Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279

Magioladitis

Magioladitis (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and his bot Yobot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been blocked many times for issues relating to violations of the bot policy and AWB's rules of use. The most common complaint is that he makes many trivial ("cosmetic") changes which do not change the appearance of an article but clog up editors' watchlists. The most recent block was for one month. He was unblocked three days ago on the back of strict conditions that he would not perform any automated or semi-automated edits for the duration of the block length (see User talk:Magioladitis#Unblock request for details). However I have just reblocked because he was not adhering to these conditions.

In usual circumstances I would remove access to AWB, but as Magioladitis is an administrator this is not possible. I have suggested to him in the past that it would be better to cease all automated editing from his main account. However he has not acquiesced to this yet, and judging from recent events I wonder if he is able to restrain himself in this way voluntarily.

I would like to stress that I believe Magioladitis is acting in good faith, his non-automated edits are beneficial and his administrator actions are not concerning. However the automated editing is proving problematic and we should find a way to manage this.

I'm here to propose to the community that Magioladitis be topic banned from making all automated and semi-automated edits from his main account indefinitely. Any bot jobs approved at WP:BRFA may continue, and we gain from his experience as a long-term editor, admin and BAG member. If this does not achieve consensus, then let's brainstorm other avenues to deal with this.

I am notifying the following editors who have been involved in the past: xaosflux — Materialscientist — The Earwig — GoingBatty — Frietjes — Fram — Bgwhite — intgr — JohnBlackburne — GB fan: and I will notify Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Mag could be unblocked only to participate in this discussion? I'd like to know why he is so persistent in applying cosmetic changes, whether he's trying to climb a leaderboard or is just slightly obsessive about articles being "just so" in terms of whitespace, bypassing harmless redirects, etc. No matter the reason, it's not setting a good example as a member of BAG. And it's a significant annoyance and timesink as people review the edits and have to determine what the reason was (when there is really, none). –xeno^talk 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reminded Magioladitis of WP:COSMETICBOT bot several times over the years, more than anyone else, so I'll join the crowd here. These pointless edits have to stop. I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB. But there's a larger issue at play with Magio's bot in that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. As a BAG member, Magio should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages.

I'm not going to say Magio should be removed from BAG at this point, but it's certainly an option I'm willing to consider if Magio keeps running their bots without making sure they first comply with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I second xeno's suggestion to allow Magioladitis to participate in this discussion on this page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not oppose an unblock on condition that he only edit this page and his own talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, I do recognize the positive contributions that Magioladitis brings to the project, which is why I tried to work with him on a limited topic ban as his unblock condition (see WP:EDR#Final_warnings_.2F_Unblock_conditions). As clearly stated in the unblock, condition violation may lead to additional sanctions including re-blocking. As one of the WP:AWB developers, I would expect he would need to make minimal AWB edits (possibly via LEGITSOCKS) for testing and troubleshooting purposes even if he ends up under a long term editing restriction, possibly under specific conditions? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note, I have delisted the prior temporary WP:RESTRICTIONS as Magioladitis was reblocked and unblocked under NEW conditions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a real shame and sad to see energetic editors who like to make mass-fixes get blocked for it. Though the fixes I see here would be so low on my priority list that I couldn't envision them ever rising in my work queue to get even close to approaching the top of the list. Is there any real concern here, though, besides cluttering up watchlists? Can't you just scan or skim the edit summaries in your watchlists and just disregard or ignore "Cleaned up using AutoEd"? If Magio needs something more important and substantial to clean up, then I have several tasks in my overloaded work queue I'd love to outsource to him. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the ping MSGJ. I'm not sure what to do. As people have said, he makes positive contributions. Since he was unblocked, Maigoladits has probably done ~2,000 semi-manually edits via Yobot's account. Most of this is due to the latest dumpfile via CheckWiki. This is the first dump since ISSN checks were added, which contributed to this message on Yobot's talk page. So, ~2,000 good contributions vs ~20 pointless ones. I don't want to see him blocked because of his overall contributions, but on the other hand, something must be done.

MSGJ, AWB's CheckPage does allow for blacklisted names. I'm not sure if a blacklisted name takes precedent over an admin. Rjwilmsi is the person to ask. Plus, as the main AWB programmer, he could come up with suggestions.

WPCleaner and AutoEd don't have a permission system. But, AutoEd needs to be added to a person's common.js/vector.js file to work. Removing this from the .js file and making it sure it isn't added back should be easy. WPCleaner doesn't make the "trivial" changes or general fixes as the other two programs do. I don't see a problem in not letting Magioladitis keep using that. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is refreshing because it's the first time I've seen you accept that there is a problem. In the past you have steadfastly defended him. I'm hopeful we can work together to find a solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ Actually, last time I made only one comment and that was to defend one type of edit as non-trivial. The time before I suggested a topic ban on editing talk pages. Talk pages are Magioladitis' kryptonite. Kryptonite and OCD is a dangerous mix. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [1], or look at the block log for Yobot [2]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also the repeated violations of WP:BOTREQUIRE, in particular for bots to be conservative in their edit speeds. Non-urgent tasks such as the bot does should be done at the rate of no more than once every ten seconds, so six a minute. But only yesterday it was making edits several times faster than this, with dozens of edits per minute. This has been raised before, and is surely easily fixable – any code on any computer can query the system clock to at least second accuracy. It is just he thinks WP:BOTREQUIRE does not apply to his bot and can be ignored, as well as the above problems with cosmetic edits and edit descriptions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the circumstances outlined here, I really think the only solution is desysopping, followed by loss of AWB privileges. Adminship shouldn't be a "shield" which protects one from the kind of restrictions that a "regular" editor in the same circumstances would see. I suspect Arbcom could handle this by motion, though they might want to make a "full case" out of it... But, ultimately, this is boiling down to "trust" and "judgement" (and it's come up repeatedly) and Admins that display neither probably need to lose the bit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have raised this issue with him several times in the past. Lots of pointless AWB edits that add no value whatsoever. He stops for a time, then restarts after the dust settles. Thankfully I'm not alone with these concerns. Rulez iz rulez for AWB, but this user seems to be "untouchable" due to their so-called admin status. Once again, it's one rule for AWB running bots and one rule for the rest of us. At one point I put my foot through my laptop and sent him the bill. PS - Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the block log, Lugnuts, that user/admin is clearly not untouchable. If they were, we wouldn't be here. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Go on, give him a 53rd chance. He's an admin afterall! Like to see how quickly a non-admin would have been indef'd for similar bahaviour. Or even to have their block lifted so they could participate at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have till now held back from calling for his administrator status to be removed, and am still hopeful this won't be necessary. Obviously I expected the issue to come up, and I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency in the treatment he is receiving. We are looking for the best solution for the project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his admin actions. (Okay he unblocked his own bot once, a long time ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.) Personally I'd like to have a try with some editing restrictions before we turn to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So far we have lots of editors pointing out the problems, but not many solutions being proposed. It might be useful if you could indicate whether or not you support the proposal in the first paragraph. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove AWB and ban from operating bots. Problem disappears. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support a ban on automated edits, meaning both tools such as AWB, AutoEd and through a bot, as the problems occur on both accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, support AWB and bot removal. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne you can also kick me out of Wikipedia. Problem disappears too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked Magioladitis (after the agreement of the blocking admin in this discussion above) solely to participate in this discussion. Magioladitis has agreed to only edit this discussion (and their user talk page) until the end of the original block (15 February). Fram (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my points in brief. I'll try to expand the, later:

• No, I am not interested to climbing any virtual ladder.
• The last unblock violation was a misunderstanding. I thought the restriction has to do only with AWB. It would be stupid of me to violate the rule just to make 3 edits with AutoEd.
• I edit a lot. People who edit a lot get a lot of complains anyway. Yesterday I fixed 1,500 pages with invalid ISSN. Yes, there were 20 mistakes. Yes, I went back and fixed them. This is my typical day.
• I do a lot of mistakes. I run on multiple tasks and I usually use brutal force (I ignore the skip conditions). This is my main negative. I know about it.
• I reply to every single comment in my talk page I never escaped any complain.
• I make an effort to pass most the tasks I do to others. I encouraged people to take over.
• I have published almost every single script I use. I want others to use my tools. I don't want to be that guy that when they leave Wikipedia they take the tools with them.
• Not all complains are valid. Many times I get complains because the editor did not understand what I did (example: removed a duplicated category). I try to use the edit summary a lot. Better than some people who don't use it all.
• I wrote on my talk page a lot of stuff I would like the community to agree for. It's not about me. I see a lot of complains around about AWB and tools in general. Some are valid, some are not. I want specific rules. NOTBROKEN has changed. COSMETICBOT has changed. The rules have relaxed. Some of you may know that,some may don't, some may want to deny this fact. Yes, it is a fact.
• A lot of people when banned, blocked for using the tools all these years. Even there were different reasons behind, some people may have the impression that the reason was the same: The tools. No, it's not the tools.
• When this started I got the impression that some of the blocking admins want me out of Wikipedia. I apologise for that. I see now that this is not the case. I am happy to see that the vats majority does not think I act on bad faith. I still believe though that some editors might want me out. They may believe this would be the solution. Well, it's not.
• I typed this in less than 5 minutes I hope it's not too emotional. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would propose the following as a possible set of edit restrictions:

1. AWB may only be used by the Yobot account, and only for tasks that have bot approval. No semi-automated tools of any kind may be used on the main account.
2. All "general fixes" and other changes apart from the literally approved bot task must be disabled within AWB when Yobot runs.
3. No edits that consist entirely of cosmetic changes may be made with either the main account or the bot account. These include edits that only affect white space and underscores, changes that only bypass redirects, and other changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page.
4. All Yobot edits must refer to the specific request for bot approval that authorizes them (in the edit summary).
5. All CHECKWIKI edits must be clearly marked with the specific CHECKWIKI task they carry out (in the edit summary). Different CHECKWIKI tasks should be handled by different runs of the bot to permit clear edit summaries to be used.
6. Yobot may only save changes to a page when the specific bot task it is carrying out has been applied to that page, and must skip pages to which the bot task does not apply.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. So on one hand we have a person who won't stop making tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes. On the other hand we have people that want to really insist that tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes are not made. It seems to me that either side could let this one go and everything would be fine, or both sides can be stubborn and we probably lose an editor. HighInBC 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Or we could insist that Admins follow the same rules as everyone else, and get treated for infractions like everyone else – the fact is, if this didn't involve an Admin, this situation would have been dealt with a long time ago. (And, before anyone brings it up, I'm pretty sure I've seen non-Admins blocked for edits not all that dissimilar to the ones mentioned in this case.) Instead, this is another shining example of where someone has been cut multiple "breaks" simply because of the usergroup they're in... Bringing this back around though, in terms of "solutions", anything less than the loss of AWB privileges in this case would be unsatisfactory – that combined with an understanding that "self-granting" AWB privileges at a later date without community consensus first would result in immediate desysopping. Anything less than this would be unacceptable IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

IJBall they were blocked. I don't see how they are being treated any different for being an admin. Not everything needs to boil down to admin v non-admin. HighInBC 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course Magioladitis has – a "regular" editor would already have lost AWB privileges. And I'm of the strong opinion that an Admin that gets blocked multiple times (esp. for the same infraction) should no longer have Admin privileges. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you should file a case with ArbCom, since they're the only people who can take the bit away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I could, if I had unlimited time to burn on Wikipedia activities that will likely only end in aggravation. Fortunately, I have a real job for that instead! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of taking away his admin privileges (which are not the reason we're here), how about doing the exact opposite and saying "Magioladitis, here's the mop! When your block is over, could you please help us clean up [fill in the blank]? Your work there would be much more valuable to the project than these minor edits." GoingBatty (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• • IJBall I would like to know example of editors who lost AWB right. It's one of the reason I insist that we resolve the situation by strong consensus. I do not like to see people losing their AWB rights. AWB is a browser so in some level equivalent to FireFox or Chrome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Of course the main use of AWB is to perform bot-like editing, either with manual review or in a fully automated way, not to "browse" in a normal sense. The first sentence of WP:AWB describes AWB as an "editor", which is indeed the main purpose of the tool. The AWB rules of use on WP:AWB directly state "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. ", and the reason for this thread is repeated abuse of the rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree with HighInBC The edit's are harmeless, let 'em go. If he was harming Wikipedia with those edits, then I could see imposing the conditions stated here, but he isn't. The main complaint that I saw was that it was clogging up people's watch lists. Big deal, I ran across that a while ago, some one was doing a mass update of templates and it was filling my watchlist, big deal, I skipped those and looked only at articles (I was doing a vandal run at the time ) and ignored their edits. As long as Magioladitis isn't harming the encyclopedia, let it go . KoshVorlon 16:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If clogging up the watchlists was blockable I would have blocked User:MediaWiki message delivery ages ago. HighInBC 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clogging up watchlists is blockable if what is clogging them are trivial edits. If the MediaWiki Message Delivery System only added or removed whitespace, it would get blocked/disabled under WP:COSMETICBOT just like Magio was for edits like [3]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, no big deal. Magioladitis could stop doing it, people could stop caring, either way everything is fine. HighInBC 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome attitude you have. I guess if you brought an issue here, but no-one cared about it/you, then you'd be fine with it? No, thought not. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you have already answered your question to me on my behalf, but you failed to predict my response so I will answer it myself. If said harm was this insignificant then I would not expect people to get too worked up about it. HighInBC 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As the issues with this users edits have been raised time and time again, by multiple different users, I can only conclude you don't know the definition of insignificant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Your premise that if people get worked up about something then it must not be insignificant is flawed. People get worked up over insignificant things all the time, humans are kind of famous for it. HighInBC 16:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You were obviously so worked-up about being incorrect it took you a week to reply. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you had pinged me I would have responded earlier. Not worked up about anything, not sure what you think I am incorrect about. HighInBC 23:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb that particular one was a very specific bug that was fixed in a few hours after you reported it. That's the problem here: If any of the scripts has a bug it may result in something like this. Is this common? No it's not if we discuss percentages here. Ofcourse for a bot with 4 million edits, 1% is 40,000 pages. Can this be prevented? Well, yes and no. CHECKWIKI scripts are not done by me. My method is based a lot in the fact the list created actually contains the error in question. But, since I fix every single error and I fixed this immediately after the report why just re-reported this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Still this one is a very good example that I want to get more people involved in Wikipedia. I keep reporting new errors to User_talk:Knife-in-the-drawer#New_ISBN_tracking_categories even they have not edited since June. Check the entire talk page. I want mot motivate more and more people to work for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the fact that I encouraged a lot of people to make copies of my bot tasks. GoingBatty, Bgwhite know this at hand I believe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said earlier here "I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB." This happens to everyone. But the larger issue is that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. And should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages."

Solution? Don't brute force. Don't ignore skip conditions, especially if the condition is "whitespace only". Do a semi-automated test run if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb yes I can sort this out. The problem nowadays (speaking about mainspace edits) has been reduced to newly introduced CHECKWIKI errors. The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess. I already sent it to Bgwhhite via email for review. Redrose64 also did some comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb and something personal here: OK I got that a few (I think 40 out of 1,5000) edits of the ISSN fixes were "pointless", but I would enjoy a more polite way to hear this. Something like "hey, your bot failed to fix something in this page. What was about?". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but after this, this, this, this, this, and many others, I'm sure you can understand why I'm opting for the direct approach.

Look, I'm not looking to shit on you. Your bots clearly do more good than harm. But the harm is doing is in many, many cases preventable. Look at it from our perspective. You get blocked/warned for cosmetic changes, get unblocked on good faith [with restrictions], then reblocked for violating restrictions less than a week after the unblock. No one here wants to be back on your page next week/month because the bot once again ran amok. You say you acknowledge the issue, but no steps seem to be taken to prevent the issue from occurring in the first place. I give you full credit for fixing specific problems when flagged, but the root of the issue remains unaddressed. No other bot op is so often warned for cosmetic changes. What are we to do?

Bluntly put, we're at a crossroad here. You can commit to follow WP:COSMETICBOT / not ignore skip conditions / not using a brute force approach / do semi-automated testing of things where you personally review a substantial amount of edits before letting a fully-automated process take over / whatever other voodoo magic is necessary. Expecting < X/1000 trivial edits is not something I'm willing to put forth as a criteria of success, but their frequency has to be drastically reduced.

Or do we have to revoke your AWB access? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I of course appreciate your comments and I am excited every time you report something. This is because some people do not even bother to report bugs. Have you ever reported a bug about Visual Editor or Content Translator? I have. And many times. Most of them are still unfixed and there is a group of WMF professionals working on VE and CX. I am a volunteer. I hope you can at least appreciate that I make effort to fix everything as fast as possible. The diffs you provided had examples of Yobot doing "pointless edits". All 4 cases were fixed not only as part of my skip conditions but as part of the software itself. And this is better because at some point I may not be around to edit or use my bot. Someone else will try to use AWB. Bug fixing is better than adding skip conditions to a single bot. Bug fixes have global positive effect. In the first case I noticed I found the software bug and fixed it in less than a day. Sometimes, I am faster. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to bottom line this, it seems like the main issue, at heart, is the complaint by some editors/admins that Magioladitis does not follow the letter or the spirit of their unblock restrictions. Can these restrictions be made more specific to cover those edits these editors have problems with and can Magioladitis assure the participants in this discussion that they can abide by these restrictions, not temporarily but until such restrictions are formally removed? It seems like this would solve the problem, the end of "pointless" edits without Wikipedia losing a very productive editor and unproblematic admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of AWB from his user account and removal of AutoEd from User and bot accounts should be step one. Cannot use these at all from his user account. I'm not sure how to put "restrictions" on bot account activities or how to word it. For example, besides what the bot does, he does semi-manually fix maintenance categories and does requests. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a specific proposal above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Too complex for no reason. The only necessary restriction is #3. Don't edit in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That won't solve the whole problem. There is an equal problem with poor edit summaries that make it impossible to tell what the bot was *trying* to do. The more effective single sanction would be to disable all general fixes whenever AWB is run - but that will also not address the entire problem, and will leave us back here soon enough. If Magioladitis was able to work with just "don't violate the existing rules", we wouldn't be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Carl: I commend you for posting a detailed proposal. For #1, could you think of a more specific description for "No semi-automated tools"? Magioladitis didn't understand this included AutoEd, and I wonder if this would include Twinkle or Hotcat. I would also ask that Magioladitis be allowed to edit the User:Yobot page if he would like to indicate which bot tasks he is choosing to discontinue and which bot tasks he could improve per the suggestions here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is very hard to find an airtight wording. Perhaps it would work to say that Twinkle and tools whose main purpose is to interact with users or handle vandalism are OK, but tools such as AutoEd or Hotcat that are primarily for editing should be avoided. In the end, a lot will depend (regardless of the sanctions that are used) on how much Magioladitis wants to resolve the situation by not pushing boundaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested this T124868. If this is implemented I won't be doing anymore trivial edits when working with maintenance categories. This is still not the root of the problem but a step forward. Also if other take over my talk page fixes which are my weakest point we save a lot of bad edits done by me. I promised to work on it. I sent GoingBatty an email with my settings file to review it and I hope they take over (GB, did you receive it?). As someone else wrote GoingBatty has better communication skills than I do and they are more careful than I am. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Your request is a great one - I hope it can be added to AWB. Thank you for sending me your settings. Once my current WP:BRFA is complete, I'll play with yours to see if I can get it to work with the proper skip conditions. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

GoingBatty someone's comment that "GoingBatty can play out the community better than you" rang as a huge bell in my head. :D -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it speaks well of any editor or admin that they are aware of their editing strengths as well as those areas where there is room for improvement and they can be honest about themselves. A technical solution might be the best answer here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Earwig ^talk 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember non-admins - just admit your faults when dragged though AN/ANI and you'll get away with it be OK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A built-in AWB solution for most of the errors is underway thanks to the AWB team. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the conditions of the temp unblock was to To participate in the AN discussion ONLY, yet this edit was made after this condition was agreed. @Fram:? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts check the edit that was done 30 seconds later in the same page. Plese be more careful in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I need to be more careful?! That's rich. So why did you make the edit in the first place against the sanction of your unblock? I guess you'll weasel out of this one too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts I was pinged by Redrose64 in commons and I replied in the wrong window. Is this OK with you or do you think I have to be blocked for this too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what I think. However, no one will action this. Admins win again! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts is clearly out to get anybody who uses AWB. It says at the top of his talk page, "FUCK AWB". He just left a message on my talk page accusing me of doing one trivial edit. No hi or what you doing? Just judge and jury. He then left, Fine, but your edits are now being monitored. Look forward to seeing you at ANI when you fuck up again. I can't remember the last time anybody accused me of a trivial edit... 8-12 months? Guess I'll be hauled into ANI later today. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to correct you, again, but it's anyone who misuses AWB. There's a difference. And you don't seem to know the difference. As you've been using AWB for a long, long time, you should be more than familiar with the rules of use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You only saw the edit, you never, ever asked why. If you would have asked, you would see that it wasn't a misuse. Shot first and don't ask questions later.... Bgwhite (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I saw the edit and then pointed it out to you. Are you now trying to cover up your errors after Fram pointed it out to you too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop with the threats. Why is it that you have falsely accuse people and threaten them every time. Fram understood with what I'm doing. You've accused me of yet another mindless bot edit even thou it did exactly what the edit summary did. You've threatened me with ANI again. You said I broke 3RR with only two edits by me. I've asked 5 times to stop writing on my talk page. Stay away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And here you are stalking me! Pot. Kettle. Black. How pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what's the outcome of this user's editing? We all bend over and let him continue until the next time he's brought here? Or the time after that? Or the time after that? Seems this isn't really being addressed now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The technical issue on the CHECKWIKI error fixes: There are 100+ errors checked and every month there are alternations to the code generating the list. Since Bgwhite now does a reproceccing of the dump files i.e. cleaner lists I deicded with him and I ll get a message of when my bot should start fixing. Till now by bot was triggered automattically in the large lists resulting a large percentaage of "did nothing" edits. This can be addressed at list at the part of the list.
2. The technical issue on the deprecated parameters: Rjwilmsi created a custom module that enusres that we will have skip conditions. I asked GoingBatty to help in testing. So on that part we can have 100% of good edits.
3. The technical issue on the the talk page fixes / tagging. This is tricky because consensus on the placement of the banners changes very often, AWB's code is incomplete, most edtors who requested tagging of a WikiProject have given me bad lists. This can be partially addressed with GoigBatty's help if he uses my scripts and reports bugs and fixes some things.
4. On my editing: I can promise not to perform any large scale editing from my main account (i.e. automated edits will be done mainly from my bot account) and I can los stay away from AutoEd. In fact, I ve been using AutoEd mainly to get ideas to implement in AWB so it's not a big lose for me. I still believe AuoEd needs update in many places. Frietjes has better AutoEd-like scripts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hats off. See you back here in a month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts why is that? I have not received any serious complains about my editing for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you should pay closer attention to your talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, could you help myself and others understand the thinking behind the assertion "not received any serious complains"? (ie. is there a word missing somewhere?—The assertion as it stands appears to be inconsistent with the public record – available for all to view – in the history of User talk:Magioladitis). —Sladen (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The implication is clear: Mag does not consider complaints about trivial or cosmetic edits to be 'serious', which really highlights the problem being discussed here. –xeno^talk 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen and Xeno: How many complains go I get per year? Should I count? I do hundreds of edits per day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. By "serious" I meant "major". All reports are serious ofcourse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Magioladitis. Looking back over the responses in this discussion above and distilling out the important parts from your responses:

1. "hundreds of edits per day." – automated edit rate has been too fast/too high for review.
2. "a lot of mistakes." – the automated edits had some $error-rate.
3. "All reports are serious" – there was feedback about the edits/errors.
4. "every time you report" – that feedback was frequent/repeated.
5. "Should I count?" – feedback was so large, it would require an explicit effort to count.
6. "it's not the tools." – compliance with WP:BOTREQUIRE/ WP:COSMETICBOT/ WP:AWB#Rules of use/ WP:NOTBROKEN has been proved achievable by other editors, using with the same automated toolset.

Could you confirm whether this is a correct synopsis of the situation? —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen.

1. Yes. Many people do that too. I do not think that this necessary bad.
2. The mistakes are usually mainly when something changes in the code. Long-standing scripts work fine. So usually there are many mistakes of ONE kind i.e. easily fixable.
3. Yes. I reply to all reports. I try sometime to reply in a few minutes after the report. Not all reports are valid though.
4. Yes. I fixed all errors reported. Mainly bug fixing or revisited a page to finish the task. Most fixes were really quick. Not all reports refer to the same thing. Take this under consideration. (See below).
5. True. In the past I kept logs of the bot edits. But this logs were manual and there were getting too large.
6. Almost true. Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith. During the years I established some extra rules for that.

To resolve one main part of the latter I already contacted Bgwhite to refine lists before feeding them to my bot. I also contacted GoingBatty and other to distribute the talk page related tasks.

There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes". This gives the impression that the root of the problem is the same while it's not.

Please, also read my report on the situation. I try to separate the errors by their kind. Just calling them all just "errors" or "trivial edits" does not help. It's like reporting a hug by saying "the program does not work. Fix it". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes"."

And this underlies the frustration that I (and probably other people) have with Magioladitis. Every time that he does trivial edits and I have reported it, he claims he has fixed it, but in a few days, the same kinds of trivial edits show up again. Every time Magio cheerfully claims that he has resolved all reported problems, but to me it looks like nothing changed. But underlying the specific bugs that he is "fixing", there is a systemic problem should be addressed on a more general level: to skip saving a page if the edit would consist of only trivial changes.

There are also some other recurring problems reflected here, such as denial of responsibility: "Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith." -- intgr [talk] 14:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rule one of WP:AWB could not be more clear: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." Seems there's a core of AWB users who chose to ignore this or think it doesn't apply to them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

intgr for the first: As I wrote there a custom module underway. This will reduce the error drastically. For the second, I always WP:AGF when someone asks me to fix a list. I do not care about the tagging myself. I find WikiProject boring and useless when it is done in thousand pages. Anyone wishes to take this task is more than welcome. All my code and "house rules" are online. I had to participate in creating rules for talk page fixes. I try to help others. This is not denial of responsibility. I guess you are aware that many BOTREQs remain unanswered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Check also that in 2009 I did work for others Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7. I see Wikipedia as a cooperaive projectwith people who trust each other. I later expanded this in a more general way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

2009? Wow. I'm sure I did something good 7 years ago too. Do you have something a bit more recent that might carry a bit more weight? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts Why you behave like this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something more recent? I mean, seven years is a long time ago and standards were, how shall we put it, not as good as now. Look at any FA that crept through back then and compare it to today's standard. So, what can you dig out from say, the last 12 months? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My talk page fixes are based on Wikiprojects requests. What do you mean? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In 2010 I asked some of the talk page fixes to be done in toolserver and it was done by Larabot till toolserver was shut done. Check User:Yobot#Logs_2008-2012. I resumed the tasks after Larabot discontinue the Wikiproject Biographyvtagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet, another proof that even single-task bots operated by experienced programmers can fail from time to time: User_talk:T.seppelt#Non-removal_of_comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, thank you for the heads up. Looking over the bug reports and replies, it would appear that T.seppelt has been reasonably responsive and has replied to the reporters of the bugs in correspondingly timely fashion. I can see the responses "stopped the program", "adjust[ed] the replacement pattern", "implemented several improvements". There would be room for improvement in the edit summary pointing to the precise bot task authorisation and in the bug report it would be nice to see pointers to revision controls corrections of the patterns. However all-in-all the bot appears to have stayed on-task and not wander off into things that weren't requested, (eg. into whitespace rearranging), was done from a bot account, not a user account, and the operator has not attempted to deny responsibility for the automated edits or shift the blame on to other people. Is there something I've missed about this (nearly) model response by a bot operator? —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many bots have errors from time to time.Typically, these are different errors. The difference with Yobot is that it has had the same errors for years, and they have never been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen Please reread my points with the root of the problem. No AWB bot just removes whitespace. I never just removed whitespace using AWB. Moreover, in contrary to other programs AWB always shows which code revision is used. I looks that your approach tends to reach my point of view. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A comment about HotCat just for the record: HotCat is a java script installed internally by Wikipedia perferences under the section "Gadgets" and comes with no additional terms of use. It is considered to be part of the Wikipedia environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As for never "just removing whitespace using AWB", see [4] [5]. This seems to be a relatively common failure mode your AWB code, which has been happening for several years now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

CBM Exactly! Code failure. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Moreover, you gave two bad examples! The latter is by WP:LISTGAP we even have bots for that. The first is typical wikilink fix and bots do that too. So, both are accepted edits! But, OK we agree in the spirit of the report. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not code failure - it is operator failure. Looking through your contribs, it took me less than 1 minute to find more examples: [6] [7] [8]. Those are not bot edits - they are edits that you personally reviewed and approved with your own account! Your claim that "I never just removed whitespace using AWB." is simply false. The pattern of your responses, when problems such as this are brought up, is to deny your own actions and/or blame the code. The fact that you continue to violate the AWB rules of use in this way, with no plan to resolve the underlying problems, shows why there is a need for an AWB ban on your main account, along with much tighter rules on your bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis breaching the terms of his unblock

Hatting per Fram's request. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right, now that we've finished being side-tracker by some pusillanimous trolling, lets address the issue at hand. Magioladitis was unblocked purely to contribute to this discussion only. However, this edit was made after this condition was agreed, thus violating the terms of the unblock. So it's safe to assume he should be re-blocked for 1) breaking the terms of his unblock and 2) his contributions here have now concluded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Oppose: I don't approve of much that Magioladitis does, but I believe this instance was a honest mistake and should be forgiven. Magioladitis himself undid the edit 1 minute later. While technically a violation of the unblock conditions, he didn't violate the intent of the conditions: he wasn't editing article content or running a bot. -- intgr [talk] 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "An honest mistake". Lets look at that. So he can't make automated edits without them being brought into question and when not editing with AWB he makes more mistakes. Obviously a big competency issue here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Well that last bit is irrelevant, but given his edit-summary comment on the reversion, it does seem to have been an honest mistake - I've written in the wrong tab sometimes before and only noticed later. I'd say as long as it isn't repeated, then no foul should be considered here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Have you ever "written in the wrong tab sometimes before" in direct violation to the conditions of an unblock on your account? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts so why I did it? Because I am trolling? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) No, I don't think you're trolling, I think you are not competent. As your failure to read basic instructions shows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts I disagree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Of course you do. You're not going to sit there and admit to being incompetent! I do give you some credit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "I misread your reply" In the same token of I misread the word ONLY in "To participate in the AN discussion ONLY". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts, I can hardly be accused of being a blind follower of fellow admins, a supporter of valueless automated edits, or someone who believes that restrictions or conditions can be ignored. But this case is utterly trivial. All you do by continuing this is creating sympathy for Magioladitis and antipathy towards yourself and your complaints about the real problems (those that lead to the block). Please drop this non-issue. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hardly trivial when this editor goes against the very sanctions you imposed in the first place. But it's OK, he's an admin, so lets ignore this and not do anything about it. Maybe you can explain exactly what you meant by To participate in the AN discussion ONLY in your edit summary, as now it's not so clear. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) It's perfectly clear to everyone but you, and I guess it is clear to you too. It certainly is clear to Magioladitis, otherwise he wouldn't have immediately undone that error. I wouldn't have blocked anyone over this, no matter if they are an admin or not. It doesn't even merit a warning, since it is obvious that it was an error, not a breaching experiment. Fram (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks Fram. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Bludgeoning editors [9] [10] [11] who are trying to improve the project over a minor automated edit? If an editor does not want to see minor edits on their watchlists I think there is a setting for that. Many editors make minor edits [12] and even totally pointless ones [13] Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Look who's crawled out! My fucking hero! Still bitter I see after you got blocked. Oh hum. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Please cut it out, both of you. Legacypac, ignoring minor edits is ideal to give every vandal every chance to do whatever they like. Yes, one can choose not to see those on their watchlist, but often this is not a good idea. Minor edits may well hide vandalism or mistakes, bot edits have the potential to make the same error very fast on many articles. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) And there's a hell of a lot of bad minor edits done by established editors. Two spring to mind straight away. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The point of the block was to stop the problematic AWB editing. Asking a question about CC licenses on a talk page is light years removed from being disruptive. Get off your high horse Javert, because you're making it impossible to focus on the issues by calling for heads to roll because of trivialities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Finished with the personal attacks now? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Can someone uninvolved please hat this subsection? It generates (much) more heat than light, with PAs going back and forth, people harassing other people (though it isn't easy to tell who harassed first or most), and nothing concrete about the Magioladitis situation likely to be achieved in this part of the discussion. Fram (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving towards a resolution

xaosflux — xeno — MSGJ: This thread has been sitting for a while now. Do you think it is time for one of the administrators handing this to work out the precise terms/restrictions that will be in place going forward? I suggested some possible restrictions above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Recuse; I have strong feelings about useless edits and on the other hand I am also quite fond of Magioladitis as regards his other useful work. –xeno^talk 15:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I'm with Xeno above - I'm involved with Magioladitis frequently as part of the Bot Approval's Group and only came in to this as a broken between the original block and a short-lived unblock w/ restrictions, would appreciate some input of uninvolved admins here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there is much consensus for any particular remedy, but I think we need to get something in place before 15th. I could certainly support #1 in your proposals. The rest would be good practice and/or covered by other policies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I fear that #1 is probably an inevitable necessity, given the continued claims and long-term denials of the situation. All that's being requested is simple compliance to existing Wikipedia's norms, so ideally #2–#6 (which attempt to summarise existing bot policy) should not need to be necessary—but perhaps spelling them out may help to focus the mind of Yobot's operator. I'm hopeful that in 6–12 months Magioladitis may be able to return here voluntarily with a a greater understanding and a demonstrable clean slate. —Sladen (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't see much consensus for any particular remedy. Most of Carl's #2-6 suggestions are not bot policy. For example, #3 states, No "changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page". This would disallow DEFAULTSORT changes, removal of deprecated or changed infobox parameters, etc. #2 and #6 are not feasible with AWB. Support #1 and #5. #5 falls under WP:BOTREQUIRE and is something Magioladitis hasn't done well in the past, but has gotten better.

