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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	8	13
TfD	0	0	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	1	2	3
RfD	0	0	0	57	57
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 55 sockpuppet investigations
• 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 20 Fully protected edit requests
• 8 Candidates for history merging
• 21 requests for RD1 redaction
• 25 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 31 requested closures
• 112 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8458 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Kalachuri (Rajput clan) 2024-09-25 20:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Tron (cryptocurrency) 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard Justin Sun 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard Philadelphi Corridor 2024-09-25 04:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thejo Kumari Amudala 2024-09-25 03:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz South Lebanon Army 2024-09-24 23:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Casliber User talk:Deepfriedokra 2024-09-24 22:41 2024-09-26 21:15 move Persistent vandalism Deepfriedokra Talk:23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes 2024-09-24 21:45 2024-10-01 21:45 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (17 September 2024 – present) 2024-09-24 18:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP A/I Ad Orientem Template:R from category navigation 2024-09-24 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:Tar Lócesilion 2024-09-24 12:58 2025-09-08 11:56 edit disruption Zzuuzz Aspire (Energy) 2024-09-24 04:47 2024-10-08 04:47 move Persistent vandalism Liz Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikinger 2024-09-23 22:21 indefinite move Liz Ultramarathon 2024-09-23 21:33 2025-09-23 21:33 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Camille Herron 2024-09-23 21:02 2025-09-23 21:02 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Template:Fictional character redirect 2024-09-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Janine Teo 2024-09-23 16:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Portal:Current events/2024 September 23 2024-09-23 16:21 2024-09-30 16:21 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic 23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes 2024-09-23 16:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Firefangledfeathers Antal (surname) 2024-09-23 11:29 2024-10-03 11:29 edit,move Excessive sockpuppetry Zzuuzz Sabireen Movement 2024-09-23 07:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack 2024-09-23 07:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Battle of Nablus 2024-09-23 07:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Anti-pedophile activism 2024-09-23 03:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Attacks on religious sites during the Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-09-23 03:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Desmond is Amazing 2024-09-23 03:18 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions 2024-09-23 03:07 2024-09-30 03:07 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP Daniel Case Parihar (clan) 2024-09-22 23:21 2024-12-22 23:21 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Elli Pratihar Gurjars 2024-09-22 23:20 2024-12-22 23:20 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE-related disruption; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Zana ambush 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Qatar and the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israeli public diplomacy in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamama School bombing 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Khadija School airstrike 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Harper Steele 2024-09-21 21:28 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case R. C. Majumdar 2024-09-21 21:16 2024-10-21 02:05 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; increasing to ECP for duration Daniel Case

Termination of IBAN

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost two years ago and extended more than 18 months ago. I think that it is clear that the IBAN has served its purpose. I have scrupulously avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I think that the time is past to end the IBAN and ask community support for its termination. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified the other editor with whom Alansohn is ibanned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppoose- As the editor who Alansohn is banned from interacting with, I believe the ban serves a purpose and is the only thing keeping Alansohn from causing further disruption. Alan is arrogant, even now he refuses to recognize it was his poor behavior that led to the restriction and the request is misleading for several reasons. Yes it is true that the original iban was put in place roughly two years ago, but it was to only last 6 months. It was extended indefinitely with unanimous support just one month before it was set to expire because Alansohn blatantly violated it. And to show that the issue is still ongoing, just five months ago Alan accused me of stalking him. Nothing has changed.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• The last "infraction" on Alansohn's part was 18 months ago (the question on Swarm's page Rusf10 links to does not count as a violation). But based on Rusf10's unnecessary personalized attack (to which Alansohn cannot reply), the unsubstantiated claim that "the request is misleading for several reasons" (followed by a simple rewording of the info presented in the request), and the likelihood that Rusf10 *was* stalking Alansohn's edits back in September, it seems the issue is still ongoing. I'd think a better idea would be to convert this to an indef 2-way iban. Following the edits of someone who is ibanned from you is not on, and it doesn't matter to me that it happened 6 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record (as sometimes people take comments from admins here as guidance), while I'm decidedly not saying that this is what's going on here, there are legitimate reasons for checking the edits of someone who's i-banned from you; keeping an eye on what they're editing so you don't edit the same page and put them in an awkward position where they disagree with you but can't discuss it would be an obvious example. That does not mean it's OK to follow people around for the purposes of annoying them or to send an "I'm watching you" signal. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Also, for the record, I was not saying that AlanSohn violated his IBAN again when he complained about me several months ago. Rather, I was using it as an example of why he is misleading everyone when he says that it is "less likely that any issue would arise in the future."--Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming you meant Rusf10's comments in this thread, I don't think it's accurate to say Alansohn cannot reply. The iban specifically says it is subject to the usual exceptions WP:BANEX, which of course includes appealing a ban. If someone is trying to appeal an iban, and one of the other parties replies, it's accepted that the the person appealing can reply back. (And of course, if the other party is also subject to the iban, them replying to an appeal of the iban is not an iban violation. In fact most commonly people want to hear what they have to say.) This doesn't mean it's a good idea, while it may not be an iban violation, most commonly it doesn't help the appeal. This is especially the case when people ibanned start to engage in length back and forths during an appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I generally think Wikipedia’s tendency to take a sanction working at preventing disruption as proof that we should stop it from working at preventing disruption to be counterintuitive. People don’t usually start getting along by not talking to each other for 18 months. I see no reason any lifting the IBAN would be beneficial, especially with the other interested party opposed. Oppose from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni:, I am not sure if you have seen Alansohn's comment below regarding the onerous steps he has taken over 18 months, but I felt he was sincere. That comment, in addition to Rusf10's initial reply to this appeal, suggests to me that if the interaction ban should remain, it should at least be converted to a 2-way restriction so that both editors are treated evenly to prevent any disruption. Would you support that conversion an alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have. I still oppose lifting a sanction that's working, especially when the other party opposes lifting the sanction. Also, no, I don't support expanding it. People are allowed to comment opposing someone being allowed to interact with them again. That's not an issue. If anything, I'm more convinced by Alansohn's reply that this should stay in place. An IBAN is simple: don't reply to or post on the talk page of someone who you are banned from interacting with. It's extremely simple. Their comment reads disingenuous and like it's designed to get sympathy for a sanction that's not a big deal. That's not a good sign. This should not be lifted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I think what you've said is fair except for the way in which you've described the iBan as 'extremely simple'; this is not just about talk page edits as the content of the other party's opposition demonstrates. Merely opposing the appeal is reasonable, but that is not the issue I am referring to. (1) Rusf10 made this edit ("Edit") a few hours after Alansohn edited the article (which you can see in that diff) - if the iBan was mutual, I don't think the Edit would have occurred. (2) Rusf10's first reply to this appeal brought attention to the Edit; "evidence of the ongoing issue" consists of this query about Edits to the admin who imposed the sanction. There was a pattern which might reasonably raise concerns of wikihounding by the other party. Whether or not that was the other party's intention, the talk page query and the Edit would not exist if the restriction was mutual. To the extent there is disruption, it is not sufficiently prevented through a 1 way restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
        • IBANs are really simple. You don't reply to another person. You don't revert them. You don't post on their talk page or comment about them. There's absolutely nothing about editing the same pages in there, except the revert rule. Neither of the edits you point out would have been banned under a two-way IBAN, so I don't see how that's the solution here, unless you're proposing a more extreme IBAN that prohibits editing the same page. We've tried those before. They don't work precisely because they're too complex. I'm not neccesarily opposed to making it 2-way for simplicities sake, but I'm not overtly in favour of it either. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Floquenbeam whole-heartedly. Oppose lifting sanction, but convert to 2-way I-ban. That, hopefully, will sort out the entire problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Alansohn: Why do you need to interact w/ Rusf10? Are you simply trying to have a black mark removed from your name? If so, what guarantees can you give that you will not have any reason to be dragged back here for even stricter sanctions against you? Status quo may be your in your best interests. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question by Bison X. While TB is accurate that an IBAN working doesn't/can't show the issue is being resolved, that does set up sanctions with no generally viable way to show they should end. I want to hear Alansohn's extended reasoning, before I give a support/oppose/2-way thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - To be honest, if the other user doesn't want the interaction ban to be removed, then it probably shouldn't. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• See below. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq and TB, and I also agree that Bison X's question is a good one. Waggie (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Convert to two-way IBAN per Floq and others. Miniapolis 22:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Waggie and Miniapolis:Why are you supporting a 2 way IBAN when the current ban is working? What have I done to deserve this? Alan has been falsely accusing me of stalking him for years. I already defended myself against his false allegation when it was brought to my attention here. Alan believes that he has WP:OWNERSHIP of all New Jersey-related wikipedia pages and that's the core of the problem. Putting me under an IBAN would give him an advantage because of the sheer amount of pages he has edited in that topic area. He could simply claim he edited the article first (which in almost all cases he has) and then go to the noticeboard and claim that I'm stalking him like he has done countless times in the past. I encourage you to read the ANI discussion that imposed the IBAN and understand it was Alansohn's repeated false allegations and personal attacks that brought on the IBAN in the first place.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning? I'm sorry, but there is non-trivial evidence in the previous ANI discussions that, to paraphrase Icarosaurvus in the first discussion, leaves neither of you smelling like roses. Alansohn is clearly a sore spot for you (as you are for them) and is continuing to be so. An IBAN doesn't prevent you from editing the same articles, provided there isn't interaction (ie: you're not editing their content, reverting their edits, a insufficient amount of time has passed between edits, etc.). Simply having edited the article at some distant point in the past doesn't give them ownership of the article. That's my understanding of consensus regarding IBANs (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Waggie (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you don't agree with the previous consensus, so now you want to overturn it despite the fact that nothing has happened since then to warrant a two-way extension. If we're trying to overturn a previous consensus then I think its only appropriate to notify everyone who was involved in the two discussions that imposed and extended the IBAN. @SarekOfVulcan, Reyk, TonyBallioni, Jbhunley, Power~enwiki, Nyttend, Icarosaurvus, Gatoclass, Swarm, Dennis Brown, Calton, Nil Einne, Spartaz, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Jacona, Only in death, Robert McClenon, Lugnuts, Davey2010, Abequinn14, John from Idegon, JzG, Byteflush, and Jayron32:--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Floquenbeam, Iridescent, Nil Einne, Black Kite, Bison X, Nosebagbear, Miniapolis, Foxnpichu, Waggie and all those who have participated in this thread. Eighteen months ago, in this edit, User:Swarm extended the IBAN with the other editor indefinitely. Since then, to avoid any further blocks, I have scrupulously avoided any potential interaction of any kind. I have checked the edit history of every single article I edit, both before and after each and every edit, to make sure that I am not inadvertently violating the terms of the IBAN. For every single one of the more than ten thousand edits in the past eighteen months, I have had to obsessively monitor to make certain that the IBAN is not violated. I have demonstrated over those 18 months and ten thousand edits that I have no interest in interacting with the other editor.

