluntarily get one, filing a request at WP:A/R/C is really the proper venue. Other than saying that I'm going to stay out of this in case a request does get filed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it be fair if we characterized this as misuse, rather than abuse? In any case, the only means to remove the privileges is WP:RFAR unless Jondel asks for them to be removed. –xeno^talk 01:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and Yes. I don't believe these series of issues are intentional, perhaps rather a bigger pattern where competency may have been lost. You are right - "misuse" is better than "abuse." Either way, I don't think the patterns show admin-level competency.

My broader point was that I hope Jondel voluntarily asks for the admin privilege to be removed. If not, I intend to open a request at WP:RFAR but less drama is better. When I suggested the voluntary option, his answer (above) was that he will study the basics. IMHO, that's not a good enough answer. I hope he reconsiders. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND certainly applies. Getting the current Committee to apply ADMINCOND is likely to be challenging, but if it ever applies, this is it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI Backlog

There is a backlog at WP:SPI of Open cases and of CU completed cases. One case appears to have been Open since 03-21-2017, that is, for a month. These cases appear to be cases that don't require Checkuser, so that any administrator or clerk can check the behavioral evidence and any administrator can block the socks (if I understand the rules). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonadmin Close review at Alternative for Germany

An RfC at the article above was closed in this diff.

The close speaks to the RfC question about removing one "ideology" item from the infobox, and also "closes" a discussion among a few editors in the discussion section about removing many more ideology items from the infobox, saying Appropriate contents for the infobox "ideology" field have been agreed upon in the discussion section and should be applied, although this was not part of the formal RfC question.

One of the participants in that discussion section promptly took action based on that part of the close, in this diff.

I asked the editor who made the close, User:JFG, to retract that part of the close, here. Here, they said they would not.

Per their contribs, JFG is very active in US populist politics, and was just made subject to a DS action on contemporary US politics per this notice. It was unwise for JFG to make this non-admin close at all.

I am not contesting the close of the RfC question but I am asking for the the quoted section to be struck. The basis is that this was a discussion and agreement by a small set of editors who share a view on this political party. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While I have been editing for years in US politics, I am totally uninvolved in German politics, and happened on this RfC by chance when browsing through WP:RFC/POL; I took up the close as it looked like a clear consensus. Jytdog is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on a content issue where he happened to find himself in the minority. He could easily discuss the extra "ideology" items with his fellow editors instead of contesting a close which simply attempted to reflect the balance of the RfC discussion.

Concerning Jytdog's innuendo about my editing activities, the "do not revert" sanction levied today against me is totally irrelevant to my close decision. In case anyone here is interested, they can refer to my appeal for clarification. — JFG ^talk 23:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No battleground; I am not objecting to the main close. I am objecting to the over-reach. If you cannot see the continuity between AfD's politics and Trump/US populism I don't know what to say to you. I will not respond further here unless asked to. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your objection, I considered your arguments carefully and I stood by my close because you look very isolated in your refusal to trim the other infobox entries. I advised you to open a new discussion if you want them back. Regarding similarities between AfD and Trump's political positions, they are indeed obvious, so what? How does this fact have any bearing on the validity of my closing statement? — JFG ^talk 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Unban appeal information

Hello, I have been topic banned from editing about Chemical Weapons for 6 months and it is highly imperative that I am not. I am not sure why I have been banned and was given no reason. I guess first of all I would like to know why I am banned, then I can decide if and how to appeal. I think this should be the correct way around? Someone told me that I can actually get a longer ban if I appeal, so i don't actually want to appeal. Just want a bit more info. I asked the banning administrator for more details and waited a day or two and got no reply. I have been editing well since on unrelated topics and showing good behavior. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If I was the admin who had imposed that sanction and had seen your reply [14] I would have just indef blocked you right then and there. I would suggest that you just accept the topic ban, stop being so melodramatic about the urgent need for you, personally, to "fix" this topic area, and find something else to do. Beeblebrox (talk)

Agree with Beeblebrox. The reasons for the topic ban are on your talk page. Your post above offers no good reason for the topic ban to be lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the notion of it being "imperative" that you not be banned from the article. Just reading that note raises concerns in my mind about lifting the ban. Beeblebrox is spot on. Dlohcierekim 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice and understand your sentiments. It doesn't look good to lead with the urgent tone and I should have explained myself better. All I really want to do in that subject area is restore one page that seems to have been turned into a redirect without proper discussion or reason after my ban. This article shows the use of a certain substance by a group that shouldn't have it. Should the world ignore that this group has access to this substance and used it before, we could all end up in a lot of trouble very soon. I hope that explains my urgency reasonably, without breaking the terms of my ban. If anyone is able to spot this page and revert, I will be able to relax and accept this sanction. The reasons are not on my talk page by the way or at least I cannot see them or understand them. All I can see are unfounded allegations. I will have trouble correcting behavior if not told what it was and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you do appear to be reasonably aware of BLP and SYNTH, but somehow just cannot seem to help yourself violating both. But while you are allowed some leeway with the latter, the same cannot be said of the former. If you're, mercifully, to take anything from this ban, please let it be that. El_C 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the advice. I have done some biographies of dead persons in similar circumstances to the page that I think I might have broken those rules on. Hopefully these will demonstrate my future willingness to comply with both BLP and SYNTH as best I can. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

MTC! v1.0.0

I just released a new version of my move to Commons tool, MTC!. I'm looking for a few willing volunteers to try it out and provide some feedback :) Thanks, FASTILY 03:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Delfadoriscool blocked as possible compromised account

User:Delfadoriscool had left in 2015, and someone has recently started editing with this account. There are a deleted draft about some sort of fictional/imaginary/not part of our world place (The map shows it to about where Poland and Lithuania would be.) and some strange and concerning edits on the user page. Had no idea if/where to mention this, so it's here. Last edit was 11/23/15. This was the first edit to the user pageon 2/21/17contribs & seleted contribs thanks Dlohcierekim 05:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, user seem to have had too few edits (a total of 5—first edit is this bit of vandalism & personal attack) to tell whether the account is compromised. El_C 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Was I hasty? Should I unblock Dlohcierekim 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at 20 or so rather odd edits to user page since February as well. ... Dlohcierekim

Hasty with the assessment the account was compromised, yes—but the account does have a troubled and otherwise odd history overall, there's no denying that. I see no harm in unblocking, but also I estimate no great loss to the project if they remain indef'd. El_C 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Computers at work are back up, so I may be away from W for a while. Dlohcierekim 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No rush. El_C 09:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)