  Carl's suggestions doesn't include AutoEd, which is what Magioladitis used the last go around. I already suggested and would support Magioladitis not using AutoEd for a year. I've already removed AutoEd from his .js file and left a message that I removed it so it wouldn't "tempt him". Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The point of special restrictions is that they can go beyond the ordinary policy, of course. The question is: what set of restrictions will prevent us from coming back here again? Regarding #3, there is no need for Magioladitis in particular to perform the kinds of edits mentioned - DEFAULTSORT, parameters, etc. - and given his long track record of being unable to do so in accordance with ordinary norms (cf. this thread), it would be better for him to let others take care of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My stating that it is not normal bot policy is in response to others saying that it is normal policy. So, your statement just reaffirms my point. Yobot does have bot approval to fix Defaultsort, deprecated parameters and others. Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I stand by Carl's efforts to put stricter/clearer limits on Magioladitis's editing. I believe it is inappropriate to let someone to systematically and repeatedly violate Wikipedia's policies and neglect user feedback, despite how useful their good edits may be. The current approach of many people simply complaining with no enforcement, has clearly been ineffective. I think even simply a clear re-statement of aspects of the bot policy, together with consequences when violated, is a step forward. (Non-administrator comment) -- intgr [talk] 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't personally understand what most of Carl's restriction would do (e.g. the edit summary restrictions), in real terms, other than have pointless bureaucracy to govern Magio's editing. #3 (no purely cosmetic edit) is the only problematic issue. General fixes are fine, but the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip condition have to be used. However, Magio doesn't seem to be enclined to use them, and short of such a commitment, I would support a 3 month ban on script-assisted editing on his main account, and a restriction on Yobot's CHECKWIKI edits to be performed iff the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip conditions are used. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I can add these two skip conditions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This "I can …" terminology seems quite familiar (eg. Special:Diff/691603628: "I can stick to bots do the job instead of using my normal account. … -- Magioladitis … 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)". Magioladitis, will it be done (+infinitely, not just for a short time)? —Sladen (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are several approaches we could take here:

• Restrict access to certain tools, including AWB and maybe some others. This may be worth a try, and I could support a restriction of this type. But it may encourage him to explore other automated tools which haven't been mentioned or to disguise the tool that made them.
• Restrict a certain type of edit, i.e. cosmetic changes. I don't think this will work because based on past experience if the automated editing continues I am sure there will be further cosmetic edits.
• Restrict all automated, semi-automated, or script-assisted editing from the main account. This is the simplest remedy. The bot can continue with tasks that have explicit approval (and there is less of an issue with watchlist clogging from the bot account anyway).

Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the first option, the worry that this leads to 'hidden' or 'disguised' automated editing is seems like a big dose of unwarranted bad faith.

But in general, Magio has, for the first time I think, acknowledged there is an issue and said they were willing to make use of the the skip conditions (which I interpret both for them and for the bot, unless what they are trying to fix would be prevented by skip condition, like a fix to a badly-formed template (e.g { {reflist}} → {{reflist}}) that would be prevented by the whitespace skip condition. They've been blocked/restricted from all editing for a good week (if not more now), so I'm sure the message has sunk in by now that compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT (which also covers bot-like editing via WP:MEATBOT) is not optional.

However, I'm also semi-wary of an unrestricted return. But something like a one-month restriction on AWB edits from the main account, while also allowing Yobot to resume its tasks (with the skip conditions enabled, and a better description of its task via edit summary) would be reasonable. And if there's no issues (allowing for some false positives due to GIGO/vandalism/live version different from dump version if building edit lists from database dumps/etc.), then lift the restriction on AWB, provided the skip conditions are also used going forward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Have struck that part from my sentence, although the part of exploring other tools was not hypothetical given his prompt switch to AutoEd when his use of AWB was curtailed. One month is too short - I would prefer an indefinite restriction which can be reviewed in a few months time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a one-month ban on AWB and other semiautomated tools from the main account, and mandatory skip conditions on all Yobot edits (so that the edit is only saved if the specific bot task applies to the page) would be a reasonable option. If he can follow that for a month, but then happens to revert to problematic behavior, it will be easy enough to re-impose the restrictions. The purpose for having better edit summaries (re Headbomb above) is exactly so that it is more clear whether the part in parenthesis is achieved. Vague summaries that just mention "CHECKWIKI", for example, don't give enough information to tell what the bot is *trying* to achieve. If that means that he has to run separate tasks separately, I would view that as a normal part of bot operation.

Magioladitis has very unexpectedly posted a wikibreak message on his user talk page today, running through the 17th, which is after the original one-month block would expire. A return to the old "status quo" would just bring us back here in a few days. I think it would be better to go ahead and notify him of the restrictions that will apply when he returns, or else extend the original block until he is able to properly interact with this thead (cf. the unanswered question from Sladen above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis is off to a WikiConference being held in Athens. He is a speaker, so it was not unexpected.

Having skip conditions (cosmetic or blank space) will mean the majority of CheckWiki errors cannot be handled... section headers, invisible Unicode, missing ref tags (< ref>), defaultsort problem, pmid, isbns, etc. As I explained to Headbomb yesterday, there are errors that "only cosmetic change" and/or "only whitspace" have to be on. If articles are fixed before we get to them, it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles. Not to mention, forgetting to check or uncheck a box between running different errors.

To MSGJ's first point. AWB AND AutoEd must be included. The only other tool Magioladitis uses is WPCleaner. WPCleaner does not have the cosmetic changes problem. Bgwhite (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument you are making seems to be "the software is broken, so we have to use it as it is". But that is not correct: the solution is to fix the software so that it is able to make the desired changes correctly, without making undesired changes. In the meantime, a responsible bot op would not continue running the software in a way that causes the error to re-occur. That is 100% standard bot development procedure, which Magioladitis as a BAG member should be completely familiar with. If he is unable to make certain kinds of edits until the software is improved, perhaps that will be an incentive to fix the longstanding bugs in his code. But it is clear that returning to the status quo is not an option. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Did I ever say the software is broken? No. Did I ever say the status quo? No. Don't make up things I never said. I said, there are instances where blank space and "only cosmetic change" MUST be checked to fix errors. For example, I'm currently running a 100,000 article bot job that only removes blank lines. Another example, changing ISBN1234567890 to ISBN 1234567890, which only involves a blank space. I've also said there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this. Others have the same problem when they run off dumps. Headbomb mentioned this in his proposal above. There are no software problems. Status quo? I've said... Magioladitis must not use AWB from his main account and no autoEd from any account. He must only run AWB for approved jobs. He must do edit summaries better.

What you are proposing means Magioladitis can't use AWB for most of his bot approved jobs. I've replied to you before, Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. There was never close to any consensus to take away AWB privileges. Bgwhite (talk)

@Bgwhite: (Irrelevant snark) "Don't make up things I never said." Sounds familiar, maybe you should refrain from doing that yourself, too. [14] [15] [16] -- intgr [talk] 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, you wrote above ¨... it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles.¨ and "there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this.". Remember the saying "a bad carpenter always blames his tools". Nobody is suggesting Yobot cannot use AWB, but if AWB has bugs that cause undesired edits in bot mode then Magiolatiditis needs to fix those bugs or run AWB in a way that does not cause them to trigger. If that means doing some code development before running some bot jobs -- well, that's part of being a bot operator! For example, I am certain that the problem of determining whether the desired problem still exists can be solved, because if a program detected the problem in the first place, then AWB can test to see if the problem still exists before making the edit. That kind of check should have been implemented years ago, when the issue of outdated dumps for CHECKWIKI was first noticed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

These are reasonable false positives, and have been tolerated with all bot ops, provided they take steps to minimize how often they occur. The issue mostly is that Magio has not taken these steps in the past. To quote him "The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess." That indicates improper testing of new code and logic. I've reported similar errors to BGWhite (see here, scroll down a bit), but those were caused because the database dump (of which edit lists are built from) and the live version of the article differed because of vandalism. These are unavoidable short of putting a herculean effort in coding. A 'good enough' code that edits correctly 99% of the time and doesn't break anything in the other 1% is something the community and BAG considers acceptable in cases like this. The ISSN edits, however, were not caused by this, and proper testing would have caught it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the ISSN edits were also being done manually. One can't blame software in manual mode. If software had an issue, one shouldn't have pressed save. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So after a lot of back-and-forth, what is the resolution to this and, more importantly, is anyone going to act on it/enforce it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts; Magioladitis is on a wikibreak—which we should respect—and can hopefully contribute when back. If that doesn't happen, one of the blockers/unblockers (Materialscientist, Xaosflux, MSGJ, Fram) can probably go ahead with a block extension for Special:Diff/704691363 on 13 February 2016 being outside the agreed unblock conditions ("… only edit your user talk page and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Magioladitis discussion" + "bot's talk page and subpages" + "not edit any other page until the original block would have expired (00:00, 15 February 2016)"). —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sladen. I think we all know no-one is going to block him for that breach of his unblock conditions. Or this breach either. So that makes four edits (see the collapsed section direcetly above this) that are clearly outside the terms of the unblock. He's back tomorrow though, so we'll see how this goes. I'm lifting the corner of the rug in readiness. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest ignoring that, it is mostly in the spirit of the block if not the letter - blocks are not "meant to be" punitive and I don't see any reason to extend. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Magioladitis has returned. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And making yet another edit that is outside the terms of the unblock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Those restrictions expired with the expiry of the original block, on February 15. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yobot continuing to make pointless edits, such as this and this, clearly against WP:COSMETICBOT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: So what happened to your "I can add these two skip conditions"? -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis was working off of a list for CheckWiki #22. The list was generated on the 12th. Lugnuts fixed the issue in both articles after the list was created. As stated a zillion times, there will be cases where the article will fixed before we arrive. The blank space and minor edit skip must be turned off in order to fix this. Lugnuts also reverted the edits in spite of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. How many times do Magioladitis and I have to be accused of this only to be told by other people that this is ok? Look at the discussion just above where Carl thinks I have to be 100% perfect. Look at the discussion on my page where Lugnuts accused me of the same thing, twice this year. Bgwhite (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that Bgwhite continues his reverts of my edits, despite the fact I'm bringing this issue to the attention of the bot owner. I guess it's too hard for you to fix the issue at hand. Bgwhite needs to read the rules of use for AWB (again) - "You are responsible for every edit made" so you do need to "be 100% perfect". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is 100% perfect around here, not even you. As explained to you by multiple people, Fram and Headbomb among them. Stop repeating the same thing. You've been after me atleast three years about this. Once again, stop with the insults. Bgwhite (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to be, as I'm not operating a bot! After you for at least three years? So that means your edits are against the rules of AWB. I see I'm not the only one who has brought this to your attention, but you think you're above the law. How sad. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Read-modify-write is a basic premise of most concurrent programming (ie. checking something before modifying). Bgwhite, there are several solutions for this, the simplest might be to store of a SHA1 hash of the page content at the point of list generation, and retrieve+rehash again before attempting to save. I fail to understand why this sort of basic validation is still not present; and it certainly does not excuse a bot operator who continues to use known-defective software without proper oversight and responsibility as required of the bot policies. —Sladen (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no sort of validation for any bot that I am aware of. The SHA1 hash is useless. Pages are updated all the time that don't fix the errors. It would also be complicated. This is normal practice by all bot operators. Defective software causes bugs. AWB does have bugs and it is updated all the time. We are talking about a very small minority that isn't causing errors. As headbomb stated above These are unavoidable short of putting a herculean effort in coding. A 'good enough' code that edits correctly 99% of the time and doesn't break anything in the other 1% is something the community and BAG considers acceptable in cases like this. Bgwhite (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed forms of validation. For a long time, I used a Linux equivalent to AWB that I wrote, called LWB. This would let me manually approve systematic edits after reviewing each one. One one hand, the use of the edit token automatically detects certain kinds of conflicts. But the code also checks the return value when it makes a text substitution, to make sure that the desired substitution actually occurred. If the return value indicates that no change was made, the page is skipped. Checking the return value after calling a function is very basic programming technique which all bot operators should be aware of. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I am back. :) So: The "not only whitespace removal" is not only about my main account but includes the bot account too? This can't be easy to fix since there are some CHECKWIKI errors that are about whitespace changes. Error 22 (category with space) is one of them. I am open to suggestions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Do you agree that the fix to checkwiki error 22 is a "cosmetic change"?

Have you read WP:COSMETICBOT? "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should be applied only when there is a substantive change to make at the same time".

Do you think WP:CHECKWIKI or your bot approvals give you the permission to make cosmetic changes to articles even if there aren't any "substantive" changes to make? -- intgr [talk] 10:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

intgr you just gave me new data to process in my brain. :) My bot has approval to fix all CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI errors were defined by others and not by me. Why it should be me to be bothered about it? I mean it's OK for the community to define which errors should be activated by the CHECKWIKI project but I am only the guy who says "OK, bring me your lists and I'll fix them". All these years in CHECKWIKI I focused on making automated tools (AWB, AutoEd, WPCleaner) and bots more effective against these lists. I also tried to coordinate these attempts to fix errors and resolve any conflicts (some years ago Yobot was fight against SmackBot over a whitespace due to different programming approaches. YES my bot in on the list of lamest Wikipedia editing wars ever). I work on the direction of making the list of errors more effective but it takes time. The ere more than 100 types of errors processed daily. I could exclude error 22 fixing if there is consensus for that. I could also ask the CHECKWIKI project to disactivate the fix. I am open to suggestions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen what you say it's true. The way we work right now is due to the lack of better software. In order to reduce unnecessary edits in the past we did the following tricks (which are not proper solutions):

• We update the CHECKWIKI lists more often (daily scans)
• We ensured that AWB won't affect a page when revisiting it ("Do-all-in-one-run" project)
• We added skip conditions but they can't check whether a specific error has been fixed.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you refer to here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts in the first one I mainly mean myself and Bgwhite. I was fixing things of the CHECKWIKI project which was an idea by a German editor but it was not updated that often. Back to these days I was making more cosmetic changes than now. Bgwhite rewrote the entire thing, added many errors and removed some old ones. In the second and third bullet I men the AWB team. I still keep the things that are not fixed in one run at User:Magioladitis/Notes#.22Do_all_in_one_run.22_project. This list was much larger but mainly Rjwilmsi helped in fixing most of them. Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bgwhite rewrote the entire thing, added many errors" Well that certainly explains a lot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't you (general checkwiki bot you, not only Magioladitis) build in a rule that says: "if page is edited between update of checkwiki list and now, skip page"? It's a more conservative approach that will see some pages where the error isn't fixed in this run, but which will also prevent most of the unnecessary edits. Fram (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen T127173 Thanks for the idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fram too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

T127185 too. In 1.5 month is the Mediawiki Hackathon. I'll be there and there is a plan that the AWB team tries to implement this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fram, that is *very straightforward* to program - the API already provides the time that any page was last edited, so it is straightforward to query this inside a bot program. The more important check, though, is for AWB to verify that the error it is fixing still exists before saving the page. That can also be done - if the error can be detected by software to make the list, then it is possible for other software to check for the same error before making changes. This is all programming 101 level stuff, which should have been implemented in AWB long ago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

CBM I would be more than happy if you create a code patch for me. This would save me and Reedy a lot of valuable time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To note two more breaches of the conditions of the unblock. Nearly into double figures. You had a good run, kid. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, the unblock conditions expired four days ago, Magioladitis is at the moment free to edit anything and anywhere he likes (just like any other editor). This was pointed out to you in this very discussion a few days ago when you made your previous such accusation ("Those restrictions expired with the expiry of the original block, on February 15. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"). And please don't address people you have a conflict with as "kid", it's an attitude and approach that won't help to solve anything. Fram (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. I should have used AWB for that edit. And I don't have a "conflict" with him, or indeed anyone, so please check your facts before making accusations. Maybe you can be as quick to sum up this situation now you're here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, quite frankly, shut up. No one here believes you don't have a conflict with Magio given your constant hounding so you can jump on them for the slightest of so-called 'violation', create a AWB/non-AWB user divide, or whatever your WP:BATTLEGROUND bullshit du jour is. We're all tired of pointless cosmetic edits, and we all agree that Magio's editing pattern has been problematic. We're here to find solutions, not to conduct execution by firing squad. It's getting to the point that I would support a one-way interaction ban on you for the remainder of the discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So what are your solutions to all this? I'd quite like to hear them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, one of the early steps is probably for the user of your account to try to resist drowning out the signal-to-noise ratio. Please, pretty please, try to reflect on what useful contributions you can make. —Sladen (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have. I've posted time and time again on the user's talkpage about the issues in hand and finally, we're here. However, nothing is likely to be addressed with this. We'll probably be back in in a few months with the exact same concerns. Which will be ignored. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor comment: Thanks Bgwhite for removing the AutoEd script from my account. thanks to Rjwilmsi for fixing T121203. This resolves a long standing inconsistency between AutoEd and AWB. This means AutoEd won't affect most of pages that have been previously edited by AWB. This was the thing I was trying to spot and fix lately. On less problem with whitepace addition/removal. Thanks GoingBatty for discovering and fixing a duplicated piece of code in the wikiproject fixes. This expalins why my bot kept fixing WPBS while at some point I claimed I disactivated this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Fungus Guy

Fungus Guy has created many unreferenced articles (see his recent article creations). Because of this, the autopatrol right should be removed from that user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I hope you don't think that I'm creating extraneous pages on Wiki. Our coverage of Canadian First Nations is, to be blunt, woefully inadequate, and I'm only trying to fill in some of the gaps where I can.

I would like to point out that these articles have external links to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the Canada Lands Survey System. I did not believe it to be a big deal to leave the references there, un-cited, as (for example) most Canadian federal electoral district pages rely solely on one un-cited external link to the Library of Parliament to justify their existence (see this example and this page I have not yet edited to see what I mean).

That being said, I have gone through and created inline citations for the pages in question, and will dig deeper into my contributions list to see if you missed any.

Please feel free to bring any future concerns about my edits directly to me first. I welcome constructive criticism, and see it as a learning opportunity. Happy editing! FUNgus guy (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I read the title of this thread and thought it was about Ted Cruz for a second. Jtrainor (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:G'day mates! (who is possibly the same user as User:Rounder1)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Both (if not the same) users are indeffed, but the former could stand the revocation of talk page access as well due to this...which may not seem too critical on its own, but this thread leads to a cause for concern—btw, I wonder if JzG should consider WP:EMERGENCY. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but this is much less scary than the time I had to go to court to get a Norwich Pharmacal order - I do not consider these threats especially credible, and if I did then I would be in contact with the local constabulary. Please do revoke TPA though. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help requested with the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

Hi, there is currently a file rename request pending for File:KFNB-DT1 & KWYF-LD2 Logo.png that is held up by the titleblacklist. Anyone know why?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on the blacklist so I moved it for you. Tag the redirect if you don't need it. :-) Katie^talk 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

":KFNB-DT1 & KWYF-LD2 L" -- too many consecutive non-lowercase letters. I think the limit is ten, while you've got 22. --Carnildo (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Dr. Luke and its talk page

Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting extra eyes on Dr. Luke and the talk page. The page was recently protected due to BLP violations, but there's been spillover into the talk page. Dr. Luke is currently involved in a lawsuit with Kesha and there are allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. Due to news today about the lawsuit, there seems to be an increase in editors making comments that violate BLP. Extra eyes would be appreciated. I've reported a few edits from Talk:Dr. Luke to OS already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Realskeptic

Appeal declined. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Realskeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of vaccinations and autism concerning Realskeptic imposed here, logged here, archived discussion is here. Administrator imposing the sanction NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator diff Statement by Realskeptic I was blocked by an admin who said my edits should disqualify me from editing Wikipedia. I was only seeking to correct unproven criminal accusations of fraudulent research against a living person while improving the overall neutrality of the article with reliable sources. Realskeptic (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I reject your allegation that I was disruptively editing to POV-push when I was topic banned. I have consistently stayed within the top three tiers of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. The same cannot at all be said of the editors who have gotten me topic banned. Guy is a perfect example. If you compared his below statement to my talk page edit that he linked to, you would see that nothing he said actually contradicts my edit. The rest of his statement fits squarely within the bottom tier. The bottom tier also describes the editor who said I should be disqualified from editing Wikipedia for trying to make a supposed BLP more like an actual BLP as opposed to the attack page that it is in its current form. Realskeptic (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I was editing productively at Talk:Trace Amounts and elsewhere to share my concerns with other editors. The problem is not me, the problem is them. The bottom line is that they are a faction of editors hijacking Wikipedia to push their POV that vaccinations are not associated with autism, as they've succeeded in doing for years. I understand they have an agenda, but that agenda is not one that's in line with building an encyclopedia. Try as they like, there is nothing in any of my edits that can be described as pseudoscientific. Their pretense for stifling my edits, however, is pseudoscientific because it is based on reports that do not adhere to the scientific method while relying on weak statistical evidence as I've consistently shown. Their defense of their agenda-driven edits consistently falls in the lower tier of the disagreement hierarchy with their name-calling and ad hominem attacks. That all said, I realize I have probably killed any chance of having my topic ban overturned. I don't have high hopes for that anyway. I do hope, however, that someone who is not part of this gang and who is in a better position to make some badly needed changes will take my concerns into consideration and hopefully follow up on them in the not-too-distant future. Realskeptic (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "@Realskeptic: You most certainly were not 'editing productively'. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)" -See, this just further proves my point about the editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realskeptic (talk • contribs) Lankiveil: "the user has simply completely misunderstood the sources as saying that he had been exonerated" - Wakefield had been exonerated of the findings that were overturned by his colleague's appeal, that is true. Btw, Dave Dial is an involved editor and should not be posting here. Realskeptic (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Ivanvector and the other editors here should be disqualified from deciding on my topic ban because they have the same position on the topic as the admin who topic banned me in the first place and that position is compromising all of their judgement. I was not topic banned because I was violating any of Wikipedia's policies; I was topic banned because my sources and edits were not in line with the POV this faction of editors have hijacked Wikipedia to push while blatantly censoring anything to the contrary. Please understand that that makes it impossible for me to not talk about other users without informing any objective reviewing editor - who I have yet to see here - about what is really happening. Realskeptic (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzG Realskeptic is unable to tell the difference between truth and fiction. For example, he stated that the GMC findings against Andrew Wakefield were overturned on appeal. That is false. Wakefield remains disqualified from practising medicine, the appeal affected only John Walker-Smith. This discussion is rife with WP:CRYBLP and WP:IDHT from this user. Since the topic ban he has made absolutely no attempt to learn Wikipedia's ways by peacefully editing elsewhere. Realskeptic is here to Right Great Wrongs and a review of his editing history shows nothing other than tendentious editing, outbursts of wrongteous anger, and blatant antivax POV-pushing. This topic ban needs to remain in place at least until the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @Realskeptic: You most certainly were not "editing productively". Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Realskeptic I'm not entirely clear what the basis if this appeal is. Are you arguing that the original decision is wrong or that you think the passage of time means we can let you off the leash?. If its the latter, than I note you haven't edited at all since the ban and your comment above suggests your attitude to pushing your POV hasn't changed. Please can you explain how your behavior will be less disruptive this time if we lift the TBan? Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (I fixed the formatting and links on this request for you) Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I'm totally unpersuaded that we can let an editor with such a fixed POV edit disruptively in a contentious area - especially when they clearly have made no effort to learn how to edit according to our accepted norms and standards. Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Question Why has this been posted here, and not at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC) AE or AN are both valid venues for appeals. It tends to get more messy here. Spartaz Humbug! 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) And as recently re-established on another appeal (which the appellant then moved to AE), unlike appeals at AE, appeals made at AN are decided by a consensus of all uninvolved editors not by admins alone. I have altered the text above to relfect this. BMK (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I am an uninvolved editor. In my opinion, the material at Talk:Trace Amounts alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the topic ban was needed and should not be lifted at this time. I would strongly suggest that the result of this appeal be written so as to make crystal clear that we really, really like to see a topic-banned editor show a history of editing productively in other areas in order to demonstrate that he is capable of following Wikipedia's behavioral standards before we consider an appeal to the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I am also uninvolved, and on a review of User:Realskeptic's edits, I have to say that I feel the topic ban should stand. I could be charitable and say that rather than an attempt to sanitise Wakefield's biography, the user has simply completely misunderstood the sources as saying that he had been exonerated. Even then, such a lack of due care and attention should disqualify the user from working in this space. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC). This is an attempt to overturn a topic ban because this editor believes they are right in their strong, fringe, POV. Not an attempt to prove they have learned to edit constructively, since they have not edited at all after their TB. This attempt not only shows the editor cannot edit productively in the area in which they are topic banned from, but that they will not be a productive editor in any fashion for the project. Not here to contribute to the project. Dave Dial (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) We don't really need to spend a whole lot of time on this, do we? Without really bothering to review Realskeptic's edits, it's apparent just from this request that their ability to edit neutrally in this topic area is severely impaired by their fringe anti-vaccination views. They basically decimated their own appeal in their third edit, saying everyone else is wrong and then detailing all the ways that they misunderstand how WP:NPOV works. Subsequently, they've just basically used this appeal as a veil so that they can continue opining about the areas they're topic banned from. This should be closed as declined as quickly as possible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC) @Realskeptic: the policy you violated that led to your topic ban is the neutral point of view policy. On matters of science and medicine, Wikipedia publishes the consensus of the scientific and medical community, and significant dissenting views if there are any. There aren't any significant dissenting views when it comes to vaccines: science and medicine say they don't cause autism, the supposed link has been entirely disproven, and those who continue to say otherwise are trying to sell you something or they're just fringe nutjobs. Writing anything else here violates NPOV, and that's why you are topic banned. If you want to whine and argue your fringe views, the internet is your oyster: go start a blog. Wikipedia is strictly objective, and it's not for you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) I am not persuaded at all that Realskeptic has learned anything regarding NPOV and advocating fringe views. Their only edits since receiving the topic ban have been in direct relation to this appeal, and reviewing some of the talk page discussions leading up to the ban leads me to agree that the topic ban was warranted. I cannot support lifting the topic ban until Realskeptic demonstrates that they understand the relevant policies and become a productive editor again. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Realskeptic This section is to be edited only by the closing admin.