My goal here is to end the time wasted in double-checking, triple-checking or quadruple-checking every single edit out of fear that there might be an inadvertent violation. I have *ZERO* interest in beginning interaction after the IBAN is ended. I have *ZERO* interest in seeing this turned into a two-way IBAN.

The extension of the IBAN came with an offer of reconsideration of the provisions after six months. I have complied for six months, then another six months and then a third period of six months. In these nearly eighteen months there have been *ZERO* violations; there have been no potential violations If anyone has any evidence of any violations, please bring them forward. But in the absence of any evidence violations I ask for a good faith elimination of the terms of the IBAN to save me from the anxiety and wasted time of dealing with the risk of blocks of increasing length. That's all I'm asking for. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, also oppose conversion to 2-way, i.e. leave as is - There is no indication that a change is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, is there any evidence that you can provide that the standard offer of reconsideration after six months should not be available? What would you need to see to satisfy you that the IBAN should be ended, particularly as eighteen months have elapsed? Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not BMK, but I'll reply: first, the standard offer only applies to blocks. Second, the standard offer is the single most self-destructive essay on Wikipedia, followed closely by WP:ROPE, and any reasoning based on them rather than how this would actually improve Wikipedia is flawed reasoning. You haven't actually showed how removing this would improve Wikipedia. Until you do that, it shouldn't be lifted. At this point, I'm fairly convinced you won't be able to show it since I can't find a good argument for it improving Wikipedia, even under the most sympathetic of circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Huh. I could be persuaded that lifting the ban is OK, since it can be rapidly reimposed if Alansohn resumes the problematic behaviour. If it remains in place, then it should be two-way. Guy (help!) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice remove, 2nd, 2-way. I do get the reasoning made against removing IBANs and such, however they are a sanction and they do hinder the editor - and so unless an alternate, viable, route to measuring when IBANs should cease can be offered by the opposers, then I'm inclined to back its removal. Please insert the usual threats about rope and all that jazz. In the event that a majority for that opinion can't be gathered, then a change to 2-way is preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting IBAN if both editors will promise to leave each other alone. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per Nosebagbear. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Not a fan of one way bans, nor two way bans, although rarely they are helpful. It's been long enough to test the waters, and blocks can be used if either party harasses the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose leave things as they are. If Rusf10 has not been interacting with Alanson to this point and is not causing disruption then it is against policy to place an IBAN 'just to be fair'. As I remember the thread that placed the IBAN on Alansohn only it was because he did not accept that he was contributing to the disruption. If there is some indication that some degree of CLUE has been gained ie understanding why the earlier behavior patterns were disruptive, I can be persuaded to reconsider my opinion. Jbh ^Talk 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I was pinged to this thread by Rusf10 above. Ping me on reply. I am not checking in here regularly but I have email notification for pings turned on.
• In light of Alansohn's recent comment, I will change to Support. I don't think the editors ignoring each other is necessary (they may have to at some point), just to not continue what caused the IBAN to be implemented in the first place. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal or convert to 2-way interaction ban per Nosebagbear, Goodday and Dennis Brown. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose simple removal. My comment when the ban was imposed was a recommendation that Arbitration Enforcement fashion a remedy if the community was unable to reach consensus on a remedy, but the community imposed a one-way interaction ban. I see no reason to remove the remedy. My long-term observation has been that User:Alansohn has a long-term pattern of ownership of articles about New Jersey including politicians in New Jersey. An alternative to an interaction ban would be a topic-ban, and I am sure that Alansohn would find a topic-ban more problematic than the current interaction ban. No opinion on whether to make the IBAN two-way, but in the absence of evidence that a two-way ban is needed, it can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and oppose extending to Rusf. Nobody who has supported the latter has bothered to show any diffs or what the extension should prevent, therefore widening is purely punitive. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• From the discussion that extended it to indefinite: "Rusf10 will be, of course, expected to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as "baiting" and is strongly encouraged to continue to avoid any interaction with Alansohn unless absolutely necessary." - diffs linked by Ncmvocalist are examples of why this shouldn't be one-way. Probably better to remove the restriction now; if disruptive behavior resumes, it will lead to reinstatement of the restriction, or a block. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That definitely sounds the most fair. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq - Given Rus's PA/comment above I see no reason why that should be allowed to continue, Perfect example of how to shoot yourself in the foot. –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per the other supporters, oppose 2-way as moving in the wrong direction. Two years is too long. Partial sanctions should always be a temporary measure; they can address acute problems but not chronic ones. There is no such thing as an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, an asset to the project, a net positive as long as they are subject to an IBAN, but if you remove the IBAN, then–poof!–they suddenly become disruptive and a net negative. No matter what the disruption is, every case of disruption comes down to this: either an editor can control themselves, or they can't. Either they modulate their behavior to conform to community norms, or they don't. If Alansohn has abided by an IBAN for 18 months, it's enough to convince me that they are in the former category and not the latter. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting as first choice. Alansohn seems to have complied reasonably well for a long time and their comments make lead me to believe they understand the problems they caused, and will do their best to avoid them. And they have a point that an iban does place a burden an editor especially when they often edit the same areas. If Alansohn doesn't take sufficient care after the lifting, I feel that some sanction can be reimposed. support 2 way as second choice. The comments by Rusf10 here do give enough concern that I feel a 2 way is justified if the iban is to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This IBAN is still serving its purpose well, and one side doesn't want it lifted. Rusf10 proved very well that there is solid reason for it to exist. Furthermore, an IBAN is barely a sanction. It's just intended to prevent real sanctions from being necessary. Having said that, I'd also be fine with conversion to a two-way IBAN. Ames86 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ames86, no evidence of any kind has been offered by any editor of any issue whatsoever that "there is a solid reason for it to exist". The IBAN forces me to obsessively and needlessly monitor every single edit -- before, during and after each edit -- to ensure that there is no inadvertent contact with the other editor, as any such inadvertent edit would place me at risk of imposition of additional "real sanctions". The offer made by User:Swarm in August 2019 here in extending this IBAN indefinitely made an offer of reconsideration in six months. In the meantime, 18 months have passed with zero interactions on my part. How many months would provide evidence to you (and to any other doubters) that the time to end the IBAN has been reached? If 10,000 edits in 18 months with no issues whatsoever is not enough to provide evidence that the IBAN should be lifted, than what will be necessary to convince you that it's no longer needed? Alansohn (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would support lifting the 1-way, with the condition that any future disputes would swiftly result in the appropriate sanction: either a block or blocks, a reinstatement of the 1-way, or a new 2-way. Can an uninvolved editor judge the consensus and close this now? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the IBAN. We can always reapply later if needed. --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

65.246.72.0/24, please unblock

Can someone please unblock this Wi-Fi IP 65.246.72.0/24? It’s just the Wi-Fi of Target. Unless there has been abuse coming from it, I don’t understand why it’s blocked. Everytime I’m near any Target and the Wi-Fi links up and I find something to edit it says it’s blocked because it’s a web host provider. No other store Wi-Fi does that. Just putting this out there. ⌚️ (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The range was hard-blocked on November 17, 2019, as a webhost by ST47. On June 5, 2019, the range was globally blocked for one year as an LTA by Ruslik0. You should have not brought this here. If you believe the local block and the global block are wrong, you should take it up with the editors who imposed the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, They tried for what it's worth. SQL^{Query me!} 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried and a week went by. The issue kept popping up (as I live close to a university town center). ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that most Target stores have a Starbucks store inside which has a seating area; more often than not, I see people working there. I'd suggest blocking anon edits but allowing logged in users. -FASTILY 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Range was blocked due to an LTA which was detected on that range by Checkuser. It was already globally-blocked anonymous only at that time, it looks like the user in question created their account on Meta, where global blocks do not apply. These types of open wi-fi connections are commonly used by LTAs. Given the history of this range, applying IP Block Exempt is probably a better solution than making the rangeblock anon-only. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence about the hard block. On one hand I prefer these types of block to be soft, on the other hand I can see the checkuser log and know what potentially lurks there. But one thing bugs me a bit, and no doubt causes a lot of confusion @ST47: now it's clear this a Target range, can we please adjust this block to not say it's a webhostblock? Do we need a new template for public wifi? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think {{rangeblock}} works fine, but if people want to create a new template I don’t see an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I created this based on {{School block}}. --MrClog (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The template can now be used as {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, both as block reason as well as talk page message. --MrClog (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If the only problem is new account creation, I can block it on meta as well and then the local hard block can be lifted. Ruslik_Zero 07:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems sensible! -- Luk ^talk 11:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@ST47 and Ruslik0: I made it anon. only for now given that we know it's a Target range used by LTAs at some point. It's still account-creation blocked, but in any case, this should resolve Trillfendi's concern for now, I don't see a point of requiring public Wi-Fi users (which is a lot of people in developed countries) to get IPBEs. --qedk (t 心 c) 08:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I extended the global block to Meta, so the local block is not necessary now. Ruslik_Zero 11:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

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

---

I have just reverted an entire section from TV detector van which is clearly copied verbatim from an IEEE journal showing an unambiguous copyright message ((c) 2013). The user even had the courtesy to provide a direct link to the source from which he copied it making it dead easy to spot. I have left the contributor a message on their talk page, so I assume that no further action is appropriate on that front at present.

I am relatively new around here, but it occurs to me that the copyright material is still present in the article history. Is there any process or procedure for dealing with that?

For reference, the edit including the copyright material is [1] and my edit removing it is [2]

Since this notice is not directly addressing the user's action and I haven't referenced them directly, I have not left the required notice on their talk page. As I said, I am new around here so if I have erred on that point, please accept my apologies. -RFenergy (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: Historical revisions that include copyright violations are indeed deleted. To request such a "RevDel" (revision deletion), you can use Template:Copyvio-revdel. To make it even easier, there is a special script that speeds up the process. --MrClog (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be a bigger problem that I previously envisaged. The copyright material was first edited into he article with this edit. The 'insertion', that I referenced above was only a reversion of someone else's removal. A lot of editing has taken place since, so I have no idea what happens now? -RFenergy (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RFenergy, I second Mr clog’s advice on revdels. That said, I do not think a revdel is warranted in this case; while the removed text was obviously a severe overquote that should have been removed, too much history would be hidden in a revdel. If a lot of history/major edits will be hidden, a revdel will be usually declined. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. One lives and one learns. -RFenergy (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: I would additionally suggest apologising to Andy for giving him a copyvio warning when he wasn't the person that added the text originally. --MrClog (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. -RFenergy (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, I've revdel'd hundreds of edits on a single article before. If it's copyvio, it gets removed. As you say, though, this is just an overquote (properly in quotes and referenced) so it does not require revdel. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The revdel policy advises against large scale use in most cases. There are situations in which large-scale use is appropriate but the threshold for use should be a lot higher. There isn't any requirement that all copyvios have to be revdeled. Hut 8.5 10:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.

Courtesy collapse. ——SN54129 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Was their any other way around the topic ban? Answer: Their was no other way. The topic ban was the only way for me to realize what reliable source means even though I was interested in other areas besides sports prior before the topic ban. You say hockey is the only thing I contribute. I asked the same question what my most interest was. NHL Hockey was indeed the most topic I contribute. The other areas you asked what I made positive contributions outside of hockey articles were transportation, 9/11, Nazi Germany but you would have to see me from the IP address I was in before I had an account. Also keep in mind that the information recognize where it got to from the start had to come from my edits from when I first started editing hockey articles back in June 2015. It will not work when I look back from where I first edit back in April 2018 since I was already contributing Wikipedia on June 2015. Even though the recap game stats are just as reliable as the official team stat website. I should know that I still should check the official team stat source to make sure my information is correct based on Goaltenders GAA Average, some examples of my corrections to stats based from official team stats and recap game sources are listed below: (Correcting Steve Mason’s stats) April 2018 (For Connor Hellebuyck’s penalty minutes, I was able to obtain this literally after looking from the game recap stats.) (Blake Wheeler and Connor Hellebuyck’s stats were incorrect after I was suspicious whether Connor Hellebuyck had an assist. I found this one was incorrect after I checked the most recent Winnipeg Jets scoring on the boxscore to see who had goals and assists listed and I caught it but at the same time was able to catch Black Wheeler’s stats incorrect since his total assist was 32 listed on who had goals and assists on the boxscore.) December 7, 2018 (Forgetting to add in Jacob Markstrom’s assist. I found this mistake after I double check my work by looking it from the recap game on Edmonton Oilers vs Vancouver Canucks game since Jacob Markstorm had the total number of assists listed from who scored and had assists) (James Neal’s stats were inaccurate. I found this was a mistake after realizing that the stats for goals and assists equal to the total amount of points. I would use the official stats records along with the Wikipedia stats and the recap game stats to correct the mistake.) (Oliver Kylington’s Plus Minus rating is 1, not 2 since the rating for the game he played was -1. But I could not just say it like that. For me to correct this one, I had to use previous edits, official team stat sources, and the recap game stats to increase the chance to become accurate. Not just one source.) Connor McDavid’s stats did not matched to the source on the recap for assists. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 51 assists, not 50. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Patrick Marleau's assist on stats did not matched to the source on regular season stat website. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 16 assists, not 15. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Manage to catch the time on ice for goaltenders stats wrong after the game recap stats revaluated shortly after the game was finalized) (Sam Bennet’s Penalty Minutes was wrong. I manage to catch this one after updating the team leader’s stats) Note that these corrections had to come for specific reasons: 1. This had to come with a lot of experience of editing hockey stats in previous years 2. The sources from the game statistics and previous edits on achieved areas were the reason to why I was able to correct a few areas of incorrect stats 3. The corrections I made during the 2018-19 season did not just happen even when I use the sources from the game stats and previous edits on Wikipedia that were reliable. If I continued to use those sources, I had to make sure I added in the accurate information by not rushing. This relates to my experience. 4. This comes on other editor’s part of editing since I notice some of my information I added was incorrect prior before, I somehow manage to catch some of my mistakes since I was told to use the official nhl stat source which I eventually did so in some cases. But for at least one correction I made, it had to take at least 4 websites to correct Oliver Klington’s Plus Minus rating including previous edits by me and Yowashi, recap game stats, and the official team stats page since I was using game statistics and previous stats on Wikipedia as my primary source of editing in the first place, otherwise, it would have been incorrect later on since the official team stat source was not updated at the time and I used the recap game statistics as my primary source. Some edits that I will provide that I could have been told back in April 2017 (I was never aware that the statistics scale should be arranged from most points to least) (I thought that adding in the stats from recap game statistics were allowed until I realized during the 2018-19 season I should be using the NHL.com statistics to update from their since it is more accurate and reliable) (Vancouver Canucks stats (October 2017) These edits look like I did not know the stats should be arranged from most points to least. Compared to the NHL 2018-19 season. Here are some examples where I used the official team stat source to get information that is from these edits (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) Note that the official team stats source does not provide the full list since some players get traded unless I go to NHL.com source to see the full list. In previous years since the 2016-17 NHL season when I had been updating the stats, I did not know I should obtain the NHL.com source since it was the most reliable until 2018-19 NHL season. Anywhere else that said I did not know about the most NHL reliable source till the 2018-19 NHL season?] Here are other examples of when I should use the NHL.com website to check that the information I added from the game only stats from recap games is corrected to what is reported on NHL.com. It is best to wait for at least a day after the game concludes because some of the information get revaluate overnight. That site that I was told of is actually way more accurate than it is on game only stats recap (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs) (Edmonton Oilers December 23, 2018) (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs stats) (Montreal Canadiens December 26, 2018) (Toronto Maple Leafs December 26, 2018) (Oilers Goaltender stats January 9, 2019) When I update NHL Statistics Teams. The sources I use to update teams for every game are listed below Recap Games that I can add from the game on to the statistics on Wikipedia. Adding in the information from game stats recap means it must be added carefully. It also contains the boxscore in who had the total number of goals and assists if I checked it. It is still recommended to use the official team stat source to make sure the information I added in is correct according to the NHL Team official stats. This source I used was what I thought was reliable since when I obtain this literally since the 2016-17 season. When I update for every game, I use the recent game the team has played recent to add on the previous stats on Wikipedia. Previous differences in edits on Wikipedia. This is useful to make sure that the information I get from the game recap statistics and official team stat source are accurate. I since had this during the 2018-19 season. NHL official team stat source for information that I can check to make sure I information is matched to the official source when I was first told of it. This can be useful to check my information to make sure my information does not have any mistakes combined together with the game statistics recap. Another thing I found surprising about some information I added that was incorrect was because I thought that the last time the information that was updated by another editor was correct but realized the NHL.com team website sometimes re-evaluates its stats overnight and plus I used the game stats from recap to add in to the page thinking it was correct but realize it was not from previous edits. Here are some examples where sometimes the NHL.COM official website sometimes revaluate its stats from these edits: (January 11, 2019 Winnipeg Jets vs Detroit Red Wings (Ben Chariot games played should have been added) (For Edmonton Oilers stats for Colby Cave, he never had penalty minutes and his rating plus minus is -3 . He did not had penalty minutes when he played against Minnesota Wilds. (February 7, 2019) (For Edmonton Oilers vs San Jose Sharks (Feburary 9, 2019) I thought that the information I was adding from the recap game was literally. But what I was not aware was that the stats from NHL.com revaluate overnight.) (March 7, 2019 Mike Smith’s saves total should have been 920 since he had 26 saves.) For Ottawa Senators update stats are the examples where I discovered some of the information from NHL.com (I at first thought I obtain these numbers literally since I thought that the last time someone else updated the stats were correct so I add in the numbers from the game they were playing but I realize some of the information from NHL.com get revaluate) (January 13, 2019) At first, I thought updating NHL player statistics in articles were allowed every game as soon as a game concludes by adding in the information from the recap game they played on to the current stats although it is still recommended through the following recommendations I had been told of Updating the stats from recap games must mean I have to add in them in a orderly way meaning I must added the stats from their going from the top row of the list to the bottom (left to right when adding the numbers) I would need to use previous stats on Wikipedia to make sure the stats are correct Sometimes, I may miss some information from their which I should have added it in, so its recommended that I should still use the NHL.com team stats that has the full accurate information. If I use the NHL.com team stats, its recommended to wait at least a day after the game is finalized because some of the information tends to get revaluate overnight. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research. I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)