User:ClcBruno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could somebody block this guy, who is a long standing sockpuppet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can one of y'all have a look at User_talk:Justice007#Blocked to decide if an unblock is warranted? Thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time, Nyttend. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hồ Ngọc Hà

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IPs are putting obscenities to the VN singer's nickname. Please semi-block this page. Thanks. Tuanminh01 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, please use WP:RFPP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eh, someone needs you at ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...specifically at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Retrieved_from_archive:_Could_an_admin_please_take_a_look_at_this_and_try_to_resolve_it.3F. Dear admin, please dive in and make something happen. If you do, I will give you co-credit on my next DYK. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perennial request

WP:SPI is a bit backed up at the moment (shocker!); Vanjagenije is doing the lion's share of the Clerk work and we really could use some extra admin eyes there. The "CU completed" category likely holds the most low-hanging fruit - all of the grunt work is done, we just need an admin to take a look at the results and do any required blocking and tagging. The "Open" requests are ones where no checkuser is requested that may need more in depth analysis, though there are often several WP:DUCK cases as well. If you can spare a moment to review a case or two it would be appreciated. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I am not working on the SPI because of some technical problems I have (see my comment here). Namely, my installed scripts have not been working since yesterday. I really don't want to waste time clerking SPI cases without the SPI helper script, and without the Mark-blocked script. I don't know what to do, seams like the problem is at Wikimedia servers. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes a marked difference when you're not there. You need help...and a pay raise.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I closed a bunch of them. Feel free to revert and trout me if I did something wrong. That SPI helper script is intensely satisfying. :-) Katie^talk 19:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now. Seams that WP:Igloo was malfunctioning and preventing other scripts from working. I uninstalled it now. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous block appeal, block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – one user unblocked, the other blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit request copied from talk) Requesting to block or warn 2602:306:3357:BA0:24AB:4AA8:161:17E4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this vandalism. And requesting to unblock 85.178.53.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has been blocked for 10 years now for the wrong reason, it is no open proxy, just a dynamic IP (maybe/probably it was different in 2006). I'm doing this logged out to show you that I am on the same telephone provider (O2 / telefonica.de, Berlin, Germany), those IPs are not open proxies. Thank you -- 85.179.81.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• The indef block on the IP has been lifted. I'm pretty sure that even in 2006when it was placed we had a policy of pretty much never indef blocking IPs, but the admin who placed it is long gone anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• And I've blocked the other IP for their disruptive edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pet Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are numerous IP addresses with the same first six digits vandalizing Pet. I believe that a range block might be necessary. The Ip addresses include user:199.197.87.192, user:199.197.79.67, user:199.197.99.196 , user:199.197.99.134, and user:199.197.79.7. CLCStudent (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I protected the article for a week. I don't often do range blocks (I can usually kind of kludge one together) so I will leave it to someone more experienced to do so. If the rangeblock is implemented, we can remove the protection. --Jayron32 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That is part of a school district with ~16,000 IP's in range 199.197.64.0/18; if this is the only article they are hitting the SPP is sufficient - else this is where we can go next (soft block!). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Further review, shows this school has been blocked before, gave them a short anon-only block until the weekend for now, resetting page protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion for WP:CBAN against User:Alexiulian25

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll begin with a brief history of this case. After a series of incidents that won't go into, involving disregard for verifiability policy, ownership of articles, edit warring, general disregard for consensus, and personal attacks against other editors, Alexiulian25 was blocked on 5 December 2015 originally for a period of 60 hours. The issue escalated, with Alexiulian making more personal attacks like this one on their own talk page and the block was made indefinite. During this period, Alexiulian's talk page access was briefly revoked, which prompted them to register their first sockpuppet Befairwithpeople (talk · contribs) to make further personal attacks.

Following a discussion with User:Boing! said Zebedee, the admin who had blocked them, Alexiulian agreed to editing restrictions and was unblocked. While they initially respected these conditions, by the end of December they had resumed edit warring and making personal attacks (this for example). I noticed this and reported it to Boing! said Zebedee, who reinstated the block on 1 January 2016. Alexiulian responded to this with a series of unblock requests, which clearly demonstrated that they didn't get the point. Alexiulian also attempted to intercede by proxy in an edit war at Football records in Spain, which resulted in their talk page access being revoked yet again.

Over the two months that followed, Alexiulian edited while logged out from approximately 100 different IP addresses, as well as from a few registered sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Alexiulian25 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Alexiulian25). While most of the edits from these IP's were mundane, Alexiulian also made rather distasteful personal attacks against User:Eldumpo (here and here for example), User:Walter Görlitz (here), and myself (here and here for example). One of these was so egregious that User:Only felt it necessary to remove it from the public archive. They levied baseless allegations of misconduct against User:GiantSnowman and User:Only (here for example), and against myself (here for example). Finally, Alexiulian threatened senseless reversions if we did not cooperate with them (here).

Since Alexiulian had apparently agreed to the standard offer (see here, though they had agreed to it before still socked), I held off on the motion on the off chance that they were serious. With two new registered accounts that appear to be sockpuppets, this clearly isn't the case. (See the two most recent reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25).

All told, I think this is one editor we can definitely do without. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the edit I removed so people can locate it without hunting. only (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support I can accept the personal attacks made against me by Alexiulian may be an expression of the aggressive sports community out of which he may come, but his repeated actions against a block cannot be excused. Through the standard offer, he was given the opportunity to redeem himself, but he has ignored all requests to stop. He may blame us for this and state that he's only trying to improve Wikipedia, but that would be self-delusional hubris, as is much of his interpretation of the facts around this issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support First it was incompetence, then it was socking, now personal attacks and even threats (however hollow) of violence? We can do without that here. Indefinite site ban for sure. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support The serial trolling with sock-puppets (confirmed here) removes all doubt regarding this person's attitude to Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Yeah, I knew he wouldn't stop. He needs to find a new hobby. Katie^talk 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support An obvious case of trolling. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Non-admin support. I remember this user all too well; in fact, I remember telling him that he did not have the necessary level of WP:COMPETENCE to edit, and yet still, after ostensibly "accepting" the Standard Offer he is still socking. I remember his block and subsequent unblock in December 2015. He claims on his talk page that he wants to make "Wikipedia a better place", and yet in actuality the opposite is true, which is why I am in full support of an indefinite ban on Alexiulian25 from editing on Wikipedia. --Ches (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support My initial thoughts were that if he could be persuaded to stop socking then he could return post Standard Offer as a useful editor, he has certainly made a significant number of constructive edits to often neglected areas of enWiki. However, the conduct described above is completely unacceptable and this thread convinced me that his continued socking was not a matter of ignorance but of wilful disregard for any form of rules and order. It is beyond the point now where his constructive contributions are outweighed by his disruptive presence. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) I believe I have cleaned up some of his vandalism in the past. The standard offer's been given, and it appears that he has taken the community's good faith and blatantly spit in the eye of it. This is a time where the community would be best served without this editor around. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - the diff you linked of them "agreeing to the standard offer" looks a lot more like a threat to be disruptive to me. Deploy the ban hammer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - they threatened to sock, then said they would wait 6 months for OFFER, and then just socked anyway. Bye bye. GiantSnowman 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Alexiulian25 has attempted to appeal to those of us who are supporting this CBAN in this diff. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure I have ever seen so many socks created at such a fast pace, even within a user's own SPI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support It is clear that Alexiulian25 may have started out with good intentions, but quickly devolved into WP:NOTHERE. The stream of socks and IPs since then is quite astounding, and clear evidence that the standard offer has been ignored. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to remove creation protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mark Sanders was creation-protected in 2007 by User:Cbrown1023, who isn't currently active. From the deletion notices there, it appears that it was a possible autobiography of a non-notable engineer. I now want to write an article about the South African former cricketer Mark Sanders, who passes WP:NCRIC as they've played in first-class matches- see [17], [18]. Please could an admin remove the creation protection from Mark Sanders? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

{{notdone}} Joseph2302 notability can certainly change, as this has been through multiple deletions and recreations, I suggest you complete your efforts at Draft:Mark Sanders first. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: My point is that it's not even the same Mark Sanders that I'm writing about. That said, I'm composing a draft, and when finished I'll request a move to article space for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I don't understand why the create protect can't be removed now? The article subject just happens to share the same name as a non-notable individual who mucked about creating an autobiography nine years ago. Joseph2302 shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to create a draft just to have to request unsalting again when the draft is complete. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Draft is here, and I've requested a technical but uncontroversial move here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the draft into mainspace over the creation protection. Deor (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Deor, I've been offline for a few hours, didn't originally see it was actually a different person with the same name during my last quick review. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I need to import it on The Multilingual Encyclopedia, but I can't. Can someone undelete it for a while? I've already asked about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix, but no answers yet. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Placed at User:Stranger195/Strloc prefix; you can mark it for speedy delete when you are done. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Take a more careful look at a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would appreciate if some administrators would take a more careful look at what just happened in a wp:ANI incident. I have no connection to any participant in the discussion, but it happens that I browsed and read it just now, after it was closed, and it smells bad to me. Treating our own this way is no good.

The ANI is currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:EricCable WP:NOTHERE (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=706949874 this is a permalink).

In general I am not a supporter of "NOT HERE" being used at all; it seems vague and unfair. Second, it seems like there was piling on, it reads like a mobbing, with baiting of a contributor continuing (as if deliberately) until some reason could be trumped up to ban them. Third, the reason seized upon, that the contibutor invoked a legal threat ... seems quite shoddy when you look at the supposed threat. That is hardly a legal threat against Wikipedia or any Wikipedian. It appears rather to be a legitimate statement, no doubt borne out of frustration but certainly valid, that the contributor will seek to rescind their provision of photo license where possible (i.e. where their photos had not been put all the way into the public domain). I am not a legal expert but no one needs to be, to see that as a valid statement of intention. Without looking into the details, I suppose it may turn out they cannot rescind a license once given. But on the other hand, I don't think it would be wise for Wikipedia / Wikimedia commons to be dogmatic in all cases that once a license has been granted it cannot be rescinded (It's easy to think of extreme cases where a "donor" actually made a mistake, for example.) At any rate, it seems bad to let this block stand, and IMO some apology to EricCable is warranted. --doncram 05:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So someone who creates an actual shit list, declares "total war", calls someone a Nazi and then starts throwing legal threats around deserves an apology from the Wiki community? Really? You don't think, perhaps, that it should be the other way around? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I (as the target of the threat) did raise a similar concern on the talk page of the admin who imposed the block, but did not contest his action. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Baiting? The editor started with being opposed at an AFD, creating a literal "shit list" page and "congratulating" people for making it because they voted delete on having a separate article (everyone seemed to agree on the content itself, just not separately). Voting keep isn't baiting someone. As I said there, it seemed like it was stopped and I was against blocking but then you start retracting licenses on images, arguing about rescinding licensed images and it's getting to a serious WP:CIR issue here. If unblocked right now, and I nominate the next article he doesn't like for AFD, should I expect another new shit list, more "congratulations" and the like before people consider a block valid? Still, I said "retract the legal threatening language" and list the file for FFD if he wants. He hasn't even requested an unblock. He's been here since 2008. He fully know that you don't create shit lists and posting poop icons on people's talk page because they voted delete on an AFD. It was a spiral downward and a dramatic flame-out and unblocking him won't solve that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Even then, I won't oppose an unblock but it seems like someone who wanted an out of here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• drive-by comment: meh - maybe as a standalone NLT it is a bit weak, but the "Not here" stuff is stacking up. The "shit list" page (now deleted), and the entire "Battle" mentality do increase the validity of the block. If they don't post an unblock request tomorrow - maybe reduce it to a week block. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC) *note NFCC has always been touchy, + 7 years + only 3k edits + first block are all things I considered when posting above. — Ched :  ?  09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A week on what basis? I'd support reducing it but neither NLT nor NOTHERE are really time-based. Wouldn't that be a cool-down block then essentially? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The editor's immature, battleground, and hyper-retaliatory behavior has gone on far too long. Here's just another example, regarding that same Taylor Swift image: After uploading it back in June he replaced the existing infobox image with it: [19]. I reverted the edit as being a far inferior quality photo (particularly in the darkened state it was in at that time) and directed him to gain consensus first on the article talk page before changing the infobox image [20]. His response 13 minutes later was to immediately CSD the photo with the rationale "If it's not going to be used anywhere, it should be deleted." He then repeatedly harangued me on my talk page [21]. The editor is free to request an unblock himself and acknowledge his cumulative poor behaviors, acknowledge that he understands why they were unacceptable, and confirm that he will not continue or repeat them. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn block This editor was blocked for making a | "legal threat" that really wasn't a legal threat at all. So blocking on basis of a legal threat is inappropriate and would ask that it be overturned. Yes, creating a shit list and putting poop icons on pages is bad too, but that's not the stated reason of his block. KoshVorlon 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Lugnuts. EricCable self-reverted this vandalism, but he shouldn't have made it in the first place. EricCable seems to see Wikipedia as a battleground, and I think that's where all this disruption is coming from, including the legal threat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• I think the block is acceptable. While perhaps not a "legal threat" per se, it was a very clear statement that the editor intended to try to break Wikipedia policy by invoking (mistakenly) what he perceived as his legal rights in regards to his images. To me, that sits comfortably within the penumbra of the "chilling effect" that WP:NLT is meant to prevent. Because of that, I do not think the block should be rescinded or overturned, especially when -- as in most cases of an NLT block -- all the editor has to do is retract the statement, and the block will be cut short. He can thus return to editing at any time of his choosing, but he cannot rescind the license under which he uploaded images here - that is permanent. BMK (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Editor has requested and been granted an unblock so can we close this as resolved? Again, my view is that the way to argue policy is not by threats of "well policy smolicy, the law is" but by actually arguing at the policy discussion places (policy may not be in line with the law, we are strictly on non-free content than the law is). I presumed he could but that didn't matter as much as the chilling effect from the arguments. Either way, a close is probably proper now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jim1138

Please take to the appropriate talk page(s). This discussion doesn't belong here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Hi all,

I have edited economy related article for years on Wikipedia without any hitch. Yet there is a fellow (new) editor who seems not to read (or at least respond to) edit comments. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

First, User:Jim1138 is not a fellow (new) editor because he is an experienced editor. Second, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Third, when you discuss another editor here, you are required to notify them, which you did not do. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have warned him on his talk page FIRST. Second that makes it worst if he has not the excuse of being a "newbie". 47.17.27.189 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

First, where did you comment on my talk page? There is no "47.17.27.189" on my talk page. It would appear that you editing as 47.17.27.189 and SSZ. That makes this conversation rather difficult to follow. Your edit summaries, to me, do not describe what you are doing. Jim1138 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Really?

Since you kept reverting me (as an IP editor) I felt that logging-in would help, may be. PLEASE, if you don't understand something, *listen* to what people have to say. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the edits, the IP is the same as User:SSZ, who is edit warring with Jim to remove the CIA ref in the Economy of Iran article. Blackmane (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be trying to remove that specific citation because the entire infobox is referenced "Main data source: CIA World Fact Book", so they think the extra citation is superfluous. NebY (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Sockmaster flagging archive.today links en masse

This is too big for me, really. We had a user a few days ago, FixDefunktDomain, tagging archive.today links en masse and avoiding the abuse filter. He continued to do this despite being asked to explain his reasoning. He's arguably admitted this is a single-purpose, potentially bad-hand account: "I do not mind blocking, it is special account for the only task as you can see from its name." Now, he's using a large network of open proxies to continue doing so, which is the main reason for this post. See for example [22], [23] and [24]. Advice would be appreciated. — foxj 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I wonder if Rotlink is up to his old tricks again, he did exactly the same thing and used multiple IP's as described on this RFC for archive.is. KoshVorlon 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And now at Special:Contributions/178.165.64.241. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked that last one. I see that User:Vituzzu is also on the case. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, archive.today really is gone. We may need our own bot to tag those links. Katie^talk 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi all!

That's rotlink for sure. What puzzles me is his *complete* refusal to abide to some basic rule. By default he uses a zombie proxy for no more than three edits. Then he switches to another one. Regardless of any block, regardless of any question. I've never seen such a massive scale lack of collaborativeness! Yesterday I set up an abusefilter on my homewiki (it.wiki) then he switched to this kind of silly edits.

I think archive.today was also his (maybe an attempt to move his archive to a non-national tld) thus showing how (non) reliable is this kind of service. Dealing with my homewiki I plan replacing those links by archive.org (today I did ~20%, the rest will be pretty harder). I'm comforted to see I'm not the only one thinking there's something *so* wrong with those edits. Also I'm comforted to see en.wiki can handle that by herself without my input. But I'm discouraged to think there are 800 more wikis (more or less) unaware of this problem, handling them definitely exceeds my possibilities. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vituzzu et al, I found another one: IP 72.252.181.106. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But also about then more IPs caught by it.wiki's abusefilter. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you should also consider the IPs that made the following edits: [25], [26], [27].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

One more: [28].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And another. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/46.40.106.173 and another. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the last few. The last one Jetstreamer listed is globally blocked as an open proxy. I haven't checked to see if the ones I blocked are open or not but I'll try to get to it unless someone does it quicker. Katie^talk 22:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly one more. Special:Contributions/188.83.31.72. Not quite the same MO. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And another: Special:Contributions/182.183.254.91. see edit.- MrX 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And another two [29] [30] altering the original URLSs to ones that never existed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

Another: Special:Contributions/125.166.221.175 - MrX 12:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Special:Contributions/37.237.152.95- MrX 18:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

archive.today not gone. it only works on www.archive.today and not work on archive.today without www. Why not just update links or make a template to abstract out of domain name ( archive.org also has many domains and other wikis have a template to deal with it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.10.233 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

or write a letter to the webmaster to fix the domain as wiki has many links without www — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.10.233 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

archive.today works fine for me. It redirects to archive.is. Maybe there's a DNS problem in your part of the world.- MrX 12:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Wilding Article

Respected Administrator Sir/Madam.

I have edited a article about Tony Wilding,and i have edited a article about Tony Wilding,not many people in the world know that New Zealand has also had success in Tennis,i wanted people to know about this in the summary of Tony Wilding,but a user called as User:Wolbo has been editing this article,i wanted to give him a notice about this in my edit summary,but he paid no attention,and after few days he calls my edits as disruptive and threatens me that i will lose my editing privileges if i continue to do this,i have done no wrong and he is putting false claims on me,i request that please block this user for vandalizing me,a wikipedia user and a editor.

With Regards Adarsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.191.126 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I took a look, it looks like Wolbo and the IP are in dispute because Wolbo is choosing to footnote a section on the | Tony Wilding article, as shown here . Wolbo's edit summary is definetly off target, the IP's not vandalizing the article at all. Not sure what the footnoting is about, however, he seems to have contacted the IP on his talk page asking him not to continue until a consensus is reached, however, on neither of their pages, nor on the talk page of Tony Wilding is there any sort of discussion that would be needed to build consensus. Since Wolbo's got a lot ( [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/index.php?user=Wolbo&project=en.wikipedia | 86,969 per X!'s count) of edit's I'd assume he'd know to open a talk page discussion if he wants consensus. Ip's are harder to track as the IP could be anyone. Doesn't look bad enough to lock the page down or anything. By the way, Adarsh, you didn't notify Wolbo about this discussion, I've done so this time. KoshVorlon 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Kosh, I appreciate your mediation, but did you see this edit summary? The edit warring over this goes back quite some time--here's 11 February, and this may be when it all started, a series of edits in which this information was inserted, full of punctuation errors and grammatical awkwardness--and without an edit summary. I suppose in the many subsequent edits Wolbo cleaned this up, keeping the information but placing it in the note, which our IP editor obviously didn't look kindly upon--hence that odd attempt at an insult. No, I can't really fault Wolbo here: they wrote most of the article and kept it clean. They warned the IP, at User talk:103.242.189.126, but the problem with hopping is obviously that it's difficult to communicate. I suppose Wolbo should have started User talk:103.242.188.38--but keeping up with IPs and what appear to be good-faith but nonetheless unhelpful edits is a chore. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I did see the edit summary, and it struck me as not being at all in proportion to what was being done. I was more focused on seeing if what Adash claimed was really happening, but thank you for pointing out that that needs to be included as it's relevant information! KoshVorlon 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded to the ip editor on my talk page regarding the content edits and explained why I changed his addition to the article lede. As explained no info was deleted but I simply left the most important part in the lede and put the rest in a footnote. The ip editor stated that he wanted "the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis" but that is clearly not a valid argument. As noted by Drmies the ip's edits were grammatically awkward and poorly punctuated which I cleaned up. Also no reliable source was given for the added content. There was nothing untoward until the ip editor re-added his content to the lede with an out-of-the-blue edit summary which I can only describe as unhinged and completely out of order. This resulted in me giving the editor an 'only warning' for a personal attack with a notification that he would be reported to ANI if anything similar was repeated (something which I have not done since joining Wikipedia almost 10 years ago). If the ip editor is instructed to take his matter to the article talk page I'm happy to leave this as is and ignore his baseless request for a block. --Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Respected Administrator Sir/Madam.

Should i edit the Tony Wilding Page and give some good history in Tennis for the people of New Zealand,or should i leave that page,you please tell what to do and i will exactly do that. With Regards Adarsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.191.126 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

For the old-timers

In case you hadn't noticed, Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. Happy memories of gentler days. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Has there been controversy over the question? I've been here since 2006, so I suppose I qualify as an old-timer, but I'm still confused. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I suppose JzG is referring to the fact that Trenton, New Jersey is the proverbial location of the court where Wikipedians traditionally threaten to sue each other... [31]. But don't ask me which blocked troll first brought that one up. Yeah, back in those days... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It used to be policy until relatively recently [32]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

But some humourless whatnot removed the Trenton courthouse from the page: [33] Guy (Help!) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You are Mr. Treason and I claim my five pounds! --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Are you claiming to be Shylock x5? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the "Mr Treason" bit, but "You are *insert name here* and I claim my Five Pounds" is an old trope, see Lobby Lud for more. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Treason was the name we used for a guy who insisted that certain content constituted treason and threatened to "SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY" if we did not allow his edits to stand. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, that *does* take me back. See User:Mr. Treason/Request for arbitration for a taste. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block for IPv6 address

We need a range block for user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:29c3:2c5b:2a13:24d7 because he appears to be a sock of many other IPv6 addresses like user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:29c3:2c5b:2a13:24d7, user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:15ab:8521:22d3:e940, and user:2604:2D80:C007:C68D:A4F0:27A:FBCE:70EA. CLCStudent (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Umm ... "we"? CLCStudent, does more than one person use the "CLCStudent" account? Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that was we in the Royal we sense, or we as in "Wikipedia we". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore: Maybe, but the word "student" is in their name, and their user page is ambiguous on who specifically uses this account, so ... not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm we do.  Done. Anonblocked 2604:2d80:c007:c68d::/64. I've been meaning to ask, does anyone know of an IPv6 range-contribs tool? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean "we" as in do "we" need a block on that range. CLCStudent (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@zzuuzz: The lack of tool to show IPv6 range contribs is being discussed at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and Johuniq: NativeForeigner's tool can calculate IPv6 anges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit I don't yet find IPv6 ranges as easy to calculate as IPv4 - I still need to look at the manual instead of doing it in my head, so it is useful. But it's really the range contribs I'm looking for. It seems from VPT that we're still lacking in this department. I wonder if a CheckUser could confirm if they have this capability? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My {{blockcalc}} (recently moved to {{IP range calculator}}) is a great way to calculate IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, and it works hard to optimize the ranges where possible. It links to IP contributions, but it cannot do that for IPv6 ranges as there is no tool which does that, presumably because of the ridiculously large number of IPs that could be in an IPv6 range. Johnuniq (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Calculating the range to block for IPv6 is trivial 99.9% of the time. You just block the /64 range starting with the first four sets of hex digits (like 2604:2d80:c007:c68d::/64) because 99.9% of the time it's the same user. It's perfectly normal for an ISP to allocate a /64 range to a single customer and it has advantages in simplifying routing, etc., so exceptions will be vanishingly small. There's not much point in checking a /64 range for 'other affected users' because there won't be any other users in that range. I'm going to suggest that you don't need an IPv6 contributions tool for those reasons. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree mostly, but mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6#Collateral damage says "A single /64 subnet can represent anything from a single user to hundreds or even thousands of users". I asked Jasper Deng about that here. It's conceivable, for example, that a university department might use a single /64 and allocate individual IPs to a thousand users. Someone who has examined actual IPv6 usage would be useful, although it's likely that such usage will increase as time passes so what was generally true a year ago might not be true in a year from now. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is technically correct, however my experience of institutional IP's is they dont tend to do it that way. But given the wide variation on organisation's network management, its probably some somewhere do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: I asked on the VP for a tool to figure IPv6 range contributions, but it wasn't so much because I want to check for 'other affected users'. I was assuming there wouldn't be any other users — perhaps an unsafe assumption, according to Johnuniq just above, but surely good enough for everyday use — but only the one person, and I want to see what else that one person has been up to. You know how when you see an account editing problematically, perhaps vandalising, you click their "User contributions" button to see what else they've been doing that may need reverting? (And then that account complains you're "stalking" them, but I digress.) Deploying a range contribs tool for a /64 range would come to the same thing, and that's what I want to do. Particularly in a case I have right now, where I have reason to suspect the IPv6 edits have been made by an experienced user logged out. It would be lovely to be able to confirm or dismiss those suspicions. But I guess it's not to be. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

BLP violations and sockpuppetry by User:Lane99

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This report concerns persistent BLP violations, topic-ban evasion, and sockpuppetry by editor User:Lane99. The most recent episode appears to have been at User talk: Jimbo Wales: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705484463&oldid=705484198

As some of you already know, the topic is Murder of Anni Dewani. This appears to have been a carjacking in South Africa that was botched and wound up with her being killed. The gunmen then confessed that it had been a murder for hire. By confession , they got lighter sentences. They tried to incriminate Shrien Dewani, her husband. He was extradited to South Africa, where he was tried and formally acquitted, with the trial court finding among other things that the confessed killers contradicted each other and were lying. User:Lane99 and his sockpuppets insist that the current article is biased because it does not reflect a judicial finding that this was a murder for hire. User:Bishonen topic-banned User:Lane99 from Murder of Anni Dewani based on BLP discretionary sanctions on 14 November. Lane99 was then blocked for 48 hours on 30 November for evading the topic-ban. Since then, the arguments that the article is “biased” (because it doesn’t state that there was a murder for hire, and because it states that Shrien Dewani was found not guilty) have been by sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane99 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705486051&oldid=705485256 This may not make much difference, because User:Lane99 is a single-purpose account who hasn’t edited since 30 November, when first blocked. On 1 December, Lane99 was blocked for one month for sock-puppetry. Lane99 hasn’t edited since then, preferring to let sockpuppets do the dirty work. However, when the puppet-master hasn’t learned from the one-month block, I propose that a Site Ban is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• C'est vrai (bolding lest my !vote be deemed unclear) . Collect (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Collect (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban relentless socking is unacceptable. Implement Pending changes on the article as well? Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - even if it is merely a formality, it's worth making a clear statement that this behavior is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a gesture, I suppose. I admit I can't see it making any practical difference. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
• Support (Non-administrator comment) just to make it official. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support but don't think it will make any difference to a relentless and prolific sock creator and meat puppet canvasser. It would be more productive to extend the the article's semi protection (it is due to expire a week from now) or implement the "Pending Changes" measure as that article is the sole target of Lane99's disruptive editing. NeilN implemented the semi 3 months ago. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spina bifida caused from agent orange exposure

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

I wanted to make sure that the information on spina bifida and heterotaxy being linked to the exposure if Vietnam war veterans to agent orange. But have no idea how to change that as it says that it could have been prevented and blaming the mother. This is one of the things that are definitely linked to agent orange. Please will someone fix it as I'm not capable and I do not feel comfortable doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.235.94.221 (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the Spina Bifida or Heterotaxy talk pages along with your sources. Blackmane (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu - indefinite talk protection request

• Fangusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Fangusu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unusual request that needs some explanation so I'm making it here instead of WP:RFPP. Fangusu is a long-term sockpuppeteer (SPI page) who is indefinitely blocked. Over the last few months she has been using IPs and new accounts to edit around her ban, and to post pleas for unblocking on her talk page, as well as occasionally mine and Steel1943's. A while ago after a particularly exuberant round of appeals, I left clear instructions on her talk page about the standard offer, and then archived everything else on the page so that what I wrote was the only thing left, in hopes that if she really wants to be a productive editor she will read it and pay attention. Since, I've been removing other automatic notices because they're not relevant to her at this point, only the standard offer is, but she still occasionally uses an IP to make an unblock appeal or revert a templated message, or just randomly revert one of my edits. Her talk access is already revoked; I'd like to request that her talk page be indefinitely semiprotected so that she can't edit it from IPs either. Although it should be noted she has never tried to remove my instructions.