I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Influx of new editors and IPs

Not surprisingly we are and will continue to see an increase in new editors and editors using IP addresses to the fact that hundreds of millions of people are at home instead of school, work or partying. Inevitably it means more vandalism and pov editing. But it also hopefully means more good faith editing by editors who haven't a clue what Wikipedia is about and are going about it all wrong. I've tried to help a couple but that's too time consuming, and I've yet to see a welcome template, or at least one in Twinkle, that sets out clearly how we work. What I have in mind would start with a short version of what we are and what we aren't, and then go on to discuss the difference between writing an article here and writing an essay, explaining about the need for verification, reliable sources and original research in simple prose. Also some links to where to get help and of course to NPOV etc, but I probably wouldn't say much about NPOV except perhaps a sentence making it clear that it isn't exactly the same as being neutral. I've brought this here for discussion because I think there are more experienced editors here than most of the other boards, but if anyone thinks this really really belongs elsewhere, eg a VP, feel free to move it but with a link from here please. Of course if anyone has anything to add about vandalism and pov editing, feel free. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There isn't really a substitute to spending a few hours reading through the policies, but Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is a decent start. It could use a companion page that is a concise statement of our purpose (ie, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to publish essays). Wikipedia:Purpose is a horrible page full of pointless quotations in ugly {{cquote}} templates, is overlinked, and has some random image included for no reason. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is very comprehensive but also hella long. I think one of the most helpful things for me when I started was the tutorials, which are available at the menu Help:Introduction.— Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Next button tutorials don't retain readers at all....90 percent loss of readers by the third page.....what is needed is a landing page like Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page but setup like the pillars page.....as in consumable information on one page....list of links to a page with list of links is not helpful.--Moxy 🍁 22:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vids of course is the sort of media people expect to see nowadays—as they didn't 15 years ago—so can we get some of those tuts into the welcoming template and hence to Twinkle? ——SN54129 18:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I forgot, I was also thinking that this should be sent by bot to every new user. Yeah, I know that we might want to give some new users more tailored welcomes, but right now a lot of new users get nothing, and that's bad (as I know from experience, eg seeing people raise questions in articles, etc.). Doug Weller talk 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Some new users I've run into recently wondered why they didn't get automatically welcomed by a bot, as I believe happens on some other Wikis. Perhaps its time for a welcome bot, or at least some sort of way to make it easier for us to welcome newbies. Like a list of new users who haven't yet received a welcome template? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find it annoying when I visit, say, the Kazakh Wikipedia and instantly receive a welcome notification (often in a language that I do not even speak). If automated welcomes were implemented on enwiki, I would hope that the bots at least wait until one edit is made before sending them. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even one edit may be too soon. If we were to go the bot route, I would prefer it wait until more than one edit is made. We shouldn't waste resources having a bot welcome a vandalism only account that gets immediately blocked. I would think ~5 edits would be good since it's not yet autoconfirmed, but demonstrates that the user is productive and likely to stick around if welcomed. And it gives humans an opportunity to welcome newbies whose first edit is very helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd definitely support some kind of feed of autoconfirmed users who have not yet been welcomed, as there are certainly cases where people fall through the cracks. But the benefit of having a person welcome you rather than a robot is huge (or at least I hope it's huge, given the collective effort we put into it), so I think we should wait to make sure we have a chance to welcome as many new editors as possible ourselves before handing it over to the bot. Maybe have a bot do it if they fall off the aforementioned proposed feed. Sdkb (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I notified the welcoming committee whose editors likely have ideas and experience about this. As for my thoughts, Wikipedia:Core content policies has a lot of info that's useless for newbies (they likely have no clue who Larry Sanger is or what Nupedia was) but it also covers our three most important content policies very well and in a relatively concise way. Based on my experience with edit-a-thons and encouraging new editors, WP:Be bold tends to be helpful for newbies. A lot of new editors are apprehensive about making edits and worry about permission; as a policy, it shows them that the community actually encourages and welcomes their contributions which helps put new editors at ease. As a mature policy page, it also does a really good job of introducing them to the wiki culture of BRD, non-article namespaces, and our behavioral policies. If you haven't read BOLD in a while, the lede is refreshing and usually enough to get newbies through their first few edits without a ton of alphabet soup. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed about WP:BOLD. The experience so many newcomers seem to have is "yikes, all these rules are overwhelming and there's no way I can learn them all so I'm just going to give up and leave it to the experts". There are two ways to address that: make the rules clearer (which we can work on but which can only go so far) and emphasize WP:BOLD, which speaks directly to that feeling and helps newcomers overcome it. (WP:IAR achieves the same thing, but there are obvious downsides to linking new users there.) Sdkb (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• (coming here from the WP:Welcoming committee invite) Hi Doug Weller! For the past few months I've been pushing a bunch of modifications to Wikipedia's resources for new editors. A lot of those are nearing implementation, which I'm very glad to see given the influx. The focal point is the standard welcome template — a proposed streamlined version has been discussed at the pump and that discussion may be nearing closure and I hope adoption. The new version points editors to Help:Introduction, the more helpful set of tutorials Diannaa mentioned above. The outdated WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial, meanwhile, are slated to be redirected there unless the prevailing consensus changes. We're also trying to revamp the WP:Task Center, an excellent and underutilized resource. That project is less far along and could particularly use some help. Thanks for bringing up this topic — I'm glad to see the attention being paid to it! Sdkb (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote about this thread at WT:TH [3] because I thought that active editors at the Teahouse might be interested. Clovermoss (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize with Moaz786's comment about getting welcomed at Kazakh Wikipedia. I also have accumulated a few such welcomes I don't have a prayer of understanding. Otoh, as someone who has written a lot of welcomes to new users and thinks about language issues a lot, I would just say that if we move towards a bot-issued welcome, they should probably be issued in more than one language (Kazakh-Russian-English, for example, in that case), or at the very least, have links in multiple languages, on the order of, "Read this notice in English · Lire cet avis en français · Ознакомьтесь с этим уведомлением по-русски" and so on. A project page somewhere with one row per Wikipedia language could list, for each language, the alternate welcome languages to use, and another could have the translated welcome templates. A cleverer bot could use geolocation, where the IP was available, and/or the language of the user's principal contributions. Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Wikimedia Commons has a welcome message with more than one language [4]. As for welcomes, new users here on en-wiki receive an automatic notification thanking them for their first edit and encourages them to keep going. Maybe we could have additional information added to that notification somehow? Clovermoss (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I forgot about the automated notifications. I forget exactly what's in them, but I think the overall architecture of the current setup is pretty good. People expect that bots will sometimes send them notifications, whereas a message on their talk page will have a much bigger impact if it's sent by an actual person (and if it's clear to them that this was the case, which I'm not sure it always is; the streamlined welcome makes a small language tweak to fix this). One thing to note: I'd say about 90% of editors have been welcomed by a person by their tenth edit. I sometimes filter recent changes for "learners" (autoconfirmed but below EC) to see who's getting missed, and there are some, but many editors in that category also turn out to be vandals or socks or some other type of problem user. Sdkb (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Every day, I welcome new editors I come across who edit articles on my Watchlist whose edits seem constructive. The Teahouse use to have a very robust welcome system for new editors and I use to see these messages all of the time but less so now.

Rather than a long list of rules--which probably aren't read--I think a pointer to the Teahouse would be of more practical use. It's personal and it's where someone can go with a question instead of presenting them with a long list of policies they won't read. I know when I started editing regularly in 2013, I came to the Teahouse a dozen times, often with frustration, and the welcoming attitude there was key for me sticking it out and learning how to do things, the Wikipedia-way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: completely agreed. The streamlined welcome I mentioned above is hopefully exactly what you're looking for. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I found the exact wording by scrolling through my notifications. If nothing has changed since September 2018, a new user will recieve the 3 notifications that I did. The first one said: Welcome to Wikipedia, Clovermoss! We're glad you're here. The second one said: You just made your first edit; thank you, and welcome! The third one said: You just made your tenth edit; thank you and please keep going! Then, I got welcomed by Nick Moyes [5]. Interestingly enough, I actually wrote about the notification when I posted a question to the Teahouse here. Clovermoss (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Do you know, where do they take you if you click on them? Sdkb (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The first notification takes me to Help:Getting started if I click on it. The second notification takes me to where I made my first edit, which was God Help the Outcasts. It shows the current version of the article, not the diff of my edit. The third notification takes me to the Teahouse if I click on it. The Teahouse is where I made my tenth edit. Sorry for the delay, it takes awhile to scroll through hundreds of notifications 50 at a time. I'm surprised there isn't an option to increase the amount of notifications per page. I think it's also worth mentioning that the upper-right corner of the notifications page itself has a help? button that links to Help:Notifications/FAQ. Clovermoss (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thanks for doing the scrolling haha! Ah yes, Help:Getting started, our intro page that's just a list of all our other intro pages since we couldn't agree on what our actual best intro page should be. The place where eager young editors daring to imagine that they can figure out how to edit here go to learn that, actually, it'll take them ten years just to read every page with "introduction" in the title and they probably should just not bother trying. Our best asset if our goal is to prove the world right that we're an impenetrable maze. I can't say I'm a fan. Sdkb (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: "As a new contributor, you may feel a little overwhelmed"... yeah, no kidding. And out of all those links, there isn't even one to the Teahouse! Clovermoss (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Those thinking 60 pages with no TOC will work should read over this...reason some long time help editors are concerned with 60 pages tutorials with no TOC is we know how readers navigate. That said we have no clue why someone gets an account ....perhaps their bio is all wrong....best first page with no TOC is Help:Contents that covers everything...even a link to the 60 page tutorial that is an accessibility nightmare. Accessibility is more than accommodating people that can't use a mouse. It's also about people that prefer not to use a mouse.---Moxy 🍁 06:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• A bot to welcome new users is a perennial proposal; there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for it, tbh. ——SN54129 09:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

HostBot welcomes new users who make a certain number of edits within a certain period (10 in 24 hours when approved) with an invitation to the Teahouse. You can see an example here (a sock's talk page, to avoid making any truly new users uncomfortable). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: Indeed; the operative phrase their is ... who make a certain number of edits. Cheers, ——SN54129 12:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse does a great job, but of course it can't help people who don't visit it (sadly I see too man). Or people who don't know the right questions to ask. How will they learn through the teahouse the things I pointed out at the beginning? Our articles reflect reliable sources, not our opinions or knowledge. They reflect all important points of view, positive and negative. Here's a list of things that we aren't and things that we are. Links in those sentences, maybe a small number of other links. Short, easily digestible, links to places to find out more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agreed, the Teahouse is fantastic. In addition to what you said, the other downside is just that it takes a lot of ongoing work to give personalized answers to questions, whereas writing good help pages only needs to be done once (and then maintained a bit). Sometimes the personalized help is needed, but often it wouldn't have been if the help resources were better. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I wonder a bit whether the Teahouse hostbot invitation results in fewer personalized welcomes because it turns red talk pages blue. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I expect that varies with the editor. For me their edits and what else I'm doing on Wikipedia (perhaps I'm working through a backlog of pending changes, which can require concentrated attention, or fixing typos, which won't) have a much greater effect.

I don't think bot welcomes to new users who haven't made an edit will be particularly helpful. Like Moaz786, I've received automated welcomes at wikipedias whose languages I don't understand, and would prefer not to receive those. Most accounts never make an edit: see Special:ListUsers, start at any page, and scroll for a bit. This discussion is four years old, but has some numbers; there are probably more recent ones I didn't find. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Adminbot (TheSandBot)

User:TheSandBot is poised to take over for RonBot's maintenance of the WP:RESTRICT subpages. As the code is the same I have approved TheSandBot for trial and granted a temporary admin flag. Those with issues or concerns should comment at the BRFA. The trial will run for one week. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Close review please

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

---

Earlier today, I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that he feels my close was mistaken. Your comments are invited: should I self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 00:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close looks okay to me. I admire the tenacity of the editor who is continuing to push for a title change they clearly feel passionately is important, but they need to accept that consensus did not move in that direction and drop the matter; at some point continued advocacy on a decided issue becomes disruptive. The one thing I would've liked to see in the close is a more solid definition of what exactly the moratorium means. I.e. if something big suddenly changes and an informal discussion pops up expressing widespread interest in a name change, how should WP:CCC be interpreted in the face of a moratorium? There was some support in the discussion section (disclosure: including from myself) for allowing move discussions, just without the formal RM tag/process, and I would've liked to see that addressed in the close. But overall, no, no need to revert. Sdkb (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close clearly reflected the consensus of the discussion and was correct. I realize the editor in question is unhappy with that decision and still disagrees with it, but we don't win 'em all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close seems fine. FWIW I think a reasonable path forward for the next inevitable move discussion needs to be laid. Perhaps a subpage just for those wanting to propose and discuss, coupled with a set timeline for a wider discussion. It would also be helpful for the medical project to make a recommendation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The close was sound. It was certainly not possible to close it wrt anything other than what was requested. ——SN54129 09:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• The topic is under general sanctions, see WP:GS/COVID19. S Marshall's close was an accurate reflection of the discussion and, given the astonishing participation at that page, the move moratorium is highly desirable. Please do not pursue the matter until the 30 days has elapsed because trying again and again can be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is an accurate evaluation of consensus, and the 30-day choice is within an acceptable discretionary range. Therefore there is a moratorium on move requests. However much one might believe one is right (and I offer no opinion either way), repeatedly banging one's head against the same wall is rarely effective - and can be disruptive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• I read through it and I agree that the close was reasonable - the way I often do this is think "if it had been closed the other way, would that have been more or less appropriate?" In this case if you'd closed the discussion with an outcome of "no moratorium", it definitely would have been a poorer reading of consensus and a less "correct" outcome. So yes, close endorsed. Fish+Karate 10:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies that my earlier attempt to post my reasoning lead to an inadvertent reposting of a huge amount of previously deleted text. It looks like the close is being supported, but to present my case, possibly too late:

• An extraordinary removal of editorial rights (the right to propose a move for an article) requires extraordinarily strong consensus (14:11 !votes here, when following section, previously a sus-section, is included);
• Where consensus is unclear, the least restrictive course of action should follow;
• Consensus should be based on the arguments presented, not a headcount;
• A block on renaming discussion requires absolute confidence in the current name;
• Articles of almost unprecedented current relevance should not have names that are demonstrably wrong: that cannot be something that "complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." Kevin McE (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: In response to comments earlier in this thread, I want to say that nothing Kevin McE has done is disruptive. It's legitimate to seek a close review and Kevin McE did so in an entirely appropriate manner.—S Marshall T/C 13:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The close is good and a clear reading of the discussion expressing editors' exhaustion with the matter. It's become clear on that page that repeated discussion about the article title has gone beyond saturation point with many editors now just !voting oppose/speedy close and further change just isn't going to happen any time soon. Sometimes a hard pause is needed and this is one of those times. However the wording of the close may need specifying - normally a moratorium on move discussions is taken to cover both formal requested moves and less formal discussions but here the editor opposing the close is also reverting all attempts to close the informal discussions on the page as well. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Request review of my page protection

I'm requesting uninvolved administrators review my protection of Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Current consensus. TomStar81 originally full protected the page. Sdkb and others requested it be lowered to ECP protection at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Current_consensus_discussion. It made it's way to WP:RFPP where I acted on it; first lowering it to ECP, then lowering it to semi-protection per the ECP protection policy. Sdkb has requested that I raise the protection back to ECP which I declined. Given my editorial engagement on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, I'm requesting review because I'm growing concerned that these decisions are not obvious or straightforward, and per WP:INVOLVED I should probably not continue acting unilaterally. Consensus about the appropriate action would put a lot of minds at ease. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, User:Wugapodes. I agree with ending the full protection, but I would probably have kept it at ECP. Wikipedia policy permits administrators to use ECP at our discretion; it doesn't have to be in an area that ArbCom has designated. Looking at the recent history of that page, I see just one case[6] of a disruptive edit that would have been prevented by ECP. Normally one case would not persuade me to impose ECP, but this page seems special, almost like a policy page - spelling out some consensus-based wording and content for an important and highly-read page - and for that reason I think the additional layer of protection can be justified. ECP still permits editing by pretty much all of the people who are taking part in the discussions to determine consensus. With that said, I think semi-protection will accomplish the same goal almost as well, so I would be OK with leaving it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Romanov's Theorem

Hi, would you please restore the history of Draft:Romanov's Theorem (note the capital T) and merge it with Romanov's theorem? Thanks, from TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 10:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1000:b025:cf37:adc4:e7c:bc2c:b610/41

I just blocked 2600:1000:b070:e7e8::/64 for a bunch of disgusting stuff at Jason Davis (actor), and then saw that 2600:1000:B025:CF37:ADC4:E7C:BC2C:B610 had done the same kind of thing. First of all, that article and its history are kind of a mess and need a. a good editor (one who's not about to go to bed) and b. an admin to go through and look for all the BLP violations I may have missed.