Furthermore, it's easy to spot Fangusu's edits when an IP or brand new account restores an edit by a previously flagged sock, or makes an innocuous edit with a ban appeal in the edit summary, always on one of a handful of her favourite targets. I don't think it's a very good solution, but in response I'd like to propose six months of semiprotection or PC-protection on those pages, which include undergarment, camisole, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles and Zapp Brannigan. There are others but these seem to be the most frequent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Add Melissa Duck and List of recurring Futurama characters to that list. In my opinion, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles shouldn't be included in this request since it was only used by Fangusu to perform one sole edit to get a logged-in account to auto confirmed status. (Per the most recent SPI report, this can be disregarded. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)) (I may have more to say later, but I have to go through my history with this sockmaster to see what else I can add.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Example diffs? I found this edit to one of "those pages", which got reverted as "rv block evasion". Is that one of what you're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course yes, I should have provided diffs. As far as activity, yes, you can go to the histories of any of those pages and see that the recent activity is made up primarily of revert wars with IPs and blocked accounts. What tips these edits off as Fangusu are usually the edit summaries pleading to ignore her ban and leave the edit alone (e.g. [34] This is a good faith edit. Please lift my ban and please overlook my flaws. One cannot expect any user to be a figurative "angel"; [35] Please let this edit stand. You have not explained its flaws to me) or if one of her socks is blocked and its edits reverted ([36]) she will turn up on an IP not long after and revert to restore ([37]), and she seems to have given up on her attempts to get the reverting users blocked at ANI ([38]) but that was one of her hallmarks. You can also see that there's very little activity on any of those pages that isn't obviously her, or random IP vandals (which I don't think are her).

I've suggested semiprotecting her talk page specifically because of this edit in which one of her IPs restored a notice that I had removed to keep her talk page clean.

Honestly (I'm assuming she's reading this, she's obviously hanging around the site) I believe that she could be a productive editor if she would respect her ban and pay attention to the plentiful advice that other editors have given her, that's why we have the standard offer for banned users. But each new sock digs her a deeper hole. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Contrary to what it may seem, I also believe that Fangusu could be a productive editor ... but first, she has to respect their community-established site ban and not edit at all for at least six months, as well as stop socking completely. However, at this point, my belief that is going to happen is next to zero, given that Fangusu had their 7-year block lifted last July, started socking again, got site-banned in August, and has been socking since, including socking with DJ Autagirl, an account she had been using to sock since 2013. Anyways, if somehow she manages to finally respect the community's site ban, I see good things ... if that ever happens. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Her biggest problem is constantly trying to get the community to overlook her sockpuppetry, which given time could certainly happen, but each time she uses a new IP she's throwing the sockpuppetry issues back into the limelight. She was given a chance, was told not to sock, was reminded that it would earn the ire (figuratively speaking) of the community and her indefinite block would be reinstated. If she refuses to listen to people, then there's little that can be done for her. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no chance of rehabilitation for this editor, just an apparently endless series of obvious socks. See [39] [40] [41] and [42] on Camisole over the last week. The first edit was by a now-blocked sock, and each of the next three identical edits were made by different IPs. I don't even bother warning Fangusu's IPs now. Meters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, she can't say nobody's offered to help. I guess she just wants to keep playing the revert, block, ignore game. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Had to semi the SPI page today due to her IP socking. Geez louise. She hasn't edited the user talk page in over a week, though; sheer misplaced optimism that she won't start it back up. Katie^talk 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Might it be time to rescind the standard offer, seeing as they continue the behavior that led to the ban in the first place? A good faith attempt was made, however the actions show they do not want to take it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that still on the table? Banned six months ago, and a very explicit message of what not to do by User: Ivanvector here three weeks ago. Still no change in bahaviour. Meters (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard offer is always available, that's why it's a standard offer. It's up to her to meet its requirements. So far she doesn't even seem to be trying, and yeah I think I was pretty clear with my message on her talk page. In her case if she actually managed to not sock for six months, I would see it as a remarkable improvement and seriously consider endorsing an unblock request. But I think it's going to be a long time before she gets that message, and the longer she keeps this up, the more enemies she's going to make, and the harder it's going to be to ever come back from the hole she's digging entirely on her own.

Anyway, I don't think keeping this thread open is heading toward solving anything, so why don't we close it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Forest Theater

Can an admin please take a look at this page? (Forest Theater)

It seems as though there are a lot of accounts editing this page (the unautoconfirmed accounts, not the IPs) that are either promotional usernames, and/or the accounts are spamming links by the means of promotion. One of the accounts has already been warned about this, with yet no response: [43].

Here are the following accounts in question:

• Foresttheatercarmel (talk · contribs)
• FORESTTHEATER (talk · contribs)
• Foresttheaterguild (talk · contribs)—CURRENTLY BLOCKED
• Justfollowingtherules (talk · contribs)

Thanks!

AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Extra admin eyes requested at Talk:Betty X (Artist)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hola, short story: an article on a Seattle, Washington group Betty Salon existed for a number of years, unsourced, with no proper establishment of notability. In January, an article was created on one of the musicians, Betty X. An AFD occurred with the consensus to delete and redirect. After some flare-ups of disruption, the article was salted. Another article was created at Betty X (Artist). That was speedied because of the AFD. There appears to now be a campaign at Talk:Betty X (Artist) to contest the deletion, Betty has complained about the article deletion via twitter, apparently unaware that Wikipedia has a thing called notability, and perhaps not realizing that nobody has done a satisfactory job of establishing her notability. Note also: This planned hackathon, which may explain the flare-up. Anyhow, more eyes would be appreciated at these articles, and to keep an eye out for subsequent Betty X (singer), Betty X (entertainer) articles. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussions have already closed so there is nothing that the talk page could achieve. Contested deletions have a forum at WP:Deletion review. I've tagged it for speedy deletion (WP:G8) as a talk page that's dependent on a non-existent page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

I can't obviously find a way of salvaging the article right now, and NinjaRobotPirate's comments in the AfD echo mine, but I think Cyphoidbomb could have shown more tact and diplomacy speaking to newbies rather than just parroting "It's just not notable goddamit!" again and again without actually explaining why there's a problem with writing that article. I would have started a conversation off about querying the claim to be the first female artist broadcast on the internet, query whether this event had been covered in the back issues of Billboard (many of which are now online via Google Books, particularly back issues from the 1990s), and taken things from there. Don't climb the Reichstag and wave the systematic bias flag from the top of the building shouting "notability" a lot - it doesn't really reflect well on the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - Your criticism and notes are warmly received, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'll leave you with this advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of WP:TPO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frequent unexplained page moves and unexplained revert with nonsense reason by User:Shhhhwwww!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm here to report the behaviour of User:Shhhhwwww!! who continuously making nonsense revert with lame excuses to other users and unexplained page moves by him although been warning before. This user was detected since 2013 (this, this and this) making non-neutral edits as reported by other previous user. On 28 February 2016, suddenly he labelled my edit as WP:3RR while I'm reverting his edits once on Jamalul Kiram III and Esmail Kiram II article. He also stated in his edit summary on the revert as "The infobox has been stable for years, this is the consensus" while there is no discussion on the talkpage that have decide for its consensus. The user was also frequently making page move errors like this, this, this, this and this among others which can be considered as against the WP:MOSTITLE. The user has been blocked twice before for his disruptive editing. Molecule Extraction (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: You are required to notify any user you post on a noticeboard. I have notified for you. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mlpearc! Molecule Extraction (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I remember @Shhhhwwww: being brought to AN/I for some problem with moves in the recent past. I cannot locate the discussion now. Tiderolls 17:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was to do with making stupid page move discussions for country articles that had long-established names. I can't find the discussions either, but I guess it's a moot point, as they've finally been blocked. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User has retired[44] and been blocked for a month. DrKay (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That's their fourth retirement in 12 months.[45][46][47][48] NebY (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, yeah, that's what he will doing when someone launch an investigation to his account based on his talkpage history. Molecule Extraction (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large group of users requesting accountcreator permissions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:ArtAndFeminism/AccountCreator there is a very large list of users that are being encouraged to request accountcreator permissions. A brief review shows that many of these accounts have no substantive edit history (some are not even autoconfirmed). I don't think this is appropriate, and would like some other admin opinions here. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ping to others that have been involved in conversations: Swarm, Mlpearc, Bluerasberry. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with some of the established editors on that list - there are a couple of rollbackers and reviewers there - but the non-autoconfirmed ones and editors with 13 edits? No. Katie^talk 21:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the original call was by User:Theredproject so maybe they can say whether they expect 89 editors who've signed up to receive AC status over the next week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I firmly disavow any real knowledge in this area; however, I will be involved locally (and have just been given my AC permission). You may want to get some more insight from @Gobonobo who is the experienced Wikipedian working on the Minnepolis edit-a-thon. I'll just copy this note from a previous discussion: No one has any idea how many people will attend my event (Minneapolis), but it's being strongly promoted, and someone soberly suggested "around 100". I expect a large proportion to be new editors, and so far (to my knowledge) only one other person attending has Account Creator permission. So, honestly, I expect this flood is not too much of an overkill. Most of the organizers here appear to be Wikipedia noobs (they are librarians from local institutions), so it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of noobs are asking for this permission. This is not to downplay the difficulty in managing the situation, but just to affirm that probably these are not weirdos trying to game the system. Phil wink (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

One confusing aspect of this incident, which wasn't clear to me until I saw Phil wink's comments is that this is one master list to cover events happening all over the world. I thought it was a list for one specific event so it seemed like overkill. Is this understanding correct? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just based on glancing through some of the listed user pages, yeah, these are librarians from all over.Phil wink (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• ...also, ZERO of those listed user names are a match for anyone currently signed up for the Minneapolis edit-a-thon... more evidence this is probably a global catch-all page. Phil wink (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• (non admin opinion) I thought I'd comment on this because I am at a meet and greets for one of these edit-a-thons right now and am an account creator. The event I am at has no other experienced editors, so I can see why non-established accounts are requesting AC. However, the list of usernames should state the specific event they will be participating at and an expiry date for when the AC right can be removed. -- Cheers, Riley 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Hello all. This request was made in advance of next weekend's Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathons, which will be taking place in 125+ locations on all six inhabited contents. I am one of three lead organizers, along with @Failedprojects and @Siankevans. If you are unfamiliar with this campaign, this is the third year we have run this annual event, and many of the nodes in the network hold monthly or quarterly events. We talked at WikiConUSA recently about why organize differently than many traditional Wikipedia groups do, and why we believe is core to our success. We instruct each node event to have at least one organizer request AC permissions. Each year we have requested and been assigned temporary account creator permissions for at least one person at each event, as most nodes will create well more than 5 accounts at each location/IP address. I want to be clear that this isn't an "incident" but rather part of our regular planning process. We have never had any problem with any editor's temporary use of these permissions. I believe that @Pharos, @Bluerasberry and maybe @Jeremyb have initiated this process in the past. The events are already happening, so we need these permissions assigned ASAP. The events will primarily be complete by March 31st, which is an appropriate date for termination of permissions. We may have a second (smaller) list for permissions at the end of this week. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Theredproject (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is simply not appropriate to start a massive request list such as this. Account Creator is a highly restricted permission with the only exceptions being temporary grants to coordinators of specific outreach events for the duration of the event they are conducting (this is virtually always one to a few people per event). We need specific event information for each case so we can keep track of these temporary grants. It is not arbitrarily handed out to any editor who puts their name on a list. Users with good reason can submit a request at Permissions per the standard procedure and have it assessed, granted and logged on a specific and individual basis. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Account Creator has, to my knowledge, never been abused by organizers at any of the Art+Feminism edit-a-thons. Until we have the ability to temporarily whitelist ips for the duration of events, the only way to allow more than 6 people to create accounts is to have someone in the room with the Account Creator flag. Each of the 125 or so individual Art+Feminism nodes requires an Account Creator so that their event is not ruined. Where possible, these are local administrators assisting with the event. Elsewhere, it is either experienced Wikipedians or librarians. Giving this group of people the flag for a day will not result in any harm to the encyclopedia. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of this discussion should not be about the validity for the need of AC for these events, nor about abuse. It needs to be about organization and guidelines. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi there. I am the Secretary of Wikimedia New York City and am a Co-Facilitator of this massive Art+Feminism initiative. I will be helping administer the over 120+ event pages. I will be monitoring the individual events and editors closely. This global initiative that Art+Feminism is undertaking is a huge opportunity to engage with new and established editors alike. I think this request should be allowed with close monitoring by WM NYC and other A+F stakeholders. Put a time limit on the Account Creator permission -- have it turn off on 4/1 or something like that. I think that's a reasonable approach. Otherwise it is going to be NIGHTMARISH for the organizer -- and quite frankly for the attendees. Isn't the point here to engage and encourage Wikipedians? I am also a bit confused as to how these satellite temporary Account Creators can harm Wikipedia significantly. People will be watching closely, so there doesn't seem to be a significant downside to this request. -- Erika (Secretary, Wikimedia New York City) aka BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Hello - I made the request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator. Sorry for attracting attention but the event is March 5 and I needed to identify people who cared.

There is no clear policy about who can have the account creator permission and who ought not have it. It is granted on need and removed when the need is gone, and it should not be abused, but probably has not been so discussed since 2013 at the start of the Wikipedia education program. In that instance, there was a rule that teachers could request it for classes, even if the teacher had never edited Wikipedia.

In this case the rights are requested for WP:A+F. Art+Feminism is an event, mostly on one day, 90% within one week, where people edit art and feminism content. In each of the last two years the event has attracted more than 1000 editors internationally with maybe 800 of those being new accounts. A+F events happen in person in many places, typically art galleries or libraries.

I acknowledge that it is a little wild but it has worked for two years and it is a model for outreach. Many people hosting events do not edit Wikipedia themselves - A+F takes what it can get - but just like in the education program professors often feel comfortable telling students to edit Wikipedia even when they themselves never edit, in A+F people hosting events can still get new editors to make useful contributions when they themselves have no edits on their account.

xaosflux suggested that one admin oversee the granting of these rights and later removal after the event. Maybe that would be best, but I still wanted to give notice about the event in a week and also to say that even though I want to find a way to make it work on this short notice, I would be around to help develop policy or guidelines on such things in the future. There is also WP:Year of Science happening now and some people have made commitments to present at academic conferences likely to get hundreds of more new users on board with little or no experienced Wikipedian oversight.

Mlpearc As you say - guidelines ought to be more clear about what is and is not appropriate. In many ways A+F pushes the limits of what is understood as Wikipedia in-person outreach. I am not sure what the limits should be but to me, this event seems like it pushes beyond what has been done before without creating too much liability.

KrakatoaKatie - to address your comment, yes, I am requesting account creator rights for people with 0 edits. I am saying that the rules permit this, there is a history of the event happening without abuse, the potential for abuse is low anyway, and to moderate risk the rights will be removed after the event.

Liz - yes, all of these people need account creator rights asap, and especially in time for the Saturday 5 March event. The late notice is a problem. Notice ought to come sooner next year. Yes, this is an international event. There are 89 people signed up. I presume that most events will have only 1-2 people requesting rights, few will have more, and I regret to say that some events might not have anyone signed up for AC rights yet.

Swarm I confirm that this mass request is not appropriate. I apologize. At the same time, this is wiki and I request your advice on what to do. One way forward is to grant the rights outside of the "account creator" process as xaos suggested - it has always been an option that any admin can oversee this. At the same time I prefer to log requests in process. We have options. I can give more information about the need, but I hope that you can be convinced that the need is real and the cause is worthy. There is a log of event information at the A+F page but many of the people requesting AC rights are new users and it is too much to ask of them that each one associate themselves with an event page. Time is short this time and they are new users. A commitment that can be made is that they can have the rights removed after the event, and that all of these accounts will be watched by event coordinators. There are a lot of experienced volunteers participating in this effort, and that also is social insurance against misuse of the rights.

Gobonobo thanks for the support.

Does anyone have questions? Going forward, A+F can arrange for a few individual admins to grant the rights, but I still would like to give notice that this is happening on the AC request page so that everyone understands what is going on and who to blame. What more should I do or say? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment, weather or not the A&F is a valid event is not the issue here. The issue is "How many users should be given the ACC flag per event", "When should they be given the flag" and how to monitor the removal of the flag after the events. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc - That's not just one issue, it's three. But these are important, good issues to raise. Do you have any constructive ways that the organizers could go about creating a structure that would be generally amenable in response to what seems to be a bit of an overwhelming late breaking situation? -- BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, your comments answer any questions I had about this. If this project has been run successfully for two years now, I think it would be wise to bring in any admins who had previously worked with you on granting these rights, who are familiar with what's needed for the event along with what standards Wikipedia usually requires. This sounds like exactly an instance where WP:IAR might apply. The main problem I see with this is the lack of communication between event organizers with the larger Wikipedia community prior to this conversation. This is unfortunate because you could have experienced editors virtually assist new editors or, at the least, alert editors on the New Pages Patrol that there might be a surge of new articles this week that should be considered stubs. I think we all know how frustrating it is for new editors to write articles that are quickly deleted and communication with those editors who evaluate new articles to see if CSD criteria apply would do a lot towards making this editing experiment a positive experience for new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Nope, I'm in the same chair as you, sitting on the sidelines waiting for some good ideas to show up :P Mlpearc (open channel) 02:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Ha! Well I'm not really on the sidelines, as I will be one of the people assisting in this initiative, paying the price if there is a hard line drawn in the sand on this. I guess I would hope that Wikipedia editors who have these issues with the AC rights, that hopefully we could work together to create a solution. There have to be options here. I shudder at what could happen if not. Maybe said editors such as yourself who have objections could be granted Account Creator rights and promise to support 5 to 8 events remotely, assisting with sign-in. And/or participate in monitoring and training new event folks? This is what might help out here.... -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have the flag, thanx. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who is going to train all these people on policies? How will they handle issues like blacklist and anti-spoofing warnings? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

those shouldn't a very common occurrence? just tell them to never bypass the checks without guidance and make some more experienced A+F organizers available to advise as needed. training on role accounts shouldn't be too hard but yes it needs to be done. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's not a great solution for a large scale request like this involving many locations/IP's, but IP cap exceptions can also be requested: Mass account creation Maybe we could streamline/user-friendlify that process for the future? The Interior (Talk) 02:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

IP exemptions don't work if the venue doesn't have a static IP or you can't learn what that IP is in advance. I've corresponded with venues in advance of events and wrote emails asking for public IPs and the response that came back was the private block behind the NAT. OTOH, occasionally a venue will give unique, publicly routable IPs (i.e. not RFC 1918 IPs) to users that bring their own equipment and use venue WiFi. Account creators are also somewhat useful (as a side benefit) in order to keep track of who was created at the event in case some users don't sign the list on the event page. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of irrelevant fluff above but let me reiterate my point, that the event coordinators are always provided temporary access without issue. Unquestioned blanket grants for large groups which include nonestablished editors are not and have never been necessary or practiced, even if such groups conduct outreach programs. There's no reason the standard requesting venue shouldn't be sufficient for these coordinators. Swarm ♠ 03:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I and a couple of others have historically been the ones granting accountcreator rights for this campaign over the past three years that it has run, and there have been no abuses. It was a mistake to put this up as a Requests for permissions, and to put the burden on other admins. Myself and other admins working with the A+F campaign will process these accountcreators, and then remove them in the week after. It is important to note that we are in fact only adding one or a couple of coordinators per event, but there are 100+ in-person events for this campaign.--Pharos (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Pharos: Let me know if you need my help. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Me as well, Pharos. The Interior (Talk) 04:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA reviewer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am uncomfortable with the rate at which MeAsAPerson (talk · contribs) is passing GA nominations, with no proper review. Some intervention is very likely required and the articles renominated/reassessed. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) 00:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• All of those need to be rolled back. For those of us who are waiting for a review on an article we have put a lot of work into but would like serious feedback (ahem), for the reviews to be treated like that is ridiculous. That's not to say these articles don't pass the criteria, but you can't review something in 3 minutes. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations be appropriate? This editor has only been active for 3 weeks and I think those who are familiar with the GA process could give him/her feedback on how things are handled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a good idea and should be done, but I wanted to get attention to sort out these articles ASAP and don't have the time to be engaging in multiple discussions right now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Liz. The edits need to be rolled back, the GA pages deleted (hence why the request is here - we can't do that), and then the editor engaged in discussion as to why what they're doing is disruptive. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved (I nominated one of the affected articles) but I agree: the cleanest solution is to delete the GA pages, roll back the edits on the talk pages that replaced the nomination with a pass, and (if possible) manually adjust the time stamps and positioning on the GA nomination list, so we can return to the status quo and get these properly reviewed. There is no content to be saved from these "reviews", and no value to the project in using them as the basis for GA status. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Seven GA reviews in 38 minutes? That isn't even enough time to read the articles, much less assess them. This person needs to stop reviewing GAs now, and all of the reviews need to be unwound. We've had a few similar incidents in the past, and that's how it's been dealt with. What would really help is to have an admin delete the seven review pages. For now, I'll restore the various article talk pages to undo the passage, temporarily upping the page parameter by one so the bot doesn't attempt to reinstate the reviews, and then restoring it once the review pages have been deleted. If there isn't an available admin, I can request a speedy delete for each, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, how about a list of the pages you are referencing here? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, Xaosflux. Note that I have unwound the reviews, and MarnetteD has independently marked all the review pages (linked below) for speedy deletion.

• Talk:Book embedding/GA1
• Talk:Happy Refugees/GA1
• Talk:Diamond Rio/GA1
• Talk:Mary Isenhour/GA1
• Talk:Alasdair Cochrane/GA1
• Talk:Mount Washington (New Hampshire)/GA1
• Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/GA1

My edits were to the article talk page to restore the GA nominee template, and if a GA icon had been added to the article page, I removed that as well. In one case, the article name had been added on the GA pages, so I reverted that edit as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I should probably add that a few hours before these reviews were opened, the reviewer nominated the article Big Kap for GA. The article is so far from meeting the GA criteria that it clearly shows a lack of understanding of what a GA is. (The nomination was also unwound.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam at Language identification

Do we need all the spam to personal software libraries? Wikipedia is not a Listing Service for products. This (and similar pages) are full of personal product pages. I blocked somebody for posting a link where the URL included his name. He requested an unblock saying he is not a company. I looked and unblocked for username, then he proceeded to spam again. Before I start admonishing this user, there are many more in the same vein. Are we a listing service? I am tempted to remove the whole section on personal software development. Comments before action requested. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your comment at User talk:Diadistis. It seems this user was stopped by an edit filter when he tried to post the name of a software that included his own user name. He shouldn't be doing that, and a block should be considered if he doesn't get the message. If somebody wanted to clean up the Language identification page it wouldn't hurt. At List of search engines there is a local custom of only allowing entries that have their own articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. User warned (again), this time for spamming. List cleaned of spam. Added a page notice. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call, those links were not just spammy but clearly against the external links policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

IPBE - IP block exemption removals

This post is to inform the community that an audit of IP block exemption permission holders occurred over the course of the past month. Of the 269 users who held the right, only a small amount of the users demonstrate a need to continuing editing with IPBE. The remaining users had the IPBE right removed with the overwhelming reason being the user was affected by a hard block that has since expired. Other reasons for removal include extended inactivity (which can be restored if they return and demonstrate a need for IPBE), the original reason for issuing IPBE was insufficient, and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege.

After reviewing the permission log, I believe it would be beneficial to improve the documentation provided when issuing IPBE. A handful of requests only cited “per user request”. It would be helpful to include a link to the request to discern why it was granted. I also highly encourage admins to provide further documentation on the IP block exemption page.

It’s important to remember that issuing IPBE because the individual is a “trusted user” is not sufficient. It should only be granted in situations where the the user is unintentionally affected by a hard IP block or in exceptional circumstances needs to edit via anonymous means. Exceptional circumstances have usually included situations where there is a credible concern for one’s safety or if the editor lives in a location where Wikipedia is censored by the government. Requests for IBPE for general privacy reasons (e.g. “I wish to hide my IP address for personal reasons.”) have been declined by the functionary team in the past.

Before issuing IPBE, it’s usually a good idea to consult a checkuser. If it’s for a range block, we can privately make note of when it will expire and how long it may be needed. If it’s for editing through anonymous means, the functionary team should be contacted to discuss the reason for editing though an anonymous method and to verify the need.

Best regards, Mike V • Talk 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having participated in one or two similar audits over the years, I want to thank Mike V for his work on this. Something that is worth noting is that, as our project becomes ever more integrated with other Wikimedia projects (in particular Commons and Wikidata), IPBE on just our project may no longer really be the best solution for those users who have legitimate use for it. It may be time for us to consider routinely recommending that users apply for global IPBE if they edit any other Wikimedia site. Given that even in a busy year there aren't that many requests, this could be worthwhile.

  As an aside, when discussing the use of IPBE with some other administrators recently, I was asked what "bad" reasons I'd been given when requesting IPBE. The worst I've personally experienced is "I'm going to Cuba and want to use Tor to watch movies while I'm there." I've also been asked for IPBE by users whose usual VPN was soft-blocked; they'd become alarmed when seeing the message that the IP was blocked and missed the part about being able to log in. They didn't need IPBE, they needed to log in, and they would have had no problems - but if the user wasn't willing to reveal their IP to an administrator, the admin would have no way to verify the nature of the IP block (global, local, hard block, soft block, etc.). Administrators might want to keep this in mind, and consider reviewing with a checkuser before granting IPBE. Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  It might be worth mentioning a bit about the global flag on the IPBE page; that would be the best route for individuals who are blocked under global blocks and edit multiple projects. To make matters difficult, the global flag will not exempt users from local blocks, so in some cases both might need to be granted. On the policy side, I'll see if that can be changed, though I imagine that the original reason (don't let global rights override local restrictions) will stand and the potential for abuse would be much higher otherwise. As a note for the future, I'm not sure if global blocks were checked as part of this audit, but it would be worth doing. Especially in the past, users have been directed back to a project if they edit mainly on just one, even if they are trying to get exemption from a global block. It is one more list to check though, and I understand that this is an arduous process as-is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• In future, it would be helpful if admins removing user rights would actually tell the users directly, with an explanation, instead of hoping vaguely that they will find a thread that uses an obscure abbreviation in its header, on a message board that most editors do not watch or visit. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while I have no problem with this change, this explanation should have been posted beforehand, and the affected users pointed to it, rather than making us hunt around for it. – Smyth\^talk 12:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly an ignorant question, but don't all admins have IPBE because it's part of the admin bundle? If so, why is "trusted user" not a sufficient reason to grant this right? And why is there a need to remove it from productive editors who aren't actively using it? We don't do that for any other userright that I know of. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption is a more appropriate venue for that discussion. – Smyth\^talk 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves me, IPBE allows users to edit using Tor. An admin editing through Tor will still be subject to the block, even when logged in. Elockid ^{Message me} 12:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots and Administrators are ipblock-exempt, however tor blocks require an additional override torunblocked that is only on IPBE. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I realise this isn't the place to formally propose a change, but it seems to me that splitting the IPBE userright into two separate rights (one for editing via Tor and the other for general editing around a hardblock) could save a fair bit of effort in future. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24: We do have certain rights that are removed if they are not being used. The account creator right is only granted to active users in the education program or in the account creation process. Users who are no longer active in these roles may have the permission removed. The checkuser and oversight right must be used at least 5 times every 3 months to retain the permissions. A number of our editing rights are also subject to activity requirements. The bureaucrat, admin, and template editor rights are removed from editors who have been inactive for a year. Specifically for the bureaucrat role, they must meet the minimum level of bureaucrat activity in addition to the inactivity policy. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: At least with removal of admin or bureaucrat rights, people get advance notice and personal messages telling them about it. You did not bother to do either. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with people saying you should be warned about removal - this is meant to be a tempory right to get you round a block, not a long-term one. I think this sort of audit should be done every 6 months or so, with the right being removed without warning. Mdann52 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes with warning, there should be a clear message left when the right is granted indicated that all grants of IPBE are audited regularly and removed without notice if they are found to no longer be useful to the user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that message. The IPBE template says Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires). Perhaps we can encourage other admins to use it more often or pass on the important bits if leaving a more informal message. Mike V • Talk 02:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like Mike cares whether it remains useful to the user. While Mike himself could continue to edit using a VPN/proxy if he desired, evidently he won't allow others to do so unless they confess a dire need to him through direct e-mail. I think that is ridiculous and yet one more example of bureaucracy for its own sake run amok. I suppose I won't be editing again unless I happen to be traveling as I am now. I've made only a small number of edits over the last couple of years and I'm sure Mike considers that to be a solid tradeoff against the serious risk posed by my account having IPBE. Nathan ^T 04:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nathan, I've restored it. Mike, you need to explain now why you totally ignored the statement in the policy page, However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive. How are your actions preventive? Kindly heed policy instead of imposing your contrary interpretations of it. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: I see that User:LouisAlain is also blocked. You say that he is using a web host, and should edit through his normal service provider. He mentioned last year that he had switched ISPs and was now with Freebox, which is actually the name of their ADSL-VDSL-FTTH modem. These modems also function as WiFi hotspots for other Freebox customers, could that be causing the problem? Prevalence 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I edit rarely on en.wikipedia, but I want to leave the note that I'm extremly confused and surprised about this procedure. While I currently can edit without that right obviously, I use an ISP with few IP addresses shared by many users. This means, it is not unlikely that a vandal will cause another IP range block in the near future that I will be affected by. Where is the disadvantage of trusted users being granted this right? Is there any situation when the right can be abused by a user doing good edits? Furthermore, as I'm home to de.wikipedia where we have extremely strict rules regarding usage of CheckUser, I'm even more confused that it seems normal here to regularly checkuser accounts with only constructive edits just for some clean-up purposes, to find out what ISP and what country users edit from and to find out whether they use a VPN. Why wouldn't you allow trusted users to use a VPN if they feel safer doing so, although they can't prove their life to be in danger to Mike V? Maybe it is only financial or social risks and/or someone does not want to reveal his/her situation to Mike V? I wasn't aware of these policies and I will for sure never again apply for the IPBE right. Should I ever again run into a range block here, I will simply not do my planned edit. I'm more than astonished that the en.wikipedia community endures this procedure that doesn't make any sense to me besides doing it for its own sake while condoning its disadvantages. Goodbye. Yellowcard (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE"

Hi.

Quoting Mike V above, he said about the reasons of removing IPBE: "...and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege." Well, I assume I must be that case because my IPBE was removed with such an allegation. Mike V provided two reasons, but I am only here about the following. In email communication with functionaries mailing list, I receive the following responses:

While reviewing your contributions, it was found that you used the IPBE privilege to engage in an edit war on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Computing.

...