But bigger than that is the range one gets when the ...B610 is added, here--a ton of contributions, many of which in the US entertainment industry (the Davis article falls under that as well), and I cannot rightly figure out if we're dealing with (mostly) one editor who gets a kick out of showbiz and happens to hate that Davis actor, or if it's a bunch of different editors and that those three IPs delivered that range is just a coincidence. I am inclined to think the former, but this odd edit/revert from the same range makes me think the latter.

If any of you got that feeling where you want to dig into something, awesome. It might well be that there's a bunch of vandalism in there, and you might get to use your rev/delete buttons (but I don't think the WMF pays bonuses for that). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with. Drmies, email me if you want to know how to track down their edits in CU. I’ve blocked for two weeks anon-only. They don’t appear to be creating accounts so hopefully we don’t need an account creation block on it yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Public Wi-Fi block

During an earlier discussion on this noticeboard, it became apparent that it was handy to have a template that can be used as block reason when the IP address linked to a public Wi-Fi network is blocked. As such, I have created {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, largely based on Template:School block. Is the current template good and if so, should it be added to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown? --MrClog (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Does it need to parameterise for whether account creation is permitted or not? (Can this be detected automatically?)

At present it says "create an account at home", which is a bit dismissive to those whose only access is via a public access (Although I was told yesterday that such people in the UK are unimportant and they should just get proper broadband!). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If the admin sets the "home" parameter to "no" ({{Public Wi-Fi block|home=no}}), the template says "To edit, please create an account and log in" instead of "To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here." --MrClog (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The default behavior should not be telling editors to create an account at home. There's no way an administrator will know whether someone has broadband access at home, so an optional parameter doesn't resolve the systemic bias issue. Many people only have access to Wikipedia from public wireless, and we should not assume that our readers and editors are privileged citizens of industrialized nations who have the luxury of home internet. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, sorry, but you're wrong here. In the developed world, significantly more people have home internet access than via mobile (see this exact discussion I just had with Andy over it with regards to the UK numbers. 98% of UK internet users have a wired connection. US percentage is lower at ~80%, but even those users normally have access through multiple mediums. I'm not sure the number for other Western nations, but my suspicion is it is very similar.) Telling someone to create an account from their home wired connection when encountering an account creation block is the best advice that can be given. If they don't have a home connection we have options, but those options suck and are usually backlogged months.

The exception to this would be developing countries, and for a variety of reasons, range blocks in places like India, Indonesia, and Nigeria aren't the norm. Those ranges tend to be exceptionally active, and many times the damage is wider than we can justify blocking for what is usually one problematic user. We also tend to get far less disruption from non-Anglophone countries, so the ranges where "majority mobile or public" is a thing don't tend to have many accounts being created to begin with.

In Western countries, most people will have access to multiple networks on any given day. Not everyone does, but we don't give advice based on the exception to the rule. en.wiki has a primarily Western editor audience because of historical reasons of where English is dominant. Giving people the sound advice to create an account at home when it's a safe assumption they have home internet is a bias, but it's one we really can't get around unless we want to direct everyone to ACC and thus lose them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense; I've struck my objection. Thanks for taking the time to write that out! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

98% of UK internet users have a wired connection.

Please stop misquoting that. The ONS report doesn't say that (It says 88%). Even then, that report is widely challenged. Radio 4 just yesterday for one, in reference to the internet as a communcation medium during this crisis, and the number of people who were dependent on libraries for access, which are now closed.

Although internet access in the UK is huge, it's not complete and its incompleteness is strongly correlated to either poverty or rural locations. (Per the other discussion) many people's access is via mobile networks, especially teenagers, especially the rural population. For WP to take any sort of "let them eat cake" attitude here (which is what your claims are coming across as very strongly) is an elitist position what WP absolutely does not and should not be taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have {{rangeblock}}, {{anonblock}}, {{CheckUser block}}, and others. The list doesn't need to be made more cluttered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Three isn't cluttered. And {{SharedIPEdu}}, which is one of the most-applied of these, should be on there too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• {{School block}} is on it I believe. --MrClog (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed. SharedIPEdu isn't actually a block template - the schoolblock template is what's used for the block. We also have more than three block reasons already listed. Actually I quite like this template, though I'm tempted to tweak it a bit - it arose in the context of a hardblock which isn't really dealt with. I know of several occasions it could be used, though it doesn't really fall into the common uses that admins look for in the dropdown. I'd describe it as highly specialized. There's a multitude of specialized block templates which aren't listed and would only clutter the list. What I've found with regards the dropdown, is that if admins need something listed then they will add it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz: I've got you covered. --MrClog (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can see value to this, but my question is whether it's usable (not that that's a reason to not have it). How do we identify when somewhere is "public wi-fi"? Libraries, sometimes, (locally though they're indistinguishable from local government offices). Cafes though tend to buy their internet from the local domestic ISP, same as houses. Can we distinguish them? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  No not always, and sometimes we have better or more generic templates. However some places like Target and Home Depot and Lowe's (and there are others) are clearly identifiable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with NRP that this makes it cluttered. {{rangeblock}} or {{anonblock}} both do the trick. No objection to people using it if they want, but I wouldn’t add it to the drop down. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ip range 37.160.0.0/14

I've opened this request to ask admins to review the block of 4 "/16" ip ranges: 37.160.0.0/16, 37.161.0.0/16, 37.162.0.0/16, 37.164.0.0/16. The reason of the block is that a user of these ranges has been vandalising 2 pages: Ross Butler (actor) and Frank Oz. It's right taking measures to protect these pages and prevent the vandal from further disruption, but blocking for a month 4 ip ranges is beyond what's necessary to do to keep safe Wikipedia. I'm asking to change the block in this way: keeping these ip ranges blocked, even for more than a month, but only for the 2 vandalised pages and eventually others, i.e. preventing anonymous users from these ranges to edit the vandalised pages. It's quite simple and it's a commonly used way to deal with such issues. As an alternative, those pages might be semiprotected for a month or more, so that the vandal won't be able to edit them anyway. The aim of the current block is avoid further vandalisms, isn't it? Well, either of the methods I've suggested balances optimally the need of protection for the encyclopedy with the least possible collateral damage (there're a lot of constructive edits from these ranges if we exclude the vandalic user). I'll be waiting for a reply by an admin, I hope that my request will be granted. MaicroMista (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done anything about blocking, but I have semi-protected both articles for a month. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They weren't disrupting two pages, but many dozens, including a lot of BLPs. I would not have blocked such a range for the sake of two articles. Note that I blocked them with account created enabled, so anyone prevented from editing (there weren't many collateral issues) can create an account. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointd out in the blocker's talk page, the vandalised pages aren't "many dozens" but a few more than one dozen. In my opinion, the measure taken exceeds the aim and caused too much collateral damage. Is there any other admin who agrees my statement?

MaicroMista (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You aren't reading the contributions correctly, as I've pointed out on my talk page. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The 4 range blocks together block the entire 37.160.0.0/14 range, which is used for Iliad Italia's mobile network -- blocking a total of 262,144 IPs. It certainly is a huge range and it does affect many users who are not vandals. I haven't reviewed the editing by the range enough to judge whether I'd consider the block appropriate (and do not have the time to do that now). However, it may be useful to set the blocking reason to something like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} <!-- persistently removing/changing information without sources and no attempt at communication -->. Such a message is probably much clearer to anyone on the mobile network that is trying to edit Wikipedia. --MrClog (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've unblocked the 37.162.0.0/16 range and the 37.163.0.0/16 range as they do, apart from one edit, appear to be free of the issues. The remaining /15 block does not really "affect many editors who are not vandals" - it is a very lightly used range and indeed, apart from the vandal, I count fewer than a dozen productive edits in the last month. Also, the block message which blocked users will see actually is "persistently removing/changing information without sources and no attempt at communication. Please register an account if you wish to edit." Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I personally think a template like {{rangeblock}} is handy to use is that users that try to edit see quite an intimidating message where a normal block reason may be easily missed, while a clear and colourful template may not be missed. The current block reason is fine too though.

I meant to say that the IP (as a Mobile IP) is used by many individuals, not necessarily editors of course, as you correctly pointed out. --MrClog (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Halving the blocked range is a good compromise. Thank you! MaicroMista (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

AP295 on the Principal Component analysis page.

Some disruptive edits by new user AP295 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Principal Component Analysis page, with violation of 3RR. Some WP:OR and as a specialist the point in the page was correct (and cited): PCAs are applied to Z Scores and the page discusses the two alternatives.Limit-theorem (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I warned the user about the three revert rule. On the talk page, AP295 seems to be pointing you to a reference that explains their edits. Are you familiar with it? If so, perhaps you could explain why the current source should take precedence over Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, or why that source is not particularly useful. I would encourage you to try discussing the dispute with AP295 and other editors more as the discussion at Talk:Principal_component_analysis#Dividing_each_attribute_by_its_standard_deviation_changes_principle_components seems to have gotten very heated very fast. Beyond the edit war, administrators cannot do much in content disputes. You may want to try some form of dispute resolution if you cannot come to a consensus on how the article should read. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute, but WP:OR bordering on vandalism or reading comprehension. Some methods normalize the variance, others don't. This is explicit in the text. Whether machine learning uses nonnormalized variances can be added (I will do so, as I am also familiar with ML PCAs). It does not appear that the editor has much knowledge of statistical techniques (he can't even spell it right), or Wikipedia standards, which makes it hard to argue with them. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: "– and, possibly, normalizing each variable's variance to make it equal to 1; see Z-scores.[4] " this sentence says that there are two different approaches (which we use with Z-scores.Limit-theorem (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Limit-theorem: As I mentioned previously, AP295 has pointed you to a work that they believe supports their point. So it's difficult to justify blocking when the editor you want blocked has been doing everything you've asked of them. In your first revert edit summary you ask them to use the talk page. AP295 then posts on the talk page. Your first reply to that talk page message is an accusation of OR and an immediate threat to report them. AP295 responds claiming it is not OR and provides the title and author of a book they say supports their claims. There's a brief back and forth about math that I don't quite understand. AP295 makes a suggestion on how to improve the page, and in response you "give up", accuse them of vandalism, and claim that they'll be blocked for behavior that has up until this point appears to be entirely good faith. I will remind you that one of our guidelines that editors should follow is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If the editor seriously does not understand the mathematics behind the topic, you will need to do a better job explaining that because for those like me who do not know the details of PCA, this looks like a good faith content dispute. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: There must be a misunderstanding. He is removing and deleting sourced content. I am really sorry if I did not make it clear. (In other words there are two methods. I accept that the one he suggests is used, no problem (the text makes it clear). But he is deleting the other one as non adequate, which is OR. I am a statistician and I use the method all the time, which is why I find this weird.) Limit-theorem (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

They stopped after being warned about the 3RR, and are now attempting to build consensus on the talk page. If they resume edit warring, make a report at the edit warring noticeboard. There was no 3RR violation (it's > 3 reverts, not ≥ 3 reverts, common mistake), AGF on the citation they gave makes me hesitant to rely on OR claims, and the newbie is behaving in a constructive manner. Unless there's something I'm unaware of, I don't see anything that justifies administrator action.

On a personal note, I understand the frustration of dealing with Randy from Boise, but being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is one of our fundamental principles. Trying to find common ground with people who may not have the same expertise is part of the territory, and that collaboration often leads to some of our best content. It may be weird, but for someone who uses PCA in different contexts from yours it may actually be useful. Consider AP295's suggestions as feedback on who the article is not serving well. If they're focusing on one aspect, maybe it could be explained better so that others don't come to the same wrong conclusion? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Wugapodes: for both understanding the specialist's frustration and wanting to keep WP an open enclyclopedia. Will help him. Limit-theorem (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a short summary of my concern to the talk page. Many of the same points are made in the article itself, Section 3 Further Considerations (which I just noticed), and also follow from the formulation of PCA given in Bishop, so I do not believe they comprise original research. AP295 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like AP295, you are still not getting it. There are two methods to normalize (by mean or mean plus variance, i.e. Z Scores). You are removing the second method (which is sourced) because some book you've read does not mention the second method. 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy inre Victor Tessier page

I am hereby giving Sulfurboy notice that I already contacted the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I have a ticket # and was told to post in the Administrator's notice board. Per that board's instructions I am posting on Sulfurboy's page giving him notice. I will post the same on the Administrator's board.

Sulfurboy is now cyberstalking me across the internet. Sulfurboy stated I have a COI with Victor Tessier because I made a FindAGrave.com page for him. I have made over 1,800 FAG pages for people I don't know. I don't know Victor Tessier. Sulfurboy spent yesterday cyberstalking me to other websites outside of Wiki. I doubt that's part of an Admin's duties. He then decided to lie about me and smear me on Victor Tessier's page. Sulfurboy should not be an Admin. He should be recused, banned from overseeing my pages or my account. He clearly has a personal problem with me. I did exactly what he asked then he lied and said I didn't. Look at the page history. I removed all mention of Ancestry which was merely an extra source. I removed anything that could appear to be copy/paste. Still, he refused to accept the page then decided to personally attack me. That page is better sourced than most pages here. It's definitely better sourced than Victor Tessier's son Edward Tessier's page with few poor sources which has been approved for over a decade. Sulfurboy only put it up for deletion when I mentioned that. Sulfurboy has personal issues and power issues. Mary Cummins (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't presented a single diff to support your accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This person is under the impression that I "cyberstalked" them when I pointed out that they made a findagrave entry for a subject they were writing a draft about here. This was in relation to a possible WP:COI. I was able to know this person created that findagrave entry because they stated so here on their own talk page. Also, from their talk page, it seems as if I'm not the first Wikipedian they've accused without merit of stalking, just search their user page for the word "stalk". Other people they have accused of stalking in the past include Jimfbleak Bbb23 and CaroleHenson. I also see they've had a series of blocks in their past for threatening legal action and destructive editing. It seems that on this latest go around they still don't have an interest in contributing in a constructive manner to what we're trying to build. Also of note, is their wild accusations of sexism or whatever on my talk page found here. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean her Talk page. My gosh, she goes back years. I blocked her as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. I will try and do some research to see if I can figure out why my name is brought into this discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's easy. Just do what Sulfurboy said. Search the user's Talk page for the word "stalk". Back in 2016 she accused you of stalking her.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it: There was something more than three years ago on the user's talk page that appeared to be a COI issue. It never went anywhere, they were kind of ranting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"kind of" is kind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, I've removed their ramblings from my talk page since this matter seems to be closed, but it of course can be seen in my edit history if needed. Thanks for the quick resolution. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Yung producer 2.jpg

Survived mass deletion of Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 7 February 2020. Deletion bug? Please check. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That file is not in the category even though it supposed to be there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did this edit and the image was added to the category somehow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is mediawiki bug. -- CptViraj (📧) 06:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why the image was not in the category and then when I added a space it was added to the category. You can ask in WP:VTP. There are editors who are experts in these things.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't add a space. I removed "7 February 2020" and wrote it again. I was thinking that there might be an unusual character there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the file. Good catch - thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The wrong version...again!

Hi, I recently asked for the move protection of 1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting. However, I overlooked consensus to keep it as 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting without the last comma. Can you please move it back to the place where community has consensus? Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 04:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. The Lord of Math, Lectonar is there any reason this page needs to still be move protected? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the utter lack of consensus, I'd say...? I think it's best to keep it move-protected as a move would bring controversy and it's better to do a move request. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

License washing

Lennox Theodore Anderson looks to be using en:wikipedia as platform for license washing, as he/she is cropping files (images) en masse with a restrictive attribution/share alike license from Wikimedia Commons and releasing them here with a wrong "PD-Self" license. He/she has been reported here before, to no answer.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

pinging @GoodDay:, the former user reporting this, in case he/she can shed more light onto this.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a blunt message at User talk:Lennox Theodore Anderson#Stop requesting that they engage here before continuing. Please notify me if further problems occur before a consensus is reached here. A recent upload to enwiki is File:Michael Lord 2019.jpg. That looks incredibly like the Commons File:Official portrait of Lord Framlingham.jpg particularly (cropped), except the image is flipped and has glasses. Surely they haven't added the glasses!? Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a check and yes, there is a very slight rotation, the addition of glasses, and some odd cropping, but otherwise it's the same image (and has been deleted). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried getting LTA to stop, but he/she simply ignored me. This has been going on for months & so I figured either LTA's having WP:CIR issues or he/she just needs a blunt reaction from the community, to get the message. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are some unfortunate initials for a Wikipedia contributor... --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now, he's just finished page moving (back & forth) the John A. Macdonald article, apparently to create a new re-direct for that article. This is looking like an example of WP:CIR. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the first time they've moved pages like this before. I remember a few months ago spending way too much time cleaning up another similar mess. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has stopped since the warning earlier today. I agree that this is disruptive along the lines of CIR (and/or communication is required) and would be willing to block accordingly if the behavior continues. (It looks like Johnuniq is at that point also, though apparently only regarding the image uploads.) --Izno (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Newbie mistakes can be fixed and forgiven, and we should try education before enforcement. But LTA needs to engage with the concerns about their editing and understand the problems, preferably before doing anything else but certainly before uploading any more files or moving any more pages. If they don't, then unfortunately an indef block may be necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

LTA's refusal to communicate here or at his talpage, is quite vexing. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I've left them a message requiring them to communicate before they make any more edits. If they carry on regardless, they should be indef'd by the first passing admin but hopefully they'll take heed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

He's currently working in his sandbox. Past experience, tells me he's laying low, hoping for this to blow over. Then he can continue is disruptive pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

But just look at the bizarre content of his sandbox, which he has been editing since receiving the latest message. Please just block now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that if he's banned, he'll resort to socking (ip or new account). I personally believe he's deliberately ignoring all of us, because he damn well knows how to respond here & at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift the block without discussing it with me if they believe the issues are resolved. Given the history, though, this will be a high bar to reach. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if it's him, but an IP has just shown up on John A. Macdonald to blanket replace all "Macdonalds"s with "MacDonald"s. And can we delete the hoax article at User:Lennox Theodore Anderson/Sandbox? Meters (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox. I took no action on the IP, but have no objection to someone else taking action on that. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a while for obvious block evasion. Hopefully that will calm things down for a bit. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the initials "LTA" are a coincidence. DS (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Duplicate Wikipedia files

Hello!