The edit warring occurred November 25, 2015.

Any further attempt to communicate was met with silence.

On 25 November 2015, there have only been five revisions to the alleged page. Two of them were made by me:[49][50] Only one is a revert. (The latter.) I have provided three reasons against the allegations of edit warring:

1. Two edits in one day in one page is by no standards edit warring, unless there is significant evidence of mens rea. Note: The dispute died then and there.
2. The editor against whom I committed the revert is 73.40.108.10: He is twice reverted by admins, once by Materialscientist and once by JamesBWatson. The block reason reads: "Disruptive editing, declared intention of defying Wikipedia policy, stalking, trolling, ..." He is committed to harassing me through hounding and this was one of those instances.
3. BRD is not a measure for edit warring in MOS pages because they are under discretionary ArbCom sanction. The onus of demonstrating community consensus before reinstating the change was with 73.40.108.10.

So, I am asking you guys: Do you really think I edit warred here? Or is it an accepted norm that functionaries like Mike V must simply accuse their target of edit warring as well?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: When you look up "Productive Wikipedia Editor in Good standing" in the dictionary, you see Codename Lisa's picture.[ Citation Needed ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. I can't discuss technical details on-wiki. You are welcome to discuss this with arbcom if you wish and I'll pass on my notes to them. As DoRD explained via email, edit warring was not the primary reason IPBE was revoked. Mike V • Talk 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike V, nobody asked you to do what you just said you can't. But you can very well not level unfounded heart-rending accusations like this. And please stop with this "not the only reason" flirt line; even if someone kills the entire Wikimedia Board of Trustees, you are not allow to call him an edit warrior. "F**aking murderer", yes, but "edit warrior" no.

You could also drop the edit warring charges. Then I'll heed your warning and get out of your face. —Codename Lisa (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You said that you didn't receive my email message, so here is the essence of what I wrote: You logged out and edited in violation of the sockpuppetry policy, which is more than enough to justify the removal of IPBE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And I wrote two reasons why that was also wrong. Plus, that still doesn't make me an edit warrior. Your sock accusation must have been too wafer-thin for you to have decided to bolster it with an outrageous edit warring claim. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Codename Lisa has given permission (See User talk:Codename Lisa#IPBE) to "allow all details regarding the allegation of edit warring on 15 November 2015 in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing to be revealed". May we now see some diffs showing edit warring or an apology and affirmation that there was none? It's OK to add a note saying that there were other reasons for the removal, but for the specific claim of edit warring, I want to see evidence in the form of diffs.

Wikipedia administrators lie in a world where many accusations of wrongdoing are made which fizzle out for lack of evidence. It is important to realize that some editors in good standing (Codename Lisa among them) strongly object to what they see as false accusations and want their name to be cleared. This is by no means a trivial desire; it may not seem important to an outsider but it is important to the person being accused, and that alone is sufficient reason to either present evidence or give a full apology that confirms that there is no evidence (not some "edit warring was not the primary reason IPBE was revoked" weasel words that let the accusation stand). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The logged-out editing I looked at was completely unrelated to, and quite a bit more recent than the November 25 edits. Mike's CU results were verified by two independent CheckUsers, once before removal of IPBE, and afterwards by me. On this point, there is no lack of evidence, but the privacy policy limits how much we can publicly say about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: Your refusal to get the point is disconcerting, DoRD. Understand this: The edit warring charge is one million time worse than any sock-puppetry. Sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry are alluring to any desperate contributor who hasn't tasted the sweetness of teamwork under the auspices of WP:DR, or who would feel strongly about losing. Edit warring in a MOS page? The editor who does it needs to be imprisoned. The only person who has so far accused me of edit warring in this fashion was the same stalker-troll I mentioned above. So, please throw anything you have to say about the removal of IPBE into the trash can; I am not pining for it as much as I am for being accused of edit warring by an oversighter and admin. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you are clearly uninterested in what I have to say about the matter, I will not be commenting further. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:, please reply here with the evidence about the use of IPBE to engage in edit warring by Codename Lisa. It seems to be totally inconsistent with the page history, and the accused editor has asked you quite reasonably to explain this further. You don't need to reveal e.g. IP addresses, just explain how it is possible that the only IP address used on that page that day (or the days before) was one that got reverted by Codename Lisa (and has since been blocked thrice, but not at that time). There were no other IP edits, the IP wasn't blocked, so how can IPBE have been misused here? The only thing I can see as possible is that she first tried to edit while logged out, and that that edit was logged as an IP blocked edit attempt; and that she then logged in to make that edit. Just supposing that this scenario is correct: that is not "misusing IPBE", that is "accidentally editing while logged out", which regularly happens to most of us. That that logged out edit came from a blocked IP address is exactly the reason why she has and needs IPBE, not a reason to remove that option. Fram (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't provide any further information because of the technical data involved and the privacy policy. Feel free to pass on any concerns to the arbitration committee and they can confirm it for you independently. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Apparently, this information is so private that I myself cannot see it in private. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I really do feel for you Codename Lisa; I've worked with you on WikiProject Microsoft for as long as I know (in fact, I was the editor that invited you), and I honestly can say that I trust you and your integrity as an editor so much that I would happily play Russian Roulette with six bullets for you, such is the level at which I think the allegations against you are false. It is so disheartening to see an editor who has undoubtably contributed so much to not just the technology articles in Wikipedia, but further afield too, be accused of the same heinous crimes that we might associate days old vandalising new users or school IPs with. I think it is incredible that Mike V can ignore the community's request for evidence, even to you in private, and that he can use such passive aggressive language ("You are welcome to discuss this with arbcom if you wish"? Seriously? Give me a break!) towards you just because he has the almighty power of CheckUser. I think this also draws further parallels with Yellowcard's statement and LouisAlain's situation (it's quite clear that his French host is doing something akin to BT in the UK, where customer routers also share their Wifi out to other BT customers through a login page) . The use of CheckUser on this Wikipedia is on par with Eastern German surveillance mechanisms; and not just the mechanisms, the system too. Where else can an editor with 70,000 edits be blocked from editing for not one, not two but four years? Where else can an confused editor be spun into a Donald Trump-esque speech line: "and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege", when what you've actually done is in defiance to every well established law system there is: "innocent until proven guilty"? Codename Lisa has not been proven guilty; what you're doing is akin to Russian style politics which even Putin would be proud of. DoRD's realised that Codename Lisa might be swaying people, then shut down the conversation: "I will not be commenting further". Mike V does the excellent tactic- "let's make this die down by refusing to give away any information, then everyone will forget about it and we can carry on as usual"- actual quote: "I can't provide any further information because of the technical data involved and the privacy policy", even to Codename Lisa herself. Yeah right. Even worse this is straight after Fram pointed out that Codename Lisa's accusation of sock puppetry was exactly why she needed IPBE- "That that logged out edit came from a blocked IP address is exactly the reason why she has and needs IPBE, not a reason to remove that option". Mike V has also, following in the same vein, failed to respond to Nyttend or Prevalence's point further up. It is clear that other Wikipedias have it done correctly- the French Wikipedia is a lot more flexible with their handing-out of IPBE, and the German Wikipedia is miles more strict with their use of CheckUser. However, despite the lack of either the French or German Wikipedia to cry for help because they are facing an unprecedented wave of vandalism due to their policies, Mike V and others refuse to admit they are wrong. As brilliantly put by RexxS, "the only loser if we refuse to restore IPBE is the English Wikipedia." I am actually genuinely feeling at the moment as if I am writing a farewell to Codename Lisa, an editor who has contributed 38,839 edits to this community project and is being accused, of all things, of sockpuppetery (which also raises the question of her non-existent motive for doing so). Thank you for your time, and I can only hope that someone decides to scream blue murder and spread the message of how a couple of excellent long-term editors are being swept away and alienated from the project by a select few who think they know it all. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: I truly believe that you have a misunderstanding of the privacy policy. I'm not using it as a means to stop the questions. Rather, I've openly encourage Codename Lisa to seek a review from other checkusers or the arbitration committee. The confidentiality agreement is a legally binding contact between the functionaries and the WMF. Breaching it would undoubtably have serious legal ramifications, not to mention the loss of the trust between the community and the functionary team. The community expects us to keep this information private, even in moments where others may view it as inconvenient. Mike V • Talk 21:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thank you for your quick response. But here we go again, as Codename Lisa has agreed to "allow all details regarding the allegation of edit warring on 15 November 2015 in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing to be revealed", but you refuse to. I am sure that her wishes have been made quite explicitly, and they should be followed; however, if that cannot be done, then Codename Lisa should at least be emailed the details in private. This is another example of what I talked about- how can we allow a long term editor to attempt to defend themselves, in front of ArbCom no less, when they have no idea what they are being accused of and what evidence they are trying to refute. You have also failed to answer my other points- you have now been told by both myself and Prevalence of a rational, logical explanation behind LouisAlan's CheckUser outcome, and not yet resolved it; and also failed to respond to Nyttend, failed to respond to Fram's point and ignored the point- the other CheckUsers can see exactly the same results as you- but it is the interpretation that matters. If you are going to accuse a well-respected editor of sockpuppetry and edit warring, then you should answer the questions raised, not just ignore them. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: Codename Lisa has sent me an email stating that she is rescinding her permission to post her technical data. (See mentioned backing out of the review on her user talk page.) We usually don't provide the technical data to those who have been found to be in violation of policy because, quite frankly, it makes it easier to get away with it next time. (Nor does policy expect us to provide it in the first place.) I've already responded about LouisAlain at ANI and to Nyytend on his talk page. Fram's scenario, while made in good faith, is not consistent with the information at hand. It think it bears repeating that this has been confirmed by two other checkusers and they agree that there is a solid basis for my statements. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: For clarification, I have a pixel-perfect idea of what technical data you are talking about: MediaWiki is free and open-source; all I had to do was to download a copy of it using Microsoft WebMatrix. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:: In the case of LouisAlain, your actions, followed by his comment saying he was banned until Feb 11, 2019, allowed me to identify with near certainty not only the IP range but also the exact (static) IP address (88...31) he was using, so there are some holes in that privacy policy (and before someone suggests it, let me say that keeping the hardblocked IP's secret is not an acceptable option). I repeat that that is almost certainly the address of a Freebox modem/router belonging to an ISP subscriber, not a web host (the modems have a built-in webserver, RAS..., and also function as WiFi hotspot for other Freebox subscribers). That range shouldn't have been blocked as webhostblock. Free SAS (proxad.net, AS12322) seems to have a reputation as spam ISP, maybe open proxies, but if any open proxies exist in that range, they should be blocked individually, since they seem to be privately owned (at least the .31 address). Prevalence 06:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually read the above mélange. It is clear that no edit war per se occurred - so we can basically drop that as a rationale of any worth. What we have is an accusation of sock-puppetry, which appears, on its face, and having some knowledge of what CU could and could not do on AOL/CompuServe, to be weak enough that Mike V well ought to consider the possible merits of backing down instead of insisting that his actions are right because he is able to take those actions. There are time when being able to do something is not quite the same as having it be right to do it. Collect (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are two points I'd like to make here:

• Some commenters here seem to misunderstand what IPBE does. It allows only logged in users to use otherwise blocked IP adresses. It cannot be used by anonymous IP users.
• I do think we are too stingy in granting IPBE. The solution to that is not to berate MikeV, but rather to work to loosen the policy. An RFC seems in order to accomplish that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What is good cause for the exemption/changing the policy

Mike V I had requested the permission, received it, and now lost it in this audit. My request was not due to privacy (wanting to hide my IP) but rather security. I travel on business relatively often, and am forced to use airport or hotel wifi for internet access. It is virtually unanimously recommended by security professionals to use a VPN in such circumstances to avoid hacking as those connections are notoriously insecure. Similar recommendations are regularly made for those editing at Starbucks, school wifi, or any non-trusted environment. All major VPN vendors are currently blocked by IP blocks.

This policy forces people either to not edit wikipedia, or to expose themselves to significant hacking risk, including risk outside of wikipedia .many people have automatically fetching emails, or other syncs. Many people need to conduct non-wikipedia business such as banking simultaneously. Even merely connecting to the WiFi and not doing any browsing or work is risky as there are numerous vulnerabilities which include the ability to infect the users computer with malware and viruses when not protected.

Although I understand the restriction being on by default for anonymous and named accounts, I am somewhat confused by the purpose of the policy for established and trusted editors. The exemption is bound to one's account. It does not allow one to sock or commit vandalism anonymously or anything. Indeed, by asking for the permission one has drawn additional attention and scrutiny to ones-self making it more difficult to get away with such actions.

Is this a community policy? a WMF policy? What would be the process for going about changing what "acceptable reasons" are? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I note that my request to get the right was done through a request to the functionaries, and Mike's removal of that right with the reasoning that my request was insufficient seems to be weak-sauce if the functionaries evaluated it and allowed it. Mike's post reads like this was an official audit, but on further reading it seems that this is a unilateral action? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created an RFC on this topic Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#Less_restrictive_IPBE_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Using a VPN or Tor or other anonymizing proxy changes the way a user's IP address is presented to Wikipedia servers. When you request for wikipedia.org in your browser, your computer would first connect to the VPN server, which then connects to Wikipedia's servers, which sends it back the VPN server, which passes it back to you. The VPN is like a middle man. You see Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia servers see the VPN's IP address, instead of yours. Thus, if a user were to create one account through a VPN and one account through a normal Internet connection, they would appear to a CheckUser to be two separate users, even though the accounts were created on the same computer. This is the reason why all of the VPN and Tor IP addresses are hard-blocked, and this is also the reason why arbitrarily giving out IP block exemption to users who aren't trusted and who don't have an exceptional need for it is against policy. It creates a risk of uncheckable sock-puppetry. Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this use of CheckUser fit within policy?

How does using CheckUser to confirm continued need for IPBE fit in with the global and local policies on CheckUser usage? It seems to me that checking accounts to confirm if they still need the flag does not fit under any of the local policy points; it isn't vandalism, there is no evidence of sock puppetry, there is no suggestion of disruption, and there don't seem to be any concerns about bad faith editing. I'm just talking about routine auditing of users with the right here - obviously, in cases where it is suspected that the flag is being abused, CU action could be warranted under policy.

As demonstrated by the responses here and on the IPBE talk page, I wonder if there is a better way to do these audits. I know that most other projects simply ask users if they still need the flag - if the user is inactive, states that they no longer need it, or there are legitimate grounds to believe that they are using the flag for disruption then it can be removed (and investigated in the last case). But this routine checking of good-faith accounts seems strange to me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not in compliance with policy at all - the only possible jusification could be to prevent disruption but all it has done is cause disruption. User:Mike V, please restore the IPBEs you removed. Please also pledge not to use checkuser for such "audits" in future unless you have consensus from an RfC. There has been significant opposition to these actions here, at WT:IPBE, and at User talk:Mike V from users in good standing. If you don't revert, I'll ask Arbcom to remove CU from your account. Fences&Windows 10:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've outline here and on my talk page how it falls within policy. I don't think it's fair to equate removing IPBE as "disruption" as we normally use it to describe instances of vandalism, block evasion, sockpuppetry, etc. I believe that you've missed my initial posting, where I mentioned that a vast majority of users are no longer affected by the range block for which they were issued IPBE. Our present policy encourages its removal. I disagree that there is significant opposition to this. Of the 200 users who had the right removed, only approximately 25 contacted me, with a fair amount just asking for clarification. Nevertheless, if you feel the policy should change you are welcome to start an RfC. Mike V • Talk 14:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You have addressed how it fits into the IPBE policy; I am concerned with how it fits into the check user policy. In particular, what the justification could be for checking accounts in absence of any evidence of disruption. If this practice violates the policy on check user usage, then it should stop regardless of an RfC on the topic. I am trying to find out if there is a justification for it, not pillory you for happening to perform the audit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The checkuser policy does not limit checks to cases where there is evidence of disruption. Mike V's review showed few problems. That was not the case in previous reviews; on more than one occasion we found sockpuppetry and significant inappropriate use. Now, it may be that because there were problems found in the past, administrators are more cautious in giving out the permission, and the current holders were much more benign. But that has not always been the case. Risker (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't just disruption. It can be used for sockpuppetry investigations and preventing vandalism too, but I'm not sure how either of those would fit. If there is reasonable evidence of disruption then the checks are warranted. I'm just not sure how they are without an a priori rationale. (Also not sure about your comment on global blocks. Stewards tend to follow the CU policy pretty closely) Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The local CheckUser policy states that the tool can be used to prevent potential disruption. There is no prerequisite for evidence of already-committed disruption to conduct a CheckUser, only evidence that there is a serious concern to suspect potential disruption, and granting IP block exemption does create a significant potential for disruption. Editing through a VPN or Tor obscures a user's technical information from CheckUsers, such as their IP address, so if a user were to edit with one account through an VPN and a sockpuppet account through a normal Internet connection, there would be no way to connect the two accounts with CheckUser data. To prevent this kind of uncheckable sockpuppetry from happening, the IP addresses of VPNs and Tor exit nodes are permanently hard-blocked. IPBE allows users to circumvent the hardblock, creating a potential for disruption. Therefore, CheckUsers are jointly permitted by the IPBE and the CheckUser policies to review, at any time, IP block exemption users, and remove the flag from accounts that are abusing it or that no longer need it. Mz7 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the right and what it does, thanks. Your explanation of the IPBE being reason enough to suspect disruption is the best I've heard so far, though it still sounds a lot like fishing to me. Meh, maybe I just have a view of the policy that is unreasonably restrictive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. User privacy is indeed something we must take seriously, and I'm glad you're considering it. However, IPBE is not a "no big deal" flag. It presents us with certain risks that we also have to take seriously. When users sign up for IPBE, they need to understand that it is a big deal, and CheckUser will be used (multiple times) to see if it is actually needed. Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Could you or anyone else please CONCRETELY explain what is the big deal behind the IPBE? It is granted to trusted users only; so where is the risk if these trusted users use the right to use VPNs to edit from unsecure environments? This is exactly what Gaijin42 asked above as well. I could not find any comprehensible concrete explanation yet, but only very general statements ("It is a big deal", "It can be abused", "We have to checkuser the accouts regularly"). Where is the risk if a trusted user has this flag, even if he/she only needs it once a year for one constructive edit? Yellowcard (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

An IPBE user can have a sockpuppet using his IP while the IPBE account hides behind a proxy or VPN address. Therefor people who don't hide behind VPNs or proxies should not have the right.

PS: daily reminder (only 1080 days to go): Our French colleague whose IP address was hardblocked because "webhost" and a week later had his IPBE removed because "they don't need it", they should be posting via their ISP. Find the odd one out:

• ali75-5-88-190-63-30.fbxo.proxad.net
• bel69-1-78-193-129-62.fbxo.proxad.net
• chx35-1-78-196-231-101.fbx.proxad.net
• ran75-5-88-190-64-31.fbxo.proxad.net
• ple49-1-78-197-28-55.fbx.proxad.net
• heu75-4-78-192-175-72.fbxo.proxad.net
• seg75-8-88-175-63-30.fbx.proxad.net
• pta27-1-88-178-27-45.fbx.proxad.net
• plm56-1-88-188-63-30.fbx.proxad.net

Reverse lookup of eight randomly selected IPs out of the millions of addresses assigned to Free ASA customers, and the address of LouisAlain, or of "the web host he is using". A web hosting company that accidentally uses the same host names as an ISP, in a range that belongs to that ISP...

Don't understand why no admin takes 30 seconds to fix this problem (where's a nyttend when you need him?). Perhaps it would violate the privacy policy, by admitting it was indeed his IP address? Prevalence 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yellowcard: The IP block exemption flag allows its user to commit uncheckable sock puppetry. I posted this a little further up so I guess I'll rehash/copy it here: Using a VPN or Tor or other anonymizing proxy changes the way a user's IP address is presented to Wikipedia servers. When you request for wikipedia.org in your browser, your computer would first connect to the VPN server, which then connects to Wikipedia's servers, which sends it back the VPN server, which passes it back to you. The VPN is like a middle man. You see Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia servers see the VPN's IP address, instead of yours. Thus, if a user were to edit with one account through a VPN and another account through a normal Internet connection, they would appear to a CheckUser to be two separate users, even though the accounts were created on the same computer. This is the reason why all of the VPN and Tor IP addresses are hard-blocked, but IPBE bypasses hard-blocks. Without occasional CheckUser reviews of IPBE, users can and will get away with this.

As a further matter, the community has been known to trust users who eventually had their advanced permissions removed due to abuse. Risker notes above that IPBE has, in multiple instances, been used to commit sock puppetry or other inappropriate behavior. And established editors whom we generally trusted have also been known to commit egregious sock puppetry, and were only caught because they did something else, and only with CheckUser evidence. Current policy is to allow "trusted" users to use VPN and Tor, with the caveat that they only hold the flag when they need it. My advice to users traveling would be to simply wait till you get back if it's a short trip—only request IPBE if it's a longer stay, and ask for it to be disabled when you get back. It's a little less convenient, but it's necessary. It's how we've been doing it for years. Mz7 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7, for clearing that up. However, this behaviour should be possible for anyone without the IPBE as well by just using a smartphone (mobile internet access) and a desktop PC (using his/her standard ISP). By doing so – and that will be possible to most of us –, checkusers wouldn't have any chance to detect sockpuppets, either. Hiding sockpuppets is not only about using different IP ranges (which is easy for anyone, you don't need a VPN or TOR knot to do that), but to consequently distinguish between your accounts with every edit. IPBE doesn't help with that, it won't even give you an advantage. So I don't really see why you wouldn't grant trusted users the IPBE right to edit from unsecure places just because someone could use that right to hide his sockpuppet – while he could do that by other, easier means as well. Yellowcard (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A cell tower would probably be geolocated to at least the same country as you, if not the same general region. If I understand it correctly, a WHOIS report will inform a CheckUser that an IP address is a mobile internet network. I think these results are enough for a CheckUser to declare a connection  Possible. Combined with behavioral evidence, an account could be blocked. (I have no CheckUser experience, just speculating here.) However, using a VPN or Tor would almost always return  Inconclusive, since the VPN server could be located in Sweden, while you're editing from Australia. Tor nodes bounce even more times around the world.

However, I see what you're saying. I think if you have been editing for a while in good standing, and regularly access public or insecure WiFi, and genuinely wish to improve your security through a VPN, you should be allowed to do so as long as you are willing to accept the occasional CheckUser to make sure you still need it. I don't see the need for IPBE, however, if you're just going to use it once or twice a year. Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The reality of geolocation is much less nice; I often find my own IP geolocating to a different city, province, and sometimes even country depending on the site and time. Mobile ranges are also very sketchy when it comes to geolocation. I am not the most experienced CheckUser on Wikimedia, but I have enough experience to say that any result based on geolocation is really dependent on the behavioural evidence. Socking is ultimately pretty easy for someone with the technical know-how to do it, and it is much easier to sock with mobile ranges than using a VPN.

I have a big problem with your last statement. I just don't believe that trusted users should have their privacy invaded on a whim, to hunt down abuse that may or may not be occurring (again, absent any compelling a priori rationale for disruption happening). And I assume this isn't happening for sysops or stewards, despite both groups being exempt from IP blocks. Yes, there is potential for abuse - but abuse can happen anywhere on these sites. It's about finding a reasonable balance between security and openness, while at the same time not unnecessarily invading user privacy. As I said above, I have no complaints using the bit to check cases where there is good cause to suspect disruption, and I have no issues with routine audits that don't invade user privacy. But this stretch of the CheckUser policy does not sit well with me. The end goal of the CheckUser right is to prevent disruption to Wikimedia projects; this seems to be a very roundabout way of achieving that goal. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the geolocation. I agree that there needs to be a balance between security and openness that doesn't unnecessarily infringe on user privacy. The issue I see is, without periodic CheckUser reviews, IPBE could be held indefinitely even when there is no active need for it. The question, then, is whether this is an acceptable trade-off for increased user privacy. To be honest, I have limited experience with IPBE, only knowledge from reading about it. I don't know exactly how the IPBE flag has been abused in the past, only hypothetical scenarios I create in my mind. Perhaps I'm the one being too paranoid about it. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mz7, I can basically follow your point. However, you're talking about a concrete sockpuppet suspicion. Sure, if you have two accounts that are suspect to sockpuppetry, it makes it more likely if one account edits only via mobile and the other only via stationary ISP and both even from the same area. However, the situation wouldn't be changed too much if the one account always edits from a VPN and has the IPBE instead of using mobile internet access: The assumptions would be totally the same. Condition to both is that you have a concrete suspicion and in that case it would be plausible to me to revoke an account's IPBE. However, in this case, a checkuser checked very many completely unsuspicious accounts and revoked the IPBE from every account that he did not consider suited for having it. To me, the latter is a much too anxious and strict procedure as you refuse many accounts the possibility to edit from an unsecure environment just to avoid a scenario of abuse that is a) very unlikely and b) to be reached by other and easier means as well. Ajraddatz made the important point: Hiding socks is possible if you have a certain knowledge about the technology behind it; having this knowledge, using mobile access is much easier and just as effective as using a VPN. Revoking the IPBE from constructive and unsuspicious accounts doesn't help either way. Yellowcard (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. My understanding this whole time was that it is a major security risk to have IPBE sitting on accounts indefinitely without an exceptional need for it. If in fact, as you say, this is not the case, then I agree with you. An idea lab-like discussion appears to be taking place at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Proposals for RfC over how the policy could be amended. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Racist Refdesk Troll Countermeasures

Hello to all,

As you may know, the Reference Desks have been put under a sustained attack by sockpuppets of LTA Soft skin. (Please note that Soft skin is not likely the original account; there are others.) They have created over 160 sockpuppets -- and that's just by tallying up the named ones reported to SPI! They geolocate to Alberta, Canada, and Globalive Wireless is probably the provider. The refdesks have had to be protected numerous times, and each individual spree can involve handfuls of socks at a time. There has been quite intensive discussion over how to deal with this, but there has been no conclusive course of action, and RBI seems to be the only option.

I am proposing to contact the provider (Globalive) and ask them to look into this. The abuse and disruption has lasted for months (maybe as long as a year), and while I don't know the minutiae of Canada's hate crime or internet laws, this is getting really egregious. I suggested this at the SPI a while back, and MarnetteD also mentioned this possibility. While I cannot cite the incident chapter and verse, I am aware that we have used some similar tactics in the past.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance,

GAB^Hello! 00:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Abuse response. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: According to Wikipedia:Abuse response, this process retired in November 2013... Is it still currently being used? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Largely because its goal (organizing Wikipedia users and empowering them to contact ISPs to seek remediation against trolls) was almost universally ignored by said ISPs. As in, there's not a damned thing we can do except WP:RBI and hope he gets bored. --Jayron32 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Globalive Wireless is Wind Mobile. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is much interest from the side of the WMF to get involved in such cases, but I hope I'm wrong about that. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe next time he's there, you could point him toward User talk:Soft skin. I could have a chat with him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This IP: 86.187.166.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was added to the sockpuppet investigation. [51] I'm not sure if they are related or not... can someone check on this? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless its a proxy or the troll is on vacation, probably not. That IP geolocates to London, England. Our racist troll normally edits from IPs that geolocate to Alberta, Canada.--Jayron32 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's always the option of blocking everyone on the ISP from editing collateral be damned. That's obviously not a real option but the threat of such may spur them into action. Otherwise, the only option is as Jayron32 says. RBI with maximum prejudice. Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is unlikely to have any effect. Blocking people on an ISP from editing just means they wont be able to edit. Its unlikely to cause them to complain to their ISP, and even if they did, their ISP is not liable for any denial of service as a result, as they can still utilise wikipedia's primary function (that of being an encyclopedia). From experience the only thing that gets ISP's to take action when they have a problem user they are refusing to do anything about is to actively block them from utilising any aspect of the service. For websites this means denying incoming requests and/or redirecting to a 'You may not access this website due to X' splash screen. An ISP's entire customer base being unable to edit - not really a problem for them. An ISP's entire customer base being unable to even view wikipedia - much bigger issue. Of course this would never be approved by the wikipedia community, but its really the only sure way to deal with the bigger ISP's. Make it more expensive for them to deal with the complaints from their customers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would solve our immediate problem, if it's technically possible to do it. Or would it be possible to prevent users from that ISP posting to the reference desks? Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, the point is to stop that troll from hitting the RefDesk. If there isn't a huge amount of collateral damage, that may turn out to be an option. The point isn't to stop people accessing WP, but to stop the troll editing. Ideally, it would do little to hinder to average user but maximally disrupt the troll's ability to rant on the refdesk. However, I'm operating under no illusions that there will be no collateral damage. Blackmane (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert but it seems, looking at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format, that disallowing edits on certain pages by certain IP addresses is technically possible. Consider asking at WP:EFN. BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I know this comment doesn't directly address your question about blocking hundreds of sockpuppets but doesn't Wikipedia have edit filters that don't allow editors to post comments with racist language? Should these filters be expanded to include other offensive language? By that I mean racist slurs, not regular words that can be used in a derogatory manner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Capital idea, but there may be some difficulties with that - I'll email you with more details, as the LTA is almost certainly watching this page closely. Sorry for my paranoia. GAB^Hello! 00:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Using edit filters is not likely to be effective. The troll usually does not start out with openly racist speech or hate speech, so that the troll would be able to start out. (After all, trolling originally referred to a fishing practice of dragging bait through the water to see if any fish would bite. It did not consist of using dynamite.) Making the edit filters so expansive as to prevent any threads that can become offensive would cause very deep collateral damage. For instance, today's episode involved a question about the "Holocaust hoax", but Wikipedia really does cover Holocaust denial, and an edit filter would interfere with encyclopedic edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

An edit filter exists already. See this filter here. He started with the "black brutality" bullshit, and a filter was created to stop that. After he got annoyed with trying to find ways around that filter, he switched up to the antisemitic stuff. It's only of limited utility to stop very specific formulations, and it doesn't take much creativity to beat. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on some of the SPI stuff, I've updated the the LTA. The editor historically had some fixation with sexual health issues particularly STIs from oral sex. Also I'm fairly sure this is the same as an editor who's been around since at least 2013 who at the time normally geolocated to Toronto. At the time, many of their contribs were less blatant. They would argue stuff about race and IQ or whatever but would normally stop short of clear cut trolling behaviour except for occasionally doing stuff like calling another editor a "negress" with a low IQ. But in a recent case they quickly went from asking about black IQ to suggesting blacks shouldn't vote. They've always liked to talk about denialism or liberal bias.

BTW some IP ranges have already been blocked. Some of these are hard blocks some are soft blocks but all have account creation disabled which means they've obviously using different IPs at least to create accounts. As I understand it, an edit filter cannot affect accounts based on IP, otherwise it would effectively be a CU and be considered a privacy problem. I presume our CUs have already evaluated blocking extra IPs but have decided it isn't feasible. So yeah, RBI is the only option.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please hide these edit summaries

IP user attacked and insulted another editor in [52] and [53]. Also, he posted a false warning [54]. --Zyma (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

I no longer have need of the IPBE flag; please remove. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

All done!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock advice requested

The indefinitely blocked user Taokaka has taken part in extensive socking (SPI) using both accounts and IPs. I previously rangeblocked them on 172.56.38.0/23. They still use this range from time to time, but that range now has too much collateral (Taokaka usually only edits aviation articles, anti-vandalism and AIV). However they are actively using 172.58.32.0/23 and have been for a while. I looked in a wider range and this seems to be the smallest non-collateral damage range possible. Can I please have feedback on the choice of range, and if/how long a block would be appropriate? Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I calculated a /20 range based on those three IPs, and I agree there's too much collateral for a long-term block. Sadly, I think the range could be as big as a /14, based on the newest suspect, 172.58.33.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which began editing yesterday. Unless we want to block that range and force those anons to register via ACC, I don't see a way around the IP block evasion. Katie^talk 15:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like these are all part of T-Mobile dynamic range 172.32.0.0/11 (172.32.0.0 - 172.63.255.255) so it may continue to rotate throughout, T-Mobile likely segments this out geographically in to the ranges that are being observed - but fall out could be big for this provider. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I note that this user is using IPv6 addresses typically in 2602:306:3357:BA0/64, and also note that there is considerable overlap of IP addresses with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu/Archive, both in 172.56.32/20 and 172.58.32/20 and for example 208.54.5.204 (talk · contribs · block log). I am not saying a range block isn't worth it, but it would need to be a lot wider to be effective -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Topic Ban imposed on User:Nadirali due to a Conditional Unblock

User	Type of Warning (relevant policies / conditional unblock)	Warning (quoted verbatim, or linked)	Diff of action	Issuing Editor(s)	Date of Issue (yyyy-mm-dd)	Expiry Date (yyyy-mm-dd)
Nadirali	WP:COPYVIO, WP:NFC	I am unblocking you under the following conditions: You are hereby topic banned from uploading images on Wikipedia indefinitely. Should you wish to ask for this ban to be suspended, you may do so at WP:AN after not violating the ban for 1 year. If you violate this ban, you will be blocked indefinitely and a siteban will be proposed at WP:ANI (considering your past actions). Please take the proper precautions to ensure you do not violate this ban, and I hope you realize that we are being very generous to lift this block at all. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)	Original offer for conditional unblock by uninvolved admin Agreement on restrictions by user Granted Unblock Request	Coffee	2016-02-24	Indefinite - (can be suspended upon user's request at WP:AN on 2017-02-24 if no violations have occurred)

• Admin note - This ban has been logged at WP:ER/UC. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you asking us to review your block, or something like that? I don't understand the big box, or if you have another reason for leaving this message, I don't understand your reason. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Official" topic bans imposed by a single admin are kind of a new thing, I'm assuming this is intended just to notify other admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one uncomfortable with this? I don't really object to having a topic ban imposed by a single admin as a condition of unblocking. I am opposed to such a thing where the user is restricted from appealing the ban for a fixed amount of time, especially something as long as a year. I can easily see a newer user agreeing to something that is inappropriate and then not having a means of appeal. Note: I've not looked into this case and I'm not making any claim at all it was inappropriate in this case. Merely that the idea that community review of a single admin's action can't be appealed for a period of time, especially a period as long as a year, seems troubling and against the general spirit of how Wikipedia works. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  If the editor agrees, I'm not uncomfortable in general - however I'm not really in favor of some of these specifics. 1:These type of restrictions should able to be appealed without delay; think about it - will we really say "sorry it is only 11 months, come back for your appeal next month"? 2:These should not be 'indefinite', suggest capping at 1 year. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Restrictions against vexatious appeals are pretty standard language for ArbCom bans and blocks. Without saying whether it is or is not appropriate for this one case, it happens a lot in other types of bans. --Jayron32 16:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  It does and I'm not faulting Coffee for following that standard. I'm just uncomfortable with it given it's just one admin and A) I see potential for abuse and B) it goes against what I view as a governance principle of Wikipedia: individuals can be BOLD in their actions, but those actions should be reasonably review-able by others. Preventing the review of an action taken by one person, especially for as long as a year, seems problematic to me. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

These bans can lead to confusion. I recall an editor last year who believed they were under a topic ban indefinitely. I looked for the admin who imposed the topic ban, they had quit the project years ago and the original ban was only for a year. It didn't help that the topic ban was buried in user talk page archives. It helps that this one is logged at the Editing Restrictions page but that doesn't always happen so other admins are clueless if the ban is appealed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem here, the ban was the condition upon which the editor was unblocked. If the editor didn't agree with it, they could have just stayed blocked and pursued an unblock using normal procedures. Conditional unblocks are hardly a new thing, nor is negotiation between an admin willing to unblock and an editor wanting to be unblocked. Nothing new here, folks. BMK (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is objecting to this specific action - more that it is opening discussion for future standards. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BMK has summed it up quite nicely. It would be good if this sort of notification becomes standard practice. When one goes through [{CAT:RFU]] and look at some of the discussions that go on at the blocked users' talk page, you will occasionally see some negotiation between admin(s) and the blocked user. However, once the blockee is conditionally unblocked, the only way to know these conditions is to browse archives or talk page histories, which is a nuisance. Worse still is if the blockee doesn't remember or is reluctant to provide proof of past sanctions it then falls to the memory of users involved in the original negotiation. This is not ideal. AN/ANI has a lot of traffic so it is a good thing to leave a notification that an edit restrictoin has been logged and where it is logged. Blackmane (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm on vacation at the moment. I will consider this when I get back and may start an RfC on the issue later. Again, I've not looked at this specific case and have no opinion on it. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hobit: Not sure if you had a look, but I've posted my thoughts below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Coffee: There's some thoughts which I'd like to bring your attention to, and the attention of other admins to - both with reference to the norm, and this particular case.
• Firstly, I think clear reference should be made to the fact that the unblocked user specifically agreed to the restriction proposed by OhNoItsJamie; this is necessarily a common theme at WP:ER/UC. Why? The community has historically declined individual administrators imposing topic bans outside of sanction regimes (such as DS or probation), but if the user has agreed to conditions of the binding topic ban prior to the unblock & logging of the topic ban, they can't suggest that admin authority was exceeded. I suppose a scenario where conditions are not agreed in advance might be where an user is for some reason blocked without proper cause, and then another administrator conditionally unblocks the user with an unwarranted restriction (including conditions that the user cannot appeal the ban to the community for 1 year). I think the voluntary nature of it should still be clarified at least in the log, and in any case of conditional unblocks really.
• Secondly, the appeal restriction can be problematic sometimes. I agree with Hobit's first instinct that in the usual course, preventing review of a restriction should not really be an enforceable condition in the way framed here. It can be a very wise recommendation, but that's all. Even if appeal is prevented to the community, there should be clear guidance about taking it to ArbCom in that instance in the conditions. If I am asked to elaborate on that, I can. But that said, given the user is sufficiently familiar with ArbCom given the history and 1 year is reasonable given the broad nature of the restriction (uploading images on Wikipedia), I don't see any need for any of that in this specific case.
• Lastly, I don't think there is anything wrong with an indefinite restriction of no less than 1 year if appropriate. I think it's appropriate in this specific case. My view anyway - being that overall, this is fair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Three things, 1. For Hobit and Xaosflux's situational awareness, according to the blocking policy "Administrators have discretion to set the expiry of unblock conditions, provided that: The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after more than a year (including indefinite) may expire up to and including indefinitely", also the indefinite nature of the ban was discussed with the editor before the unblock was made and they agreed to it. 2. @Ncmvocalist: I've updated the ban notice here (during this edit) and at WP:ER/UC to include the voluntary nature of the ban for clarity's sake. 3 @Nyttend: My only intention in posting this here is so that other admins are aware of the restriction; it's an informational post, nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump --> Drumpf courtesy of Chrome browser Drumpfinator - heads-up

Hey all, just a heads up that the John Oliver Show has released a politically jokey Chrome extension that will replace "Donald Trump" with "Donald Drumpf" (the surname of his ancestors). (See video around 20:00 for mention of app, and 18:43 for explanation of Drumpf.) I've tested it and it does also change Donald Trump to Drumpf in the edit window, so this is very likely to cause some accidental changes across a number of articles. I wouldn't automatically assume that they're all vandalism. I seem to recall someone using a plug-in a while back that would change "political correctness" to "respect", and the editor totally forgot that s/he had it installed. It caused some irritation. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

We had trouble this morning with vandals intentionally changing 'Trump' to 'Drumpf' in several related articles as well, particularly the one about his father. Hopefully it will die down as the week goes on, only to be revived next Sunday night. :-/ Katie^talk 22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would hope this sort of thing would die down, but some things are more important the Wikipedia. Like quality comedy! Make Donald Drumpf again! HighInBC 18:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful there, buster - he might sue you. He does have all the best words. Katie^talk 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot get blood from a stone. Besides, I hear he threatens to sue far more often than he sues. HighInBC 17:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh. I blocked a new username, User:MakeTrumpDrumpfAgain, today, after googling it and learning the phrase was "trending" on social media. Being an admin in this place is so educational! Bishonen | talk 21:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

All the best words - but not necessarily in the best order. NebY (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Something 'trending on social media' isn't really complimentary; it generally means "the morons are awake".

• Comment: Donald Drumpf has been nominated for RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that page should be added to the blacklist or salted. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Donald Drumpf needs to be made great again (hope I don't get an empty legal threat from the Donald for that), there exists an article named Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), which is probably one of the few articles, aside from Trump (surname) and Donald Trump, where "Drumpf" is used intentionally in a constructively way. Otherwise, it will probably be prudent to salt the term "Drumpf." epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Selective reversions

A well-intended, but misguided user spent hours doing changes based on a wrong understanding. (See User talk:Cynulliad#Alphabetical order.) The problems are:

1. Those edits are mixed with helpful edits, so a simple revert is often not possible.
2. There are (at least) 144 instances, so some degree of automatization is needed.
3. While many edits are neatly summarized as "Alphabetical order", the user only started adding summaries recently. There may be more such edits among those that just have no summary.

Is there a way to selectively only revert the bad ones? (I am an administrator, but I didn't see any tool for that under Reverting. I also asked this question some 30 hours ago at WP:HD, but no suggestion came up.) Also, it would be nice to filter a user's edits for such edits (that is, edits that are mostly just small texts moved around, with maybe a comma or an "and" added, or an "an" changed to an "a".) Sebastian 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. And the best place to ask would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - that's where the technical experts tend to hang out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for monitoring a user's contributions

With difficulty I must post this: I am sorry to report something like an unwanted edit warring here, regarding to one of the user's improper changes on both English and Persian Wikipedias. Unfortunately, he had been blocked for three days on Persian Wikipedia regarding to some direct ethnic insults and underestimating kindly admonitions of experienced users. But, he has so many improper changes to both English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, some of which has been reverted by several experienced Wikipedians. I do not want to continue useless struggles with him. So, I just want to ask someone, to investigate the user's contributions. There are some Wikipedians on the Persian Wikipedia who have investigated his edits and are monitoring his edits. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hamid Hassani, you need to inform the editor (I'm guessing it is X.goodarzie?) of this discussion. Also, your link goes to a discussion on an article talk page, it doesn't show an edit war going on. I haven't read over the content of his article edits but I don't see misconduct here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. I left a message on his talk page a couple of days ago, and wrote: "I wish we could friendly solve the main problem on the Persian Wikipedia, so that the situation does not lead in such an unpleasant and a distasteful, discourteous case." May be he has not checked the messages on his talk page. The user, repeatedly, continued struggling likewise. It seems that he is an educated person, and also it seems that he speaks English well; but he needs more practicing here on Wikipedia(s). So, I don't like to hear more soft ribaldry, like ethnic insults and underestimating the others. I have informed the Persian Wikipedia's "ANB" as well; but he continued that behavior and repeated it there! I wish he could behave much better someday. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia standard on the romanization of Presian. See Wikipedia:Romanization. Possibly this could be addressed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

You are right Rich! But the most usual Romanization forms for the discussed name are Khiyaban, Khiaban, Khiyābān, or Khiābān (not even Xiyaban or Xijaban, as the most of modern Persian dictionaries and also the usual Persian Romanization system (based on the language's standard, natural phonological system) suggest, based on the Greek letter Chi = Χ / χῖ) (voiceless velar fricative; a tangible Persian example given in the exclusive article: [xɒːhær], meaning sister). Here are two other famous examples for Romanization as Kh: Ekhtiyariyeh ("a neighborhood in the district of Shemiran in northern Tehran") and Khuzestan Province (also Romanized as Khūzestān), both including Kh (= X) as given in the English WP's article Romanization of Persian (Cf. Comparison table). One more fact on the Persian's second equivalent is Færanse (not Franse*), meaning France in the standard Persian. All the best. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This user talk page need some edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi uswer own out of scope text needs to be removed--Musamies (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RIP

With difficulty I must post this: Please be aware of this. Any and all help would be appreciated. — Ched :  ?  11:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• could one of you folks please protect the user page - I think that's standard in these cases. thanks. — Ched :  ?  11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

   Done Protection applied. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  Also sent an "email this user" message with directions if this is in error, or if page changes are needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Was stunned to see this edit. I wondered if anyone reached out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I had tried not too long ago to do a little something without seeming to be yet another editor wagging one's finger at her. After a brief talk page conversation, she drifted away. This is quite sad news. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Liz - yes, several folks offered an ear, and more importantly - (my understanding is that) it was referred to the WMF. I have no idea where it went from there. — Ched :  ?  04:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I also tried to inform Jimbo Wales of the situation this morning, but again, no idea if he even read it. — Ched :  ?  04:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm the one that was actually involved with the WMF report and its response (if that's what it can be called). I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to go quite in-depth about it here (after all, this is AN and such things are not "administrative issues"), but I did detail the timeline of the situation over on WO -- probably shouldn't point to a "WP:BADSITE" but you guys know the way there anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it a certainty that Lucia Black is deceased? I wish I had gotten the chance to talk to her, since, as someone who has battled depression and suicidal thoughts, which have at times been exacerbated by the stressful work I do (and interactions I have) on Wikipedia, I have personal experience with what she was dealing with. Of course, everyone's experience is different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of at this time. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the "decease" of Lucia Black is in reference to her account as opposed to her person. However, we are not in any position to truly know and to seek it out would be an invasion of privacy. Until otherwise informed, it would be good faith to assume that the IP means the former and let her family go about their mourning without any prying by strangers. If it were the latter, then it would be to Lucia's benefit as she could have found another avenue to direct her attentions without the baggage associated with the Lucia Black account. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd overlooked that an IP was involved. Normally, I would be cautious of trusting the word of a random IP about something like this, but it seems that due diligence was done in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WMF's handling of emergencies

User:Salvidrim!, it was brought to my attention that you have indicated that I "pretty much closed the case" of Lucia Black with my final note to you. (Basically, your thread on Wikipediocracy was mailed to me.) This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that we will report back to you what actions we have taken. Our work on emergencies does not include reporting back to our contacts on the outcome of investigations. Our emergency policy does not permit me to disclose how individual reports are handled to you, to any other volunteer, and to most staff (outside of the emergency response team). There are privacy factors at play. But the work that happens on them is begun by, not concluded with, contact with the reporter.

As I noted here in our blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-emergency-response-system/), we have a reporting system developed in coordination with the FBI. We pass along issues brought to our attention (including suicide and threats against others) to law enforcement according to that protocol. They take the situations from there.

I'm concerned that your misunderstanding of when and how a case is closed may mislead others into failing to report on the mistaken assumption that because they do not know what we do on any one case, we do nothing with them. And this may result in issues not being reported to us...or to law enforcement through us...at all.

Some situations reported to us meet our protocol. Others do not. We report everything that does, with an explicit instruction to err on the side of caution - when in doubt of whether a situation meets the reporting criteria, we report, and the FBI makes the final call. I know of specific cases where this system has led to swift intervention from law enforcement. It would be a shame to lose any avenue of help because of misinformation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm glad to hear you may have done more than what I was initially aware of. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): I have questions. Can you please explain why the author of the following comment,

Haitham Shammaa, is an emergency contact in the event of suicide threats?

Haitham Shammaa (Senior Strategist) wrote:
Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

Has Shammaa received any professional training in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis? If not, why is he involved with the emergency response team? What are the WMF's criteria for assigning staff to the team? Who else is assigned, and do you record this anywhere public? What training do you provide to those staff members, by whom is it administered, where was it developed, and is it accredited by any professional health organizations?

You do not have to disclose any details of the emergency process itself, but you absolutely should be fully transparent about all aspects of how it is staffed. I look forward to your reply.  — Scott • talk 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Maggie (and by that I mean with a great deal of respect), it sounds like emergency response is outside the scope of your area. To suggest that "A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself" merit being reported is either incorrectly worded, vastly outdated, or emergency response procedures have changed drastically since 2012. As I have left my position at our local CERT, my material may be a bit outdated - but if you wish, I could dig up a few of the resources and forward them on to you. Also it should be noted that the "number" of emergencies may have an effect on response time, but not in what is reported or responded to. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying - my apologies.

One thing I had NOT considered when I began this post - perhaps training to Internet threats is different now than other venues. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ched, our reporting protocols are those defined for us by the FBI. We didn't create those criteria; they did. When a clear threat is not communicated, we evaluate other factors - which is why I say this is the first point, not the final point. An unclear threat does not mean we do not report; it means that further evaluation is necessary. A clearly communicated threat simply expedites that process. (ETA: our FBI liaison is specifically tasked to handling online threats. I would not be surprised if emergency responders in other areas use different criteria, or, for that matter, if some local responders use different criteria than the FBI.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll drop you an email this evening. — Ched :  ?  22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Status

There's a status meter on her userpage that says the following "if there was a new gauge for suicidal. I would probably be right there". Now... I don't want to draw any rash conclusions, but maybe it's best to delete that graphic or at least the thumbnail comment, as it could incite all kinds of ugly speculations, drama and trolling. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a hide tag to that image, any admin may revert this for any reason. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia editing event

Hello all. An email arrived at OTRS about this upcoming event for International Women's Day [55]. Just thought I'd let the admins know; I know events like this can look strange if there's no prior warning. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's likely one event connected to Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism which is occurring this month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Nazi swastika

Please add File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg, File:Ace Christensen2.jpg, File:CurtisHawk.JPG, File:National Socialist swastika.svg, File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg, File:Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_(1933–1945)_(andere).svg and File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg to the bad image list because they contain the Nazi swastika. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket:. Wikipedia is not censored. The Swastika is a historical symbol despite its recent (in terms of history) usage. Amortias (T)(C) 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: Some images containing the symbol are already on the list. Improper use of the Nazi swastika is illegal in some countries too. These are the reasons why I made this request. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ace Christensen2.jpg and File:CurtisHawk.JPG less so than the above but I don't see them being linked to any disruptive behaviour.

How people are using/misusing the images would be their responsibility, Wikipedia is ont responsible for how people use the site either I'm afraid. I can see the last two may warrant inclusion but the first batch I'm not sure would pass the reasons for inclusion

Amortias (T)(C) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as the US wikipedia servers are located in those countries, tough shit for them. Wikipedia isn't required to conform to foreign nations' censorship laws. Jtrainor (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia but it is not uncommon for websites to display different versions of their site which are tailored to adhere to that country's restrictions on content. But I imagine this subject of Nazi imagery has been discussed more thoroughly on German Wikipedia than here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket: You say that inappropriate use of the Nazi swastika is illegal. It probably is, but that doesn't mean that we need to delete all uses of it. It may surprize you to know that it is in use on the German Wikipedia (appropriately, of course) - see de:Flagge Deutschlands. File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg was the legal flag of Germany from 1935-45, therefore its use in ship articles and lists of shipwrecks during this period is appropriate.
Now, if there are cases where a swastika (or any other symbol) is being used inappropriately, simply remove it and state why in your edit summary. If problems persist either raise at the article talk page or at WikiProject level in the first instance. Persistent problems are probably best reported at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that files be deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing pattern of disruption involving these images, or is this just intended to be preventive? Some of these files are extensively used in articles, and I believe adding them to the BIL would disrupt the writing of other articles where their use is appropriate. I could be wrong re: transclusions, but if there's a problem with having these files displayed in Nazi Germany navboxes, that discussion probably belongs elsewhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to suggest the addition of these files to the list; it would prevent, for example, vandals adding them to pages on Jewish people; it will not prevent them from being added to relevant articles. However, at least one of them is used as the national flag alongside sportspeople who appeared for Germany during the nazi era, running to thousands of articles. It would be untenable to require each such article to be whitelisted first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Marie Banu

A draft submitted to Articles for Creation review appears to have been literally simultaneously rejected [56] and accepted [57] by two different reviewers (neither of which were me). It was initially created at User:Mariebanu. The upshot of all this is that the draft should never have been accepted for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Marie Banu. Is it possible for an admin to move this article to Draft:Marie Banu? Or do I have to go through the AfD rigamarole? Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. IFRC is The International Red Cross / Red Crescent , Oxfam is Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, ISSUU is definitely a site for self-publishing, and therefore, that can be trimmed off as it's not a reliable site, reliefeb.int is actually part of the United Nations, CSIM.in is Centre for Social Initiative and Management Chennai , that appears notable, however, the reference is to an article she wrote, so notability is questionable here, and it could be trimmed out, add to that she works for that organization. The remained of the CSIM references are pretty much the same, articles she wrote. The last reference is to ChennaiOnline.com.

I'm not sure of the notability. However, the only site directly connected with the subject of the article is CSIM, the rest are not, so I think this article may be saveable. KoshVorlon 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the references to the other sites, are simply to copies of reports she co-wrote. They do not discuss her at all. The only remotely independent source is the Chennai article about her receiving an award somehow related to Karmaveer Puraskaar which may or may not be notable. I haven't been able to find any other independent sources about her. My own view is that this BLP article is simply not ready for main space yet and should be worked on in draft space until it is. There's also the issue of the main editor who seems to be editing under two accounts Mariebanu and... er... Webmasterscsim, i.e. Webmasters CISM. I've asked him about that here, but no reply yet. Anyhow, I'll now leave it to others to decide what to do with it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the autobiography for Articles for Deletion. I don't see it as a candidate for speedy deletion. It isn't unreferenced and so isn't a candidate for proposed deletion of a BLP; the references being inadequate do not support WP:BLPPROD. I don't see proposed deletion as plausible. My reading of the deletion policy is that this noticeboard isn't the place for a deletion discussion or for overriding the decision of a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reported User:Mariebanu at WP:UAA as a misleading username, because the name is that of a real person with a marginal claim to notability, but the editor states that they are not Marie Banu. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Help

What should we do with this? User trying to start an edit war. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Also, see this interesting discussion. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

I do not see any discussion of the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we need to hide flags on photos? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

The point is: in the event of a dispute you are supposed to discuss it on the talk page before running to this board. Have you informed the editor that you have opened this thread? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

For what help are you looking, when you are pro-separatist (you are supporting conflict region's independence) and try to push this separatist flag in the article without any discussion. Also this is just city and that "flag" has nothing in connection with urban landscape. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you please comment on the issue and not on the contributor, and please at the proper venue, which is the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, who are you speaking to? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

I left two messages in this thread, the first one was for you, the second one if for Giorgi Balakhadze. However, it is not so much important. Both of you should stop reverting and go and discuss the issue at the talk page of the article. If you can not agree there, try mediation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just butting in to point out that the mentioned interresting discussion is really interesting. Ilya Drakonov states that Giorgi Balakhadze's been blocked on the Russian Wiki, the Esperanto Wiki and Commons for pretty much the same thing. I checked and I can verify his block on the Russian Wikiepdia | it shows as such on his user page I can also verify the block on commons | here , his | userpage discussion on commons doesn't look very encouraging either. I saw nothing showing that he was blocked on the Esperanto Wiki, although Giorgi does have a userpage on that wiki as well. Looks like Ilya is correct, Giorgi has been pushing the same kind of POV on the Russian WP and Commons and now he's here. I won't suggest a block or anything at this stage , since this is the English Wikipedia,but in lieu of his past behavior a Topic ban might be in order. KoshVorlon 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, re the Esperanto Wikipedia, User:Giorgi Balakhadze was blocked there for one week on 20 February with both e-mail and his own talk page access blocked as well [58]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore I stand corrected. Thank you ! KoshVorlon 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My reverting is not my wished but only necessity (after his edits) to have stable and somehow balanced article. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon after your investigation let me have my word, in Russian wiki they blocked me for my own user page, in commons they blocked me because of controversy with with Polish user who were also pushing "independence" of this region, he even told me that "Georgians lose the war and now Abkhazia is independent", you know I am also quite tired doing these things, but if not me or some other one or two guys English wikipedia will be like Kremlin official web-page about these regions. This issue is very hard and sensitive and it needs more attention of administrators, my past mistakes are not reason to make me always wrong and fault. Wikipedia needs to be more competent in case of conflict regions and as it is yet not like that, stick is always broken on such users as me.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon, yes, you are absolutely right. I work in a lot of wikis as a member of the SWMT. This user creates edit wars in a lot of them. Today there was one in Abkhaz wiki, I am speaking with the stewards about that now. Giorgi, we don't want to say that you should stop editing Wikipedia of something like this; we say, that your edits must be in articles, that are a bit further from the political situation in Geogia and breakeaway Abhazia and South Ossetia. I support a topic ban. Always yours, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Ilya if I should be, same must be with you and many others, because without me you or some other are pushing separatist propaganda in Wiki I am reacting only against them. I am only reverting, reverting your POV edits and not changing article according POV of Georgia, for Georgia there is no de facto Abkhazia and it is just Russian occupied area. For example in this particular situation with Sokhumi, you are putting separatist flag on city which is very sensitive for many people without any discussion. The problem here is not me, but people who try to push separatism in encyclopedia. I will enjoy if someone instead of me will control your or other users edits with this attitude.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon you are too wrong, I am not "now he's here" I was here, I am here and I am going to here because I am part of big Wikimedia Community and I am trying to make it clear from political edits. You are speaking about reverting but not about what was reverted.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't support separatism. You don't clearly know what NPOV actually is. You shouldn't support only Georgian position, or only Abkhazian position. We have 2 positions here. And also, I would ask the admins to control that Giorgi hides provocational userboxes on his UP. Also please, don't make theese edits before this discussion isn't closed. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

You know what, stop playing drama, and tries to make something "dangerous" from users which are in controversy with you. I am not providing Georgian view, I am against pro-separatism that you do, everybody can see that you support Abkhazia's independence and you starting new edits with this attitude. I am not starting editing (or adding) information into articles from Georgian view (if it was like this I would remove everything about "the RA" and write only about Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no firm views on the question of Abkhazia, but I do not think that this sort of edit summary is in any way helpful. Obviously we don't want the pages to become propaganda for one side or another, but the image which contained as a small part a few flags is not propaganda by any reasonable interpretation of the term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

Disruptive editor

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

Moved to WP:ANI more appropriate for that venue Mlpearc (open channel) 03:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Detailed indices of the archives of this page

A discussion on this topic is open at the talk page, i.e. at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_with_the_Detailed_Indices_of_this_page_.3F. Reply there (not here) if you are interested. Pldx1 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No answers yet concerning the usefulness of such a detailed index. Pldx1 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect or add

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I think there is no need to protect this page any more. If so, update it regarding the proposal, please.--Juandev (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This page is protected as other users may call it using an import script, and it needs to be protected from malicious scripts. I added a {{editprotected}} tag to that talk page, patrolling admins will pick it up and process. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of revision deletion by CJCurrie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just happened across Special:Contributions/Funwheel, which contains a number of contributions which have been hidden from public view. After looking at a lot of them, I cannot see any reason qualifying them for that treatment. For example, this edit changing an external link. The hiding was done by an admin called CJCurrie (talk · contribs · logs), with the reason "Other defamation/personal information issues". Despite the Funwheel (talk · contribs · logs) account having been blocked as a sockpuppet in 2010, its edits do not appear to me to have had such issues. CJCurrie's log displays more worrying misuse of the feature. For example, this concealment that he made in 2014, of comments added to a talk page in 2006, with the bizarre log comment "pending review".

To be completely accurate, I saw CJCurrie's log first, then Funwheel's contributions, because I had noticed that CJCurrie is the latest dormant admin to pop up and make some edits just to hang onto the bit, and wanted to see what he had been doing. I expected there simply to be a long gap, but was unpleasantly surprised to make this discovery. CJCurrie only made one edit in all of 2015, but used revision deletion four times on the same day.