Can some admin please take it upon him- or herself to check this category perhaps once a day so entries doesn't stay there for so long? This is done perfectly on Commons but I see no one does it here. It's not that a troublesome task so please someone can spare a few minutes a day for this? Jonteemil (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please tag the unused copy of each such image with a speedy deletion template: {{Db-f1}} which will place it on the speedy deletion listings for admin attention. Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil : If the duplicate image is on the Commons, the speedy deletion code is {{Db-f8}}. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I see. Perhaps {{duplicate}} should be redirected to {{db-f1}}?Jonteemil (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The place to suggest that would be WP:Templates for discussion.— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Okay, done that. Thanks.Jonteemil (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I'm getting notifications about repeated attempts to log into my account from a new device over the past couple of hours. I'm confident my password is strong but it's probably worth being on the lookout for any accounts going rogue if whomever is behind this finds a way in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris: I'll keep an eye on your contributions, but if you somehow get locked out, I'm emailing you my mobile number in case you don't already have it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the same thing, also (peripherally) involved with that case. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm also seeing the same thing (6 failed attempts, according to the notice) and am also involved with that case. I'd appreciate it if my account could also be kept on watch for strange behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens every now and then. There's not really any way to tell if you're being targeted specifically or if it's random. As usual, the advice for anyone who doesn't want their account compromised is to to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, and for admins to consider enabling two-factor authentication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Wikipedia. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Wikipedia account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2FA is one of those areas where Wikipedia just feels really behind the curve compared to the rest of the tech world (captchas being another). Every other tech website implemented 2FA years ago for all users, whereas here it seems to exist only in beta form and only for a small subset of users. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SMS-based 2FA is also something nice, but I doubt that will ever be enabled here. On that note, I feel these hijack attempts are random. I have a folder of those emails, and so far I've collected 154 of those. I have no idea why... Rehman 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this merits more complete investigation, given that the three editors reporting issues here have been in varying degrees involved in the Jytdog ArbCom case. I'd suggest outreach to determine if others in the case are experiencing similar failed login attempts, as a start. Jusdafax (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In the past there have been massive attacks by automated systems attempting to log in to hundreds (thousands?) of accounts. Speculation was that someone had one of the large password dumps from hacked websites, and was trying those passwords against accounts here. All I can find at the moment is from May 2018. I thought there was a very large attack last year. The bottom line is that log in attempts can be ignored provided you are not using a password that has been been used at any other website (because those websites get hacked and the passwords leaked). See WP:SECURITY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:WikiIndustrialComplex

Someone is having a hard time following the instructions for writing up an unblock request. Maybe one of you can help them; I have a feeling they don't want to hear from me anymore, not even to give them a link to NPA. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• No problem, I'm happy to help. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Chaos Music

Hello!

I want to create a page for an Argentinian music label, Chaos Music. But I am unable to do so. When I tried I got the following error, "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"."Any administrator can create or move this page for you"..--Rashijain1992 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please create the article in the draft space and then, if it gets accepted, somebody would move it to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rashijain1992, I see that you're unable to create the Chaos Music and Draft:Chaos Music pages because the page names are affected by the title blacklist. (This is because someone back in 2013 created a bunch of spam pages with the word "Chaos" in it.) I've prepared an empty draft page for you at Draft:Chaos Music. When you're finished with your draft, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" on the draft page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have started understanding the Wikipedia process much better now. Really appreciate your help.--Rashijain1992 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any other questions about editing.​ — Newslinger talk 07:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (2nd nomination) - snow close

An uninvolved administrator is requested to decide whether a snow close is appropriate here - the first AfD was closed yesterday, and the nominator of the second one does not seem to be accepting the snow close. I am personally involved, since I commented (thought not voted) on the previous AfD. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson speedily kept it (NAC) but Sanmosa, the nominator, reverted that.[7] I don't have time to deal with it right now, but it does need dealing with. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've re-closed it and posted a question on Sanmosa's talk page. They want to discuss some issue (judging by their edit summaries in the AFD) but it's not clear what it is, and the AFD nomination statement does not clarify (it reads more like a keep argument than a deletion one). Perhaps they just need to be pointed to the correct place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move help needed

New(-ish) user Eshaan11 attempted to "correct" the spelling of Color photography and moved it to Colour Photography without consensus. Because they did this without discussion (per WP:MOVE and MOS:ENGVAR) I went to reverse it. I noticed that they had also moved it incorrectly so that there was no talk page at the new location but I did not notice this was because of the incorrect title capitalization. I was unavoidably called away in the midst of this and the end result is that there now appear to be two separate articles: Color Photography and Color photography. Could some kind admin put this back together for me? I realize that attempting to do reverse this and stepping away in the middle is less than optimal behavior for a relatively experienced editor and I apologize but life interrupts sometimes. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User has also done similar mayhem to Deafblindness. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, could you please specify what should be the final destination? Color photography?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, correct. Color photography was the previous location. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, another one already moved by Tbhotch--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How dare you have a life away from Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ymblanter and Tbhotch. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) And to Phil Bridger: I know? Right? How rude!

Copy and paste move?

I think a copy and paste move occurred here - Andrey Yuryevich Vorobyov to Andrey Vorobyov - [8] [9]. If so, not sure if any histmerge, clean up or other untangling is required, posting here for those more experienced to consider. Spokoyni (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Unable to undo an edit (due to Spam-blacklist)

Hello. All the edits (except this edit) by 2601:580:4200:71D0:81E0:9585:599C:BBBE have been undone, because they are dubious. The user has been warned. But I am unable to undo the remaining edit. When I try to publish my edit, it is not saved, and the following message appears "Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist". The link that triggered the protection filter is moz.com. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist contains dromoz.com.
So I think that there is no error in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I still want to undo the remaining edit. Could you undo this edit? Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that \bmoz\.com\b is at meta:Spam blacklist. I guess that a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist might be needed because my attempt to hide moz.com (by making it not a clickable link) did not work. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit in two steps by editing section 0 and restoring moz.com (unclickable link), then removing the external links which is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnuniq: I had forgotten to look at meta:Spam blacklist and I was unaware that unclickable links were OK for the filters. --NicoScribe (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed

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

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

"China virus"

There has been four weeks of discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Repeated addition of "China Virus" about additions of "China virus" to the article text. The discussion appears to have exhausted itself, but is dragging on. An uninvolved closer's reading of the discussion, whether or not that involves initiation of a subsequent RfC, would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Psl631 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Psl631 is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Psl631 unblocked

Severe misconduct involving an edit filter

Admins, please see this discussion at the edit filter noticeboard regarding the disguising of the purpose of an edit filter with a misleading description. This deserves action immediately if not sooner. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment from a grumpy person re: April Fools

I’m not going to suggest we cancel it. I don’t like it, but it’s an accepted part of internet culture, especially on this site, so okay.

What I am going to point out to many of our pranksters, a fair portion of whom are young or full-time students, is that this is a particularly stressful time for many of us: depending on which predictions you believe, the world is heading for an economic scenario unseen since the Great Depression and millions of people are losing jobs. There are people terrified because of the virus since they have underlying conditions, and since the Wikipedia demographic tends to overrepresent retirees, that’s likely a substantial portion of our editing base. Even those of us with relatively secure jobs and who are in good health are nearing the end of our streams of patience with being confined to our homes in many countries, and are thus more stressed and on edge than we’d normally be.

All this to say: this might be the year to tone down April fools and not do anything that you think might bug someone. If you have to debate whether it crosses the line between “harmless fun Tony and other curmudgeons will roll their eyes at and move on” and “things that might actually upset and/or seriously annoy a few people” it likely will fall into the later this year and is best to be avoided. We don’t have to be all doom and gloom, but we should be sensitive that this year might be a bit different and act accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this post TonyBallioni. The thing about a good April Fool's joke is that it is funny. I haven't seen one of those yet this year. That includes the thread just below this one. One suggestion is that people partaking of the day please post your item on your own talk page and leave all the other notice and policy boards to their regular business. That way your talk page watchers can laugh or not as the case may be. Those of us dealing with all the difficulties of this time can focus on those and regular editing. I don't expect this suggestion to be taken up but I had to make it anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with you, Tony. I was thinking about this when I saw some planning for April 1st for the Main Page. But I don't think that editors who will participate in this annual ritual are editors who read AN and will see this message. So, the only thing we can control is how we respond to the inevitable joking that will occur. I propose not encouraging it but also not stomping it down and deleting it when we see it. Joking can also act as a way to release stress so, let's AGF and try not to let ourselves be angered or too irritated when we see it should we come across it in our daily work as below. No matter lame it is (see below). JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP and illness

From another grumpy person, even without April Fools vandalism I'm seeing an increasing number of edits claiming people are sick or dead from the pandemic virus. I've blocked or strongly warned several editors for unsourced rumors and general BLP violations.This will only get worse, and April Fools won't help. Rather than an escalating series of warnings, unsourced or poorly sourced rumors of living persons' health status need a sharp warning out of the gate, followed up with protection or blocks if not heeded. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, I've already had to revert about a half dozen incidents of vandalism, saying different celebrities (usually ones I haven't heard of) had died of COVID-19. You're right, this will probably increase on April 1st. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)