As such, I'd like to request opinions from other admins as to the course of action to be taken. At the very least, I think these uses of revdel should be undone, but I also strongly question the suitability of CJCurrie retaining his administrator status.  — Scott • talk 01:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out the first of your examples either. nor his other revision deletions of Funwheel's edits. For the second, his edit summary on Talk:International Socialists (Canada), "privacy concerns about non-public figures" is more defensible than "pending review". Certainly less bizarre. —Cryptic 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, in the edit history rather than the deletion log. Having reviewed the text in question, I can't agree with the claim of "privacy concerns" on text added eight years earlier. Of the "non-public figures", one is profiled in a student newspaper article from 2004 available online, one is now a college professor with publications in peer-reviewed journals, and another is a politician with a Wikipedia article. None of which mention the International Socialists, but that should probably mean the comments simply be removed as uncited BLP claims, not subject to revision deletion eight years later.  — Scott • talk 02:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A cursory review indicates that at least one of these edits does not appear to follow the revdel guidelines. None of them appear to require immediate action, would like to see if CJCurrie responds to this AN post with additional information. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am usually in favor of giving any admin a chance to explain their actions before undoing them, but given the sporadic nature of this admin's edits we may be watiting a very long time. They were active a few days ago but it seems they are in the habit the last few years of making only a few edits a year. If we haven't heard back in a day or two I would suggest we not wait and proceed as per a consensus of admins here.

That being the case, while I could possbly see removing some of this content due to BLP concerns about weak sourcing, I cannot see any justification for using revdel. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not recommending placing this on hold for perhaps a year, only for day or two - this admin was active within the last 24 hours. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Emailed CJCurrie to join this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. CJCurrie here. I can remember the circumstances referenced in this discussion.

During a period of inactivity on Wikipedia, I received a few requests for revdel relating to privacy issues. In the first instance, pertaining to this, I provisionally removed the information and submitted my actions for review by an oversight administrator (this is what the designation "pending review" refers to). The administrator's response included the remark that I had done the right thing by acting as I did in response to a privacy concern, even if the action ultimately turned out to be unwarranted or unnecessary.

My recollection is that I did the same thing (i.e., submitted my actions for review) in the other circumstances, though I don't have the documentation in front of me at present. I don't believe I was ever advised that I had acted inappropriately.

If it turns out that any of my actions were inappropriate or unwarranted, I will not object to them being reversed now.

Please bear in mind that I haven't been active on WP on a regular basis for some time and that I haven't kept up with every change in the project's governing regulations. I thought my actions were consistent with WP policy; if I acted in error, then I apologize. CJCurrie (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that, since you have not been active for 2 years, that you received requests for revdel unless they were sent to you a long time ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All of this happened a while ago. The last such request was in March 2015. CJCurrie (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@CJCurrie: Thanks for your response. As it appears that other admins agree with me that your use of revision deletion wasn't necessitated, and you don't disagree with a reversal, I'll do that. If you intend to stick around, could I please ask that you spend a while reading policy documentation to ensure that you're up to speed with any changes that took place since you were last active.  — Scott • talk 13:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I asked Liz (talk · contribs) to accept an WP:INVOLVED status with respect to me,[59][60] but she has refused.[61] Unfortunately this means that I must now explain, as succinctly as I can, why Liz is INVOLVED, and more unfortunately, someone needs to slog through the story. At the end of the trudge it should be completely obvious that Liz is INVOLVED, and I have no idea why Liz won't just accept it and save everyone's time. Six months ago when I informed Liz of problems with her behavior amounting to INVOLVED, she didn't answer[62] -- a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. Now that I have submitted an AE request and Liz is aware of it, INVOLVED actually matters. So here we go (moving to present tense story mode):

User:Tumbleman is caught sockpuppeting. Without examining or understanding the evidence, Liz defends him in the SPI and leaves a message on his talk page saying that editors are "trying to silence" him. The theme is picked up by parapsychology blogs, and Tumbleman would later build an off-wiki harassment website based on this provably false claim that he was wrongly accused of socking because Wikipedia editors wanted to silence him. The main target of the off-wiki harassment is me, as I've caught him socking many times. When an obvious sockpuppet stopped by Liz's page to promote the off-wiki harassment site and thank her, she thanked him in return[63] and did not file an SPI. (I later wrote an addendum to the SPI for those who, like Liz, preferred to draw their conclusions without examining the evidence.)

Tumbleman's friend and former co-worker is Askahrc, who collaborated with Tumbleman at the off-wiki harassment site and promoted on-wiki the conspiracy theory that Tumbleman had been wrongly convicted of sockpuppetry by me.[64] Liz complimented Askahrc for one of his polemics on the subject.[65] After Askahrc was sanctioned for sockpuppetry and harassment (I filed the SPI),[66] Liz claimed that he wasn't sockpuppeting[67] and defended his personal attacks against me.[68] [Edit: Askahrc's sockpuppetry was affirmed by three admins.[69][70][71]]

I told Liz that she was one of my harassers, and I meant that. She added fuel to the still-ongoing campaign to falsely defame me for filing entirely appropriate SPIs. Things may have been different had she not provided the initial spark and subsequent encouragement.

But wait, this was two years ago! Certainly Liz has improved since then? I didn't have to search for an answer to that question -- the thread immediately below mine on her talk page shows a familiar issue of Liz not examining or understanding evidence -- just not getting it.[72] It boggles the mind that Liz would template a regular who was reverting a vandal,[73] and later dig in with "you were party to an edit war".[74] The vandal's contributions scream vandal[75] and even if Liz somehow missed that, it's quite a feat not to recognize the user page as belonging to a vandal, where she left a warning.[76] This is the kind of incompetent behavior that has generated problems for me in the past.

[Edit: This isn't complicated; the WP:INVOLVED policy is clear: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."] Manul ~ talk 05:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a sufficient recent reason for Liz to be considered 'involved' in regards you. I would definitely contend that you seem to have personal issues with this person, but I don't find based on the diffs posted here that the opposite is true. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I promise it's not a personal thing. Others have taken note, for instance Bishonen called Liz's behavior deplorable.[77] (Sorry for the name drop, Bish.) And, like Bish, I don't think Liz has sufficiently developed a "greater understanding of these issues". Manul ~ talk 06:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are using a statement by Bishonen from last July. Made in a specific context. That is not the way to go on this sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 06:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's in the very context of the complaint here, the context of Liz joining sides with the sockpuppeteer mentioned here, questioning motives without looking at evidence and suggesting that the SPI was just to "silence" the sockpuppeteer. Manul ~ talk 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I am not an administrator but commenting as an editor interested in fairness. I read every diff that Manul provided. I did not see Liz taking sides against Manul in content disputes. Instead, I saw Liz comnenting in an administrative role on Manul's conduct, on Liz's perception of bullying, and on other editor's conduct. Liz may not have been 100% right in everything she said, but who among us ever is 100% correct when trying our best to tamp down bitter disputes? I encourage Manul to abandon their unproductive grudge against Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have a few misunderstandings. Did you know Liz has only been an admin since August 2015? Before that I had virtually zero interactions with her, save for one positive comment on her user page.[78] Liz couldn't possibly have commented "in an administrative role" on my conduct. "Bullying" was the term was used by the sockpuppeteer to cover up his sockpuppetry. (Sorry, catching someone socking is not "bullying".) There has not been one diff produced showing that I was "bullying", and I don't believe even Liz contended that (perhaps toward another editor, but not me). This is ironic because on Askahrc's talk page Liz joined with an actual bully in the on-wiki component of the off-wiki harassment campaign of falsely disparaging me for filing successful SPIs. I consider this to be bullying behavior by Liz. Manul ~ talk 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: on second thought I am rather bothered that you consider this matter to be a "grudge". All I want is for Liz to accept the WP:INVOLVED status, which should be a quite uncontroversial request. That's it. I bolded the relevant clause above. Manul ~ talk 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can post diffs showing where Liz has been in a content dispute with you, no one sensible is going to consider her WP:INVOLVED as an admin from your evidence. Commenting on an SPI you raised does not make one involved. Since you admit you had almost zero interactions with her prior to her becoming an admin, and from your diffs above all her interactions with you afterwards appear to fall under her remit as an Admin, this is unlikely to go anywhere. Also accusing Liz of harrassing you without posting evidence of harrassment is a Personal Attack and not permitted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Communication on the Internet is sometimes difficult, that's for sure. Despite all my experience with it, I'm sometimes hit with extreme bafflement, like now.

I had typed out a paragraph in response to your comment, but it was largely repeating what I already posted. I had already given the diffs for "Liz joined with an actual bully in the on-wiki component of the off-wiki harassment campaign of falsely disparaging me for filing successful SPIs", see the paragraph "Tumbleman's friend and former co-worker..." When Liz encourages the polemics of a sockpuppeteer that make provably false claims about me, yes I do consider that harassment, particularly when the person Liz is encouraging is part of a off-wiki harassment campaign pushing the same agenda. When Liz supports these false claims without looking at the evidence then yes I consider this to be very bad indeed.

WP:INVOLVED does not say that only content disputes count. It says "past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics". By any reasonable reading, the latter does not subsume the former. Manul ~ talk 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

When an obvious sockpuppet stopped by Liz's page to promote the off-wiki harassment site and thank her, she thanked him in return and did not file an SPI. I thanked the editor for letting me know there was a blog post off-wiki that mentioned me. I don't see how that is encouragement. I would thank anyone who let me know I was being discussed in a forum that I don't visit. If I am guilty of anything, it is not seeing "obvious" sockpuppets which sure didn't seem obvious to me. I didn't see No more scary monsters as a sockpuppet so why would I file an SPI? My sockpuppet-radar is a bit better now but I still assume good faith, especially from new editors who are not vandalizing the project. I don't think that anyone can be faulted for NOT filing an SPI if they don't believe an editor is a sockpuppet.

I, too, am baffled at your continuing to hold me responsible for disagreements you had with a sockpuppeteer over two years ago. You have thrown insults and personal attacks my way for as long as I can remember and I haven't returned any in kind. I suggest you move on and stop fixating on me. Posting a notice about exceeding word limits in an arbitration enforcement case on a user talk page is an act I have done with many editors in my capacity as an arbitration clerk and I am in disbelief that you are taking a justified notice personally when your AE statement, originally over 2500 words, exceeded the guideline of 500 words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You have thrown insults and personal attacks my way for as long as I can remember -- absolutely untrue. I raised the behavioral problems I encountered at the RfA and on your talk page, none of which were personal attacks. I did question your competency, which is a sincerely held interpretation of your actions that is relevant to myself and the project, not a personal attack. You say "as long as I can remember", suggesting there was something I negative I said to you before your RfA. There is absolutely no such diff. You should redact the claim and apologize for making it. Manul ~ talk 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• About Liz's giving Manul a standard clerkly reminder of the word limits for AE: I happened to see Manul's complaint when I came to Liz's page for something else (see below), and since Manul had mentioned me, I told both users that that kind of thing isn't really affected by WP:INVOLVED, and isn't worth complaining about: she didn't do anything wrong in reminding him.[79] That said, and considering what went down at Liz's RFA in August 2015, I think it would be reasonable for Liz to generally acknowledge involved status wrt Manul: you know, like "I regard myself as involved wrt to you, but that doesn't pertain to standard clerk actions like notes on word limits." Would that go against the grain? I mean, surely you wouldn't block him, for instance, so why not put it on record? And no, User:Cullen, as Manul has pointed out, this was not a matter of Liz "commenting in an administrative role on Manul's conduct"; she wasn't an admin at the time in question. I also hope I don't get "Oh, August 2015, ancient history, move on". Liz's RFA stirred up powerful feelings on all sides, obviously very much on Liz's, and I don't think any of the people centrally involved in the RFA have really forgotten and moved on. (To some extent I was involved myself, but not personally and painfully like Manul and Liz.) It would be nice if they did, yes. An acknowledgement of involvement from Liz would be a start in calming things down.

• About the other thing Manul refers to, it's a little sideways to the main topic here, but I might as well give my angle on it. Liz recently placed 3rr warnings on both a vandal sock who repeatedly removed an Administrator intervention against vandalism report against themselves, and on Oshwah (one of our best vandalhunters) who reverted them.[80] That was hard to understand. I saw it because I watch Oshwah's page (it's a real honeypot for vandals), and wrote a note of concern to Liz here. I don't know if she thinks she did nothing wrong — I can't tell from her responses to me, as they're rather sphinx-like — but IMO those were more the actions of an adminbot. There's a reason we have human admins, and they're expected to spend a few seconds looking at the context before they warn. Anyway, no doubt it's human also to be reluctant to acknowledge fault, and I'm hoping perhaps Liz did get the point all the same. It's all experience. Still, an even slightly apologetic note to Oshwah, rather than this minimal acknowledgement, would have been nice. (PS, the reason I mentioned admin User:Juliancolton seemingly out of the blue in my note to Liz was that the vandal had named themselves User:Angry Juliancolton — a rather broad hint that Julian had blocked one of their previous accounts, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

This has to be one of the broadest interpretations of WP:INVOLVED that I've ever seen. As far as I can see, Liz and Manul had a rather blunt discussion over Liz's actions 2 years ago, which Manul has carried forward. Two. Years. Ago. Liz had already accepted that her interpretation of events concerning the sockmaster at the time was not something she would repeat today. Unilaterally demanding an interaction ban, when hardly any interaction prior to that thread exists, is unreasonable. Furthermore, implying that the actions of the sockmaster off wiki is in some way Liz's responsibility is bloody ridiculous. As for being involved in the WP sense, prior to this kerfuffle and unless otherwise shown, Liz has not acted in an admin capacity against Manul. As it stands now, as Bishonen says above, there would be a case to be stated that Liz is now involved with Manul, simply because Manul refuses to drop the issue (the various threads show Manul badgering Liz but not bullying per se, although I do find the tone of Manul's posts to be finger wagging), and should refrain from any future admin actions against them. Apart from that, in my eyes, this is frivolous. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. First, Liz and Manul had a rather blunt discussion over Liz's actions 2 years ago -- what is this referring to? I don't believe such diffs exist. Second, there are two sockmasters, Tumbleman and his former co-worker Askahrc. Liz's encouragement of the latter is central to the dispute here, and to my knowledge she has not expressed any regret. Third, there is no reasonable implication that Liz could be responsible for off-wiki activities others, that is a bloody ridiculous idea. Manul ~ talk 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose application of WP:INVOLVED: Far too attenuated. Wikipedia would be one hell of a place if you could just point to an argument you had with any administrator in the remote past to evade their participation. At worst I think we should consider WP:INVOLVED in this situation to mean we might use a slightly lower standard of review for Liz's administrative actions here than in another case. But grounds for reversal entirely? Or for a de facto one-way interaction ban? I think not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I had thought this would be an easy determination, otherwise I wouldn't have posted here. WP:INVOLVED says "regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". I've always gone to drama boards only when I felt it was absolutely necessary. I'll make an extra special super effort to avoid them in the future. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Then the policy should be reworded to clarify that particular sentence is just a general observation. See the beginning of the sentence: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community" (emphasis mine). This does not mean that as a matter of policy, a past dispute of any kind disqualifies an administrator. At worst it means that the community might make an analysis of whether the administrator is involved... and it's pretty clear from this discussion that the community doesn't think Liz is involved. The rest of the section on the policy makes it clear that the situation isn't as absolute as you think. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not "involved" -- But looking at Manul's edit history and their obsession with Liz, her RfA, Talk page and bringing Bishonen, into almost every complaint, I would say that if the editor does not stop these frivolous complaints they should be blocked. Just drop it already. Dave Dial (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a quite unfair characterization. I had avoided interaction with Liz, except for one positive comment on her user page, while she promoted the conspiracy about Tumbleman being "silenced" by me and while she was encouraging a second sockmaster who had been targeting me. When her RfA came up, I sincerely believed the poor judgment she showed needed to be part of the conversation. And, because I was maligned by her on false grounds, I thought it would be a good idea for her and I to agree on WP:INVOLVED in order to head off future problems. That is the total extent of my interactions with Liz. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Liz: and @Manul: are both acting like jerks with respect to each other, and ought to stop. Manul, please drop the stick: asking an admin over and over again to preemptively declare themselves involved with respect to you is just pointless, and talking it to AN to try to get a ruling on the matter, even more so. We get it: you don't care for Liz - but she's a real human being just trying to help out, so please stop antagonizing her. Civility is a pillar.

Liz, it's not always best to dig in your heels, even if you're right. The best response to a good-faith editor asking you to recuse is almost always "but of course". Manul is a real human being who's feelings are hurt, and there are a thousand other admins, after all. Civility is a pillar. HiDrNick! 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I shall now resume, with enthusiasm, my self-imposed interaction ban with Liz. Please close this thread, thanks. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tachlifa the Palestinian

Tachlifa the Palestinian was moved from Tachlifa of the West per a Requested move in August 2011. It has recently been moved back to Tachlifa of the West unilaterally without discussion. This should not have been done, as from the page history, moving the name of this page is contentious. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the request move had no other participant than yourself, so it does not quite hold weight, though the move was successful. I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources. He should have notified the page, of course. But rather than squabble, wouldn't it be best to just proceed to build the article a little? Clarifying,for example, precisely what the 'West', per sources, actually referred to (i.e. the 'Palestine' of that period).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason other than your bias to have the move to the Palestinian page. Nowhere else is there a "the Palestinian." Throughout the Talmud the term The West is used all the time. We don't need to create articles to suit your POV like you tried to do with your boycott article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The backlog at WP:AIV is getting quite long, with almost 20 reports waiting. If any admin is around and willing to have a look, that would be helpful. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:UAA Backlog

I just added a request to examine a username on WP:UAA and noticed there's a backlog going back to 2/29 on there. I thought I would give you all a heads up on this, though I'm guessing you're all aware. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll have a look. One thing, though--I wonder if that bot that removes the names works properly. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the bot does remove the names properly. I have the page watchlisted, and I see frequent notes by the bot that a user has been blocked, and that there are still a lot of users on the list. I think that it just doesn't get as much admin attention as, for instance, WP:AIV. There is something to be said there, in that vandalism is more urgent than corporate accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The bot is continuing to work and is reporting the blocks to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I was on patrol a week ago and it seemed that names I blocked weren't quickly removed. Yes: a whole bunch of the ones I marked as "no" are still there, a half an hour or more later. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all reported names are violated, and the ones that are not take up a lot of time. I have asked an editor or two to comment on their nominations or to explain, and they haven't. Those things clog up the board and make the page very uninviting; what folks don't always understand is that this takes time: if you report a promotional user name, an admin needs to look at the edits to to see a. if the report is valid and b. if there's anything else that needs to be done. So the more care is exercised in the reporting, the better it is for all of us. If an offensive user name, for instance, goes along with vandal edits, just report the vandal edits to AIV--that's much quicker and easier. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the bot only removes blocked users, not those you mark in a list. I would suggest remove names rather than mark them if you do not need a second opinion. This is what I usually do to false positives.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah...I thought the bot read all those messages and acted on them... BTW, it would be helpful if, for instance, we decided that user names like Fgcfnvbjhvbhkvgjfjfvbjvcgncxahdfjk222, which are almost always obvious throwaway vandal accounts, are blockable. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That should probably go via WP:Village Pump (policy), but i would support such a proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• And what do we do with Fagthulhu, an obvious and very witty play on Cthulhu, who claims to be an "angry faggot". I suppose any has the right to call themselves that, but I find it very conceivable that someone would take offense at that. I mean: "Hey Fagtulhu, thanks for signing up for the meetup in Boulder"--I'd have a hard time saying that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  I would say it needs to be blocked by English is not my mother tongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Sleeping in R'lyeh lies the Great Cthulhu...I dare say the fag-part of the username together with his angry attitude should be enough for a usernameblock...Lectonar (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  The editor formerly known as Fagthulhu has changed their name to something that no one could find offensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Working UAA is a real slog sometimes. As Drmies says, the quality of reporting there often isn't what it should be. The bot-reported list is usually borderline useless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Look! Quick! Thanks for helping out, Bongwarrior, Edgar181, and others. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You guys and gals are awesome, thanks! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Better administration needed

Sorry, this is not a forum. The Village Pump is. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been a Wikipedia:WikiGnome for some years but I am now leaving Wikipedia because it has become such an unpleasant place to work. Wikipedia used to be "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" but not any more. It is now the encyclopedia that nobody can edit unless they have been approved by a small group of dogmatists. I have tried very hard to get these dogmatists held to account but I have had no support from Wikipedia's Administrators, who appear to be too afraid of the dogmatists to take them on. Wikipedia needs better administration or it will lose more editors like me. Biscuittin (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Which particular cabal of "dogmatists" are you referring to? BMK (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Well said @User:Biscuittin - I am in exactly the same place as you. The project is rapidly sinking. DrChrissy (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Just need to prune out the many problem editors....mob-rule here is definitely a problem. Very hard to gain new editors...especially professional experts... when they see what the editing environment is like here. -- Moxy (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) One difficulty is that there can be disagreement about who the problem editors are and how severe the problem is. One person's dogmatist is another editor's "Protector of Wikipedia". I do agree that there should be less suspicion about new editors. I've seen them brought to ANI because of a lack of competence while others face accusations that they are too knowledgeable for a newbie. For this project to thrive, there always has to be an influx of editors as experienced editors move on or retire. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Liz, you are of course correct. But there is also a desperate need to retain editors once here. I have just come from an AN/I where I failed to have a Topic Ban lifted and I had to sit and watch while editors, some of them admins, lied about me, cast aspersions, tried to discredit me, and questioned my competence. All this, while I was being reminded that it does not look good to defend myself. I consider myself to be an expert in my subject area and the project is very probably going to lose another expert because of this disgraceful behaviour, but regardless of expertise, no editor should be subjected to such treatment. It is up to the admins to control this sort of incivility on their own page yet they repeatedly fail to do this. DrChrissy (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request removal of talk page topic ban

On 18 February 2016 as a result of an AN [81] I was given this ban by Arbcom member Drmies:

"I am hereby banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page Talk:Veganism, and will allow him only one single edit, big or small, in one single thread, written out in one single paragraph, every 48 hours. Violations and attempt to skirt around the limits of this ban are to be punished with a short block". 

There was no clear consensus at the AN to topic ban me despite the fact that it was attended by the pro-vegan page regulars. In fact 6 editors (Betty Logan, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, Glrx, GoodDay, Biscuittin, Collect) were opposed to sanctions against me and 7 Editors (Viriditas TREKphiler, Gandydancer, Sammy1339, SarahSV, IjonTichy, Guy) for them (with FourViolas being ambivalent)

There was absolutely no violation of any WP policy by me but there was persistent incivility and personal attacks against myself and others [82],[83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] by the other editors calling for my ban, which Drmies completey ignored. It would seem that the regular editors, who are using the veganism and associated articles as a mouthpiece to promote their own extreme brand of animal rights, are able to get dissenting editors banned at will.

The reason for the ban is not clear. Apparently my discussion of the subject, intended to bring to the attention of the page regulars the opinions of many other editors [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]. that the page was not neutral but excessivly pro-vegan and has been so for many years, was disruptive.

When asked for evidence of any disruptive activity by myself and another editor Drmies was unable to produce any diffs at all. The entire rational for my ban is summed up here [101], where you will see absolutely no disruption or activity of any kind that is against WP policy.

My recent request for arbitration [102] was declined in the basis that further dispute resolution should be tried, athough several Arbcom members agreed that there was a pro-vegan bias to the article that needed addressing. It is hard to see how that bias can be properly addressed when the one person who has been arguing against it is has unfair and unjustified heavy talk page editing restrictions. I therefore ask that the topic ban, as described above, be lifted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm kind of tired of this. Please note that "Arbcom member" is thrown in here only for rhetorical purposes; Hogbin is insinuating that I am abusing my position. It's slime, and the restriction was placed in my capacity as administrator, of course.

  I don't want to go over all this again (a third time?), but please mark that Hogbin is arguing that because he is the only one with a different opinion, he should be allowed to post hundreds of messages on that talk page. Typically, we call that wikilawyering and, worse, editing against consensus. And it's everyone else's fault. It is possible that there are POV issues, but Hogbin is not the right person to help deal with what. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: No clear indication that there was an abuse of administrative discretion, which is the most appropriate standard for an outright overturn of a topic ban. Additionally, Martin Hogbin has given no valid rationale for relief from the topic ban (e.g., evidence of improved conduct). In that vein, I would point out the combative tenor of this request suggests that relief from the topic ban would not be appropriate at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm rather surprised he has not been restricted like this earlier, and as a matter of general course. I can remember that in the infobox of one article (in a different topic), he prompted an edit war over the words "British" or "Scottish" (spanning 20+ reversions), and he made 111 edits to the article's talk page (62,526 bytes) within about 2 months on that limited issue; that combined with another editor's input constituted 27,000 words. This is a sensationally high volume and frequency of talk page edits. Nobody wanted to go anywhere near it, so he then requested arbitration - which was declined. My comments are more detailed at that case request as seen as seen here.
• Now for this appeal, Martin Hogbin appears to have targeted this request for help to Guerillero who was one of the minority arbs who voted to accept the case request. In the message, Hogbin says he needs help from another Arbcom member to review the ban as he thinks other admins will find reversing a ban by an Arbcom member intimidating. I think this is an implausible explanation; ArbCom already declined his case request, the topic ban was imposed by Drmies in his capacity as an administrator acting for the community, and there is no evidence to suggest admins are intimidated if they disagree with an arb. Given the emphasis Hogbin has given in his appeal to merely tallying numbers of participants at the topic ban discussion (which does not in itself determine consensus), I think it's more likely he breached canvassing policy (votestacking) and made a poor attempt to justify the breach.
• TL:DR version: I think the type of editing I have just described is problematic on many levels. A restriction is needed to broadly cover all article talk page discussion (not limited to any one topic) so editors and neutral parties are not discouraged from participating due to the posts which are high in volume, frequency, or inappropriate behavior. I think that was the community consensus from the original ban discussion. For this reason, I oppose the removal of the restriction, but would propose the wording of the restriction be changed from "the talk page Talk:Veganism" to "any article talk page on Wikipedia". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of ban - How many bites of the apple is Hogbin going to try and get? The ban is well within an admins discretion, and seems completely justified by the editor's behavior. I believe that found that to be the case at Arbcom as well. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC) BMK (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Really, the tactic of pushing a particular argument by burying any opposing arguments underneath a thick blanket of verbose verbiage is self-evidently disruptive. The ban as constituted is quite lenient, still allowing Martin Hogbin to make statements on that talk page, without crowding out other voices in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
• Support reversal. I've followed this incident since the case request and haven't seen any rationale for the restriction (beyond Drmies "ratio of talk page to article edits too high" argument, which he later retracted.) Further I've reviewed the article history, talk page and talk archives and can find no justification myself. There appear to be a number of (non-Hogbin) editors whose presence in the topic is detrimental, so I'd encourage others here to conduct their own reviews. Suffice it to say given the editors involved, the course thus far and the dismissals above are unfortunately predictable. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got to give more than that to support a reversal. As BMK says above, Hogbin got a bite at the apple. There's a much, much higher burden that has to be met here than just conclusory remarks that the ban wasn't adequately justified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Ban is fine, in fact it is generous. An outright topic ban would have been well within discretion, allowing you to still post show an attempt to work with you. HighInBC 04:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you all. I see how Wikipedia now works. It will slowy become a playground for well organised minority groups of all kinds from Scottish nationalist to extreme anti-industry and animal rights activists. The [[WP:pillars| five pillars of Wikipedia including verifiable facts, NPOV, civil discussion have all been abandoned in favour of personal alliances and group politics.

James J. Lambden, thanks for you support. I wish you luck but the writing is on the wall. There is concern that editing of WP is declining but it is not hard to see why. Rather than 'The encyclopedia that anyone can edit', we now have Animal farm or Lord of the flies.

I claim the silver medal in this fight for the original principles of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for another bit of proof that the topic ban was well warranted. Let's see how many things you've violated in the behavior that got you banned: WP:IDHT, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CIVILPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:TE ... I'm sure there are others I've overlooked. As HighinBC remarked, you're damn lucky you weren't topic banned altogether. BMK (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I did not realize I was part of a well organised minority of Scottish nationalists and extreme anti-industry blah blah... Seriously, I don't care about any of that. Thank you for making me feel more confident in my opinion. HighInBC 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Extra eyes on The Wachowskis‎

Requesting a few extra eyes on The Wachowskis‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The other of the pair came out as a trans woman as well. The page is protected but the talk page has already drawn some BLP violations. The page falls under the Manning naming dispute and WP:ARBBLP arb com decisions. On a side note, we need shortcut for the two "sexology" decisions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Immediate preemptive close requested

An article talk page has an RFC in progress, slated to end in ten days. A second RFC was opened that substantially overlaps with, and potentially conflicts with, the first RFC. In particular the second RFC is a complete waste of time if the first RFC closes in line with the current leading consensus. All I propose is that any second RFC await resolution of the first RFC. Simultaneous potentially conflicting RFCs is a bad idea in general, it forces people to cast duplicative votes, and WP:Consensus#FORUMSHOP is potentially relevant.

A second editor has requested[103] admin review of whether the simultaneous overlapping RFC was appropriate. A third editor [104] has objected instead you created an RfC to absolutely no effect except wasting peoples time. WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I would have closed it myself, if I had found the second RFC before I responded to the first one.

First RFC: Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year#Rfc:_Elizabeth_II

• The leading position is to remove all flags, and if they are kept it decides the appropriate flag for a specific entry.

Second RFC: Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year#RfC:_Criteria_for_flags

• This RFC in part asks whether flags should be removed, and if not, any result is presumably intended to nullify any outcome above.

Alsee (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I agree this is confusing / disruptive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

AddyAddy1

AddyAddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Firstly, not 100% sure I am in the right place, but it doesn't feel as serious as an Incident and so I wasn't sure where to go.

I'm seeking advice on dealing with an editor whose actions I believe are, on balance, positive but still leave a lot of clean up work for other editors.

His/her edits are referenced, but he uses bare links (including sometimes removing information already in references), they tend to overlink and I have never seen him/her engage in a talk page conversation, including on their own talk page, despite the efforts of many editors. This type of history is typical where s/he has made a large number of edits and then several editors have gone back after them to tidy up.

Any ideas on how to engage with them and get them to take on some constructive criticism? They are a prolific editor and have a lot of potential. Mattlore (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm here supporting Mattlore. Though I hasten to add, we have never communicated and I was completely unaware that he was going to post here. For myself, I'm one of those who have tried to engage the editor in question on his own Talk page, in my case regarding exhaustive Wikilinking. I'd spent hours, literally, removing these from the pages of New Zealand Warriors players over the New Year and filling out some refs. The NZ Warriors are just one of sixteen teams in the Australia-based NRL (a rugby league first flight tournament), so you can imagine the extent of the problem. I had thought that he had got the message; I had posted a message about it several weeks ago on his Talk page which would have resulted in a red flag on his logging in, and noted a massive reduction in the Wikilinking. But checking some very recent posts of his, as I did yesterday, before I had seen the above post of Mattlore, now that the new NRL season is under way, I see that he has reverted to old habits. This may be what prompted Mattlore's post.

This isn't to say that his edits aren't valuable. They are and - as Mattlore says - he is prolific. But there is a problem.

NB. posting to his Talk page without using something like ping will not get his attention, I'm afraid. Boscaswell talk 11:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting on their talk page generates a notification which should be just as visible as a ping. I think he/she is choosing to ignore those messages. Judging from their contributions, they are competent at English. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I see there is editing behavior that needs to change but I don't think one should interpret a lack of dialogue as passive-aggressive or even belligerent behavior. I've run across quite a few editors who just want to edit and don't want to engage in social interactions, probably for a variety of reasons. I know when I first started editing in 2007 and an editor popped on to my user talk page to discuss an article topic (it wasn't a problem with the edits, they just wanted to discuss the subject more in depth), I logged off for a few weeks. I wasn't expecting my minor edits would attract attention and comments and I was surprised that someone wanted to start a discussion which is not what I was looking for then.

If there are problems with his editing, then I see that a dialogue is required. But there are lots and lots of editors who just want to contribute on subjects that interest them are aren't interested in having a conversation. They are the complete opposite of editors who come here and use Wikipedia as a social network, they go out of their way to not be social. I'm just glad that with this editor, you can appreciate the productive contributions they make even though there are clearly some changes that need to be made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Their editing behavior may not be passive-aggressive per se, but when someone's editing over a long period of time requires substantial cleanup by other editors, they become a net negative to the encyclopedia. It may take a brief block to get their attention. All the best, Miniapolis 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In 2 years and nearly 10,000 edits this user has never edited a talk page, not even their own talk page. This is amazing, but hardly consistent with a collaborative environment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have left a friendly note on the editor's talk page, asking them to make a comment. Responding to queries is not optional on this project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Message not received, unfortunately. Mattlore (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have left a follow-up on their talk page. If they have not started talking in the next 48 hours, I will have to consider placing a block on the account. This is not something I want to do with a productive good-faith editor, but there aren't any more subtle tools in the admin toolbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We have had this discussion over a number of editors. Generally the consensus is to leave them be. Adding barelink refs is fine. The only problem therefore is overlinking. I suggest if no communication is established any other way, edits that substantially overlink are reverted, if the damage caused by the overlinking exceeds the benefit from other changes. This, after all, is how we treat every edit.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

Request move/merge/split topic ban for User:FoxNewsChannelFan

In January/February, User:FoxNewsChannelFan made a mess copying and pasting material between variants of Circuit City that he was creating, without attribution, and duplicating lots of text. That was cleaned up and the problem explained, but it's been continuing. Since then we've had a copy/paste content fork of Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [105] to Demolition of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [106] without attribution (and really no justification for it anyway, and done incompetently by just copying a section from one into a new article to make this), a merge of Visa Europe into Visa Inc. again without attribution (presumably based on a sparsely attended merge request in November 2015, and done incompetently by simply copying the entire Visa Europe article into Visa Inc. complete with duplicate See also, References and External links sections), an attempted split of Lunds & Byerlys into three separate articles - Lunds & Byerlys [107], Lunds [108] (admin only due to external copyvio) and Byerly's [109], which not only included unattributed internal Wikipedia copying again but also a large copy of material directly from the company's own web site. In addition, FoxNewsChannelFan has had copyvio image uploads deleted recently. Considering the disruption this causes and the work needed to fix up these messes, I've indefinitely blocked until we can be sure it won't recur. As a condition of unblock, I request a topic ban from moving, merging or splitting articles, and from uploading images - with an appeal allowed after demonstrating six months of trouble-free and copyvio-free editing on other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to include a copy/paste move of Chrysler [110] to FCA US LLC [111]. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And a copy/paste move of Comcast Cable [112] to Xfinity [113] Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the request for a ban on image uploads, as looking again I see they were valid fair use images just improperly labeled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You blocked this editor indefinitely. Is a discussion of editing restrictions needed at this point? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a topic ban would be better than my indef block, and if it's approved then I'll unblock - he's clearly enthusiastic and seems to be able to make other edits without problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would leave the block in place until and unless FoxNewsChannelFan demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. Their communication isn't great either. At this point, we might as well wait for an unblock request and work from there. MER-C 05:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, that makes sense, thanks. Should there be an unblock request, this discussion can be resurrected to decide if a topic ban is needed (as it's not just about copyright, it's also about the inability to do a merge properly). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• There won't be an unblock request. Per WP:USERNAME "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" are not allowed on Wikipedia. This one is using the name "Fox News Channel", which unless I am mistaken should put it squarely in the sights of a username block. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC of project-wide scope on an ESSAY talk page needs a preemptive close

Wikipedia_talk:Videos#RfC:_Full-length_films.2Fvideos_in_articles

Everyone agrees there should be an RFC, however threefour of the last seven people commenting (including myself) have objected that a local consensus on an essay page cannot establish a project-wide consensus to yank a LOT of content out of a LOT of articles. It needs to happen at Village Pump. Whichever way it goes, relevant policy will likely need to be rewritten to clarify the situation. The RFC also needs to be drafted much better, there's a lot of confusion there. The RFC author acknowledges there are valid concerns, but they are reluctant to withdraw an RFC in progress. It has only been open a few hours. Alsee (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

5 of the last 8 are advocating a more appropriate venue and/or improved drafting of the question. (The latest is in the "Clearing up misconceptions" section, rather than the !vote section.) Alsee (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A new person at Village Pump concurs that such an RFC should be at the Pump.[114] That makes it 6 out of 9 people, since the issue was raised. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Closer for RM

Requesting that an uninvolved party close the RM: Requested move to Gypsies. I believe it to be straight forward, but the proposal has come up a number of times throughout the existence of the 'Romani people' article, so I think it needs a firm close. Thanks in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Wbm1058. Much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Detailed indices of the archives of this page

A discussion on this topic has been opened 7 March 2016 at the talk page, i.e. at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_with_the_Detailed_Indices_of_this_page_.3F. Exactly none of the potential users of such pages has answered. I am reopening to be sure, before concluding that all these pages could be emptied, especially User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which is on template overflow. In any case, these indices can be rebuild from the archive pages. Pldx1 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

Resolved

At WT:FOOTY, @EchetusXe: has asked for unprotection of Jordan Nicholson, so that User:EchetusXe/Jordan Nicholson can be moved there. Their article is about a footballer who passes WP:NFOOTY, and the protection appears to be related to vandalism about a completely different person.

Please can an admin unprotect? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if the article could be moved onto the protected page that would be great. Thanks!--EchetusXe 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 13:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) topic ban

Hi. Looking for some advice, so apologies if this in the wrong place. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a current ArbCom ban on him creating new articles, due to copyright issues. This was passed about three years ago. What would be the process for getting this lifted? This is on the back of drafts like this at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I'm not really interested in digging up the past of who did what to whom and why, just looking to see if this can be resolved easy(ily) or not. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That can be appealed to ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Motion:_Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. Be sure to also see the more recent amendment. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the most recent amendment was made 16 October 2015. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom will not hear appeals which are not made by the sanctioned editor - third-party appeals are routinely rejected. BMK (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, according the October motion, the soonest it can be appealed is six month later which would be April. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. I thought it would be a longshot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily a longshot, it seems to be a matter of timing and having the editor approach the committee himself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a longshot, but I'd support it. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a long shot. RAN only recently had his ban on creating new article extended to a ban on creating drafts, IIRC, as all the same copyright-violation problems were cropping up in the drafts. I have some sympathy; it's pretty hard to demonstrate that you've learned your lesson when you have almost no opportunity to demonstrate it, but the problems were serious. GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read that discussion. I didn't see anyone claiming there were copyright-violation problems in the drafts. Did I miss something? Hobit (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the problems were on the one hand the history RAN had with copyright problems (from 2006-2007 mainly, but continuing until 2013, and with little effort done in the cleanup of those), and on the other hand his continued use (until that last discussion at least) of many and rather long quotes (some public domain, some copyrighted), with some articles being more quote than text. But ignoring the discussion of when a quote gets too long to be fair use, I don't think any new (post-2013) copyvios were found. (I did raise an issue with his use of problematic sources in wikidata entries, and then bluelinking these wikidata entries here as if they were articles, but opinions on whether this was indeed a problem were divided) Fram (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fram. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a look through his userspace drafts a few months ago. While there are no blatant copyvio issues, the problems Fram mentions RE long quotes were still around. There is a related issue of his extensive use of linking to findagrave.com (a user-generated site) usually to pages/biographies he has written there - effectively a run around his restrictions here. Once I realised every draft would have to be checked closely for copyvios AND the external links to his content on findagrave would also need to be checked, I realised it was no wonder he made zero effort to sort out his past problems. It would be too time consuming. He clearly intends to just sit out the ban until its lifted without doing any of the work required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• IPs have created Draft:Richard Arthur Norton movelist. What should we do with that, publicize it as a work queue for uninvolved editors? The list should be moved to a different namespace; Wikipedia: or the user's own space? wbm1058 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is quite clearly not a draft article, which is the entire purpose of draftspace, so I have moved it to User:103.6.159.93/Richard Arthur Norton movelist. Anyone who wants to can list it on their user page or create a redirect in their userspace. BMK (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• We should move all the articles, then nominate the draft for deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC).
  

Please move it out of my userspace, which is probably the worst place for it. It'll best in Wikipedia space, or in RAN's userspace. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RAN didn't create it, you did. Of course, it could be moved into the userspace of whatever your real account is. BMK (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to be snarky to the guy, anonymity is a well-established and respected principle here. Just review their requests on the merits. An argument against moving this to RAN's own space is that it requires the work of other editors; indeed RAN is prohibited from working the list. Another possibility is making this some sort of subpage of arbitration enforcement, because if it weren't for that, there would be no need for this page. wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to be snarky, it was my choice to be snarky. I get that way when someone behaves as if we were all born yesterday and can't tell a long-term editor hiding behind an IP from the real thing. BMK (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As the primary reason for this list is the perceived risk of potential copyright violations, I feel that it is beyond the scope of WP:Requested moves, whose primary agenda is not scrutinizing the content of new articles, but rather simply deciding on the best title for articles, based on their content. In other words, requested moves assumes that articles have already been scrutinized for copyright issues, as generally they are already in the main article-space. While recently there have been more cross-namespace requests for moves from draft- to article-space showing up at RM, these may be viewed by some as infringing on the turf of WP:Articles for creation. This phenomenon seems to be an understandable reaction to the backlog at AFC. Some editors may want to use RM to expedite an end-run around the AFC backlog. I don't think we should sanction this for a work queue that has had restrictions placed on it by the Arbitration Committee. It seems to me that AFC is the proper venue. So then the question becomes, how do we integrate this list into AFC? Should each of the articles on this list simply have {{subst:submit}} tags placed on them, or can this list be added as a "special process list" somewhere within the AFC infrastructure? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List for the regular AFC submissions list, also Category:Pending AfC submissions. wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And regarding moving this into RAN's userspace, I suppose we should ask @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): about that, as we should respect his wishes as regards whether or how to incorporate this list into his own userspace. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There is only one other page in userspace that is currently tagged as a {{Backlog}}: User:Mikaey/Broken talk pages. That list is kind of stale, and I'm the only one who has been occasionally working it. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to appeal myself again, it is just a waste of time. If someone wants to ask for a modification where I can again write articles in my namespace, that would be good. I had a backlog of over 300 in namespace. I am also not going to waste time putting a green check mark to each of my initial 100,000 edits to certify they are copyright free. It is the equivalent of digging a ditch and then filling it in again. All is takes it for someone like BMK or Fram to find three words in a row that are the same in a New York Times article and use it to whip up hysteria again. Look at the last appeal where someone used my quoting a 1905 or 1910 New York Times article to show that I was still violating copyright and whipped up hysteria again, and the next three commentators agreed and wanted me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): We aren't asking you to appeal or make any edits regarding these drafts yourself. All I was asking was whether you would like User:103.6.159.93/Richard Arthur Norton movelist moved to someplace in your user space, so that other willing editors could help you by checking the article drafts on that list, and moving those they approved into article-space. Or, if you would prefer the list to be maintained and worked from somewhere in the project (Wikipedia:) namespace, let us know that. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintained anywhere is fine with me. Wow, I wrote a lot of articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just hacked in a link to Earwig's copyvio detector for each page to make the list even more useful. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of blue links on that list. You aren't proposing moving over the top of existing articles such as Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr., are you? I see that RAN made several edits to the existing article at about the same time as he created his draft. wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainty not. A large number of blue links are due to the fact that Rich Farmbrough has moved many drafts to mainspace without removing their names from the list.

@Wbm1058: I just read the lengthy prose that you posted #above. Thank you for detailing how the list is beyond the scope of wp:RM. May I ask you what gives you the impression that the list has anything to do with RM? The list has nothing to do with the Requested Moves process at all or with the AFC project for that matter. All drafts do not necessarily need to be passed through AfC. Indeed, established users routinely move their drafts themself, without involving the AfC at any stage. And I have no idea on what you mean by "I don't we should sanction this as a work queue..." There is no authority on Wikipedia that sanctions or regulates work queues. {{Backlog}} is an informally used template that anyone can use. Also, I will note that there are no restrictions placed by the ArbCom here. The arbitration motion made it clear that "Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page." People who are clearly uninterested, such as yourself, need not volunteer. If you have problems with the list's existence, I welcome you to file an MfD nomination. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I'm trying to help you; please drop this attitude. You mean to tell me that you are not familiar with these requests, even though they come from an IP 103.6.159...

This would be a lot easier for you to do yourself, if you were to become an established user.

The link to check for copyvios is helpful; I spot-checked one item on the list (Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.) and it was flagged as a possible copyvio; that's when I found that it was a "copyvio" of our existing bio on the man. I don't like wasting my time; you can expedite this by helping to make sure that your list is clean of such items. It's not anything that Rich just moved either, as that bio was started back in October 2007‎.

I'm still reviewing the functioning of the {{backlog}} template, about which I got a request on my talk page. So, chill about that, as I'm juggling an increasing number of balls on this Wikipedia project of ours. wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request speedy revert of page move

Can an administrator restore AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol to its original title? It was moved just recently in the middle of the match and can't be undone without admin intervention. I don't want to use {{Db-move}} because that will break the original article title (currently a redirect) at the worst possible time. There is a WP:RM with broad support for such a reversion on the talk page. SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thue did it. DMacks (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Password policy changing

Not sure if anyone had mentioned it here, but Wikipedia's password policy will be changing for administrator accounts. From March 15, all admin accounts' passwords will need to be at least 8 bytes long and not be on a list of most common passwords. If your password does not meet the policy, you will be required to change it when you log in.

This comes after a local and global RFC on the topic reached similar conclusions.

The local RFC also concluded that the password policy should be enforced for edit filter managers. That change isn't planned to be implemented yet, it seems. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Let me be the first to say (interestingly) that this first step towards improved account security is excellent news, but is only the first step of many (such as 2FA). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks

Please have a look at User_talk:Vensatry#Re:_harassment. A number of IPs are attacking him for some time (mostly identity/location/caste-related personal attacks). I temporarily semied Vensatry's talk page (and talk's /header). Another admin blocked one of these IPs also. The problem is whenever the semi-protection ends, a new IP comes back. Vensatry has asked for a longer semi-protection. I am interested to know if there is any better solution. Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and the harassment is coming from IPs on a variety of ISPs in the United Kingdom. It is unlikely that a simple block is going to suffice here. It might be that permanent s-protection is the only answer here, and I see no reason to refuse if that's what User:Vensatry wants. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Yes, permanent semi-protection is a good idea. But the problem is they vandalise many of my subpages. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I've been away from the Internet except in short bursts, but if nobody beats me to it I'll go through and s-protect the affected pages later tonight. If there's any particular userspace pages you definitely want protected drop me a note on my talk page or send me an email. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: I'm not clear on why indefinite semi-protection is warranted for this user's talk page. As far as I can see, this has only been going on for about a month and spans maybe a dozen total trolling sprees. Two semis were issued by Titodutta, one for three days, the other for about 10 days. I issued a 7 day protection because I noted the disruption on my own, then extended it to a month at the user's request that it be longer, which I think is a reasonable test. But indefinite protection of a talk page should be reserved for serious disruptions, and we haven't even tried the one-month protection, or anything beyond that. What, no account that isn't autoconfirmed should ever speak to this user again? And frankly, the user appears to be feeding the troll in some instances, with reversion summaries like "Saying this for the umpteenth time: Fuck off" and "Dear arsehole go lick Bollywood pages, not my ass". I really think you should restore the 1 month semi and I think maybe Vensatry could develop a thicker skin for this sort of meaningless nonsense. Deny the trolls any recognition.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you that the victim of harassment should just "develop a thicker skin". The harassment has been going long enough and appears to be sophisticated enough (coming from multiple ISPs) that indefinite (not infinite) protection is probably required to keep the drama away, and no concerns were raised for a few days after I proposed it. To be totally honest, I think that raising noise about this is giving these trolls more recognition than a single low profile semi-protection would. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Thanks for that! I'm much relieved now. While I understand that Cyphoidbomb's intentions are certainly good, I wish he had gone through the talk and sub page(s) histories in depth before arriving at half-baked assumptions and conclusions. These disruptions are clearly coming from multiple ISPs (from a single user who operates from the same location) for nearly one-and-half months. Resume attacks either after the page gets unprotected or block gets lifted - this was happening like a routine. Even when I retired (for some personal reasons), they didn't leave me. I had to delete most of my subpages (after they were vandalised with grossly insulting personal attacks combined with ethnic slurs). With in a span of 12 hours, the troll (through another IP) seemed to have recreated (or rather vandalised) my talk header, which was deleted by Tito. I agree, I was a bit harsh in some of my edit summaries, but what made him think the troll's actions are justifiable? I'm not justifying my actions either, but one should understand that not everyone has the same level of patience. Sorry if it hurts, but he should stop giving childish ideas like Women who dress provocatively are partly responsible for rape. Actually, the 'thick skin' advice is even more worse. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Cyphoidbomb's intentions are good, and if it were just a bit of drive-by vandalism I'd agree with them. They do have a point you should consider carefully about the edit summaries, a much blander "rvv" can usually have the same effect and cut down on the troll getting any satisfaction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Sure. Can you delete those versions and edit summaries (including mine) from my talk page? —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: Clearly you do agree with my "thicker skin" argument, because you arrived at the same conclusion: "a much blander 'rvv' can usually have the same effect and cut down on the troll getting any satisfaction." I'm not sure if you simply misinterpreted what I meant, but I thought my statement was clear since it was followed up by a link to WP:DENY. If Vensatry denies recognition (which would require absorbing the attack, thus "having a thicker skin") Vensatry might see the problem abate. We are clearly in agreement. Where we are not in agreement is on how rational it is to leap from a 1 week semi to indefinite semi-protection of a user's talk page without trying anything in between, particularly when policy discourages long-term protection of talk pages. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. I've no interest in wheel-warring, but I don't think this should be considered resolved unless another admin signs off on it. Vensatry your "rape blame" comparison is asinine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time arguing semantics, except to say that I think that telling someone being harassed with racist abuse to "grow a thicker skin" is a pretty tone-deaf thing to say. The policy you've linked says "rarely", and I think that given the continued and sustained abuse it is justified in this case, and that we probably should be more worried about ways we can support our editors rather than a pettifogging focus on the lightest possible protection on a single page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC).

Cyphoidbomb, you're asking me to keep a develop a 'thicker skin'. But tell me for how long? Even after the SP disruptions continue to happen in some way. I wonder what advice I'm going to get now. Not to sound dramatic, but I'm seriously feeling sick of this project at the moment. WP is no longer a safe place even for long-time editors. I might consider WP:VANISH. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

They are finding ways to disturb me. Can the IPs be range-blocked? They follow my edits and make meaningless reverts: 213.205.251.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#MaxBioHazard

Please, pay attention to this request, posted 10 days ago (and all other requests on that page - none of them has been answered). MaxBioHazard (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It took a while to identify the relevant edit filter hit, but I've just posted something about your problem on that page.  —SMALLJIM  12:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Protected page text

There is currently an edit request at Template talk:Protected page text. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no code ready-to-paste, I've disbaled the request for now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Similar name for Images in EnWiki and Commons

Please remove this image, because I upload new file in Commons.--Samək^Talk 12:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Samak: You can just edit Mohammad Ahmadzadeh and replace the current image with your upload. You may want to check out commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Tasnim News Agency given the source of your upload.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PR close

I have requested that Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 be closed both in the PR and at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#PR_close, but no one has gotten to it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a matter that requires administrator action, or indeed outside assistance. The very simple instructions for closing a review are at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Subject may want article removed

Please give some guidance on this.

Convenience link: User talk:Gene ZEF.

Thank you kindly.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

They can request its afd'd or they can advise what changes they want to make those are their only real options. Amortias (T)(C) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

First, they need to prove their identity to OTRS - nothing can or should be done until that is done. Second, if it's established that they are the subject, they need to formally request that the article be removed. Third, if the subject is notable, they should be told that the article will not be removed.

Article subjects do not have any inherent roight to have their articles removed. We can, and should, as Amortias says, correct any inaccuracies, but that's as far as it goes. We are not a promotional medium, and that works both ways: we neither want our article to be promoting the subject, nor do we want it to be unduly influenced by the subject.

Finally, if they haven't been told so already, they should be told that vandalising the article is not any part of the process, and if they do it again, an admin should block them. BMK (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Amortias and BMK. I will consider what you have written and see how things go. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And now a message that the images are not wanted at commons.[115] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, this is not the proven subject saying this. This is a claimed friend passing on the message. What now?

(I've asked at the IRC steward's channel. I will link to this thread at that channel and anywhere else I can think of. Is there a WMF legal noticeboard? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• We are an "ENCYCLOPEDIA", not some random web/fansite dedicated to musicians, if a person qualifies for inclusion on our database under any of our notability criteria, their article will be created and will be kept no matter what..We 'provide' information on people, we do not 'create' information..everything on that article is well reference and sourced and will not be removed, so yes she can contact the legal department but they will give the same answer I did.. Try AfD but it will still be kept, wikipedia ONLY deletes article when and if it fails notability and in Yolandi's case, it won't..at the very best, wikipedia will be willing to replace/remove her image, nothing more..--Stemoc 06:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally understand. I'm posting here because I should, not for any other reason. Also, I've seen subjects request that their article be deleted and it was. I've also see the outcome be a decline to delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely true Stemoc, WMF have deleted and salted some BLP's in the past when threatened by a subject who is willing to take them to court. Its easier and less costly than actually fighting it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they were pretty much 'nobodies' .. she is a somebody, quite famous really..even i have heard of her....its like Bill Gates trying to get his article deleted...I think some people refuse to accept that we are an encyclopedia, not some random celebrity gossip site so we don't really choose what gets added or removed, as long as anything added fills out criteria, its kept..The problem with most "celebs" are that they think a bit too much of themselves, I doubt she is the first known celebrity to make such a ludicrous request to wikipedia, and surely won't be the last..as long as we do our part right ensuring that the article is as 'factual' as possible, there would never be a need to delete anything in the future..--Stemoc 10:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks alot like a legal threat. KoshVorlon 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly a legal threat. Why else would one need a number for a legal dept except to (e.g.) serve papers on it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On edit: However, this suggests 'discussion'... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking for legal's contact does not in itself constitute a legal threat. Direct them to meta:Legal. –xeno^talk 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No , but it | creates a chilling effect on the page that can easily be interpreted as a legal threat. KoshVorlon 14:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally come down on the side of a very liberal (some might say radical) interpretation of WP:NLT, but I agree with Xeno that asking how to contact the WMF legal department does not create the "chilling effect" we're trying to avoid. BMK (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• In borderline cases, we certainly do remove articles on request, especially where they have been abused in order to attack a subject. I don't think this is being used in that way, but it certainly falls into the class of borderline notability where the subject's preference against having an article should be given considerable weight. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We still have discretion: just because some fanbois want an article, we are not obliged to have one, for example. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added a few good references, so it is no longer completely unsourced - but it does need more. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

I would like an uninvolved admin to have a look at my latest edit war, with IP 173.24.171.34. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 – Per request of IJBall. Mike V • Talk 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

During the course of my IPBE review, I had reviewed the IPBE right of Nathan and found that he did not meet the criteria for using the IPBE right. The right was removed because it was no longer needed since the editor has access to a a non-firewalled IP address. In addition, the reason for granting IPBE ("user in good standing, request seems reasonable") was insufficient and didn't meet the expectations of the IPBE policy. Recently, Nyttend restored the right without first discussing the issue with me. I'm concerned that this falls under a misuse of his administrative tools, as administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I believe that the reversal was without good cause, as Nyttend is not privy to the checkuser information that would verify that Nathan does not have need of the IBPE right. In addition, I've been presently available and it seems unreasonable for Nyttend to taking any action without first discuss this with me.

I approached Nyttend on his talk page to discuss my explanation further and to ask why he reverted my action without consulting me first. I found his reasoning to be incorrect (as my actions were supported by the policy I've provided), as well as inadequate (I don't see why this was such a pressing issue that it must have been reverted, fully knowing that I would have objected on reasonable grounds.) I've requested Nyttend to permit me to revert his actions, to which he has declined. I'm bringing this to the community to discuss the misuse of administrative tools and to seek a consensus to overturn Nyttend's actions. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this belongs at WP:AN, not here (esp. if you want more Admin eyes on it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I brought it here since the admin noticeboard suggests using ANI for specific instances. However, I would have no objection to having it moved to AN. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My thinking on AN being the better forum is that this is less an "incident", and more a disagreement over the interpretation of Administrative actions/policy. Those of us around ANI who aren't Admins (which is most of us) probably aren't going to have a lot of insight on the details of IP block exemption policy... YMMV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• From my vantage point, it seems like your actions were reasonable, informed, and within policy. (IP address exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it). By contrast, Nyttend's response seems arrogant and unyielding. Nyttend should reverse his own action restoring the IPBE or consent to allowing you to do it yourself.- MrX 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• The way I read the policy is IPBE should only be temporary as long as the right is needed in order to continue editing articles. I take this from two parts in the policy. First, under the conditions for granting, when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator and second under the removal section, relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-firewalled IP address. As a CU, Mike V has access to information that Nyttend does not have and would be able to make the determination on whether or not the requirement is necessary much more easily. Assuming that Mike V did all the prerequisite work of making sure the editor can edit normally without IPBE, I believe his actions were completely correct. Nyttend's reversal of his action was hasty and not in the spirit of admin cooperation and discussion. The policy does not state that the right may be removed if it is no longer needed. It says it will be removed when it is no longer needed. Mike V was enforcing our policy. Nyttend should reverse their action, permit Mike V to do so, or provide a valid reason why Nathan needs that right (specifically why they cannot edit normally without it). --Majora (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn Mike V made a reasonable proposal about reviewing and removing IP block exempt (IPBE) permissions that no longer serve a purpose. Furthermore, if a permission was granted given a poor rationale, I'd expect an administrator to be able to revoke it, no matter what it was. Indeed, No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting is listed as a typical reason about why IPBE is removed generally. These "no longer needed / insufficient rationale" cases seem entirely separate from cases of abuse, where the preventative vs. punitive distinction is actually relevant, which is what Nyttend has cited as a rationale for reinstating the IPBE permissions. I agree Nyttend should have discussed this concern with Mike V or pointed it out in the discussion first. What I really think is needed here is some rewriting of that section of the policy. Anyone want to help me propose a rewrite there? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  It's simple. Remove "However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.", which is little more than a platitude. It's also incompatible with the rule that the right should be removed if it's not needed. "Being needed" is not synonymous with "being preventative."- MrX 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Quick notes (1) I disagree with the interpretation of the policy being advanced here, but if the community either endorses the other interpretation or thinks this is a good time to ignore the rules, I have no reason to complain; my objection is that one individual mustn't unilaterally do it. (2) I endorse any reasonable proposal to rewrite the criteria. If there's a fundamental disagreement regarding what's intended, it's definitely time to clear up the meaning, one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your interpretation of the policy then? It would be helpful if we knew what rules we are allegedly "ignoring". Is there a talk page discussion you've started on said rules? Can you point us to it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd have preferred to see more thorough discussion, though I can kind of see Nyttend's IAR basis insofar as it looked like leaving it off was going to drive away an editor. But I think that sort of matter should be built into the IPBE review policy (i.e., a "restore pending discussion" period where admins/CUs/whoever can review it as a group when the editor in question isn't a risk). I guess my point is I'd rather have seen more thorough discussion prior to restoring the IPBE. I have zero opinion on whether this editor should have IPBE or whether the IPBE policy needs revision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn If checkuser information shows the right is not needed then it should not be there. I don't think either side has behaved poorly, just that there is a disagreement. My 2 cents is that Mike V is in a better position to make an informed decision. A discussion on the policy talk page may yield a policy that is more clear. Discussing the issue with Mike V before reversing it would have been a lot better, and policy really encourages it. HighInBC 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am a bit concerned about the (correct me if I am wrong) removals with no warning or discussion on the user's talk page. I have IP exempt because I often do everything through Tor because I am at a remote site where industrial espionage is a real problem (I do consulting work in the toy industry). I often end up waiting around for someone at the remote site so I edit Wikipedia. The thing is, I might go nine months without needing IP exempt then suddenly have to spend a couple of months in China where I need it very badly. I don't want some admin to remove the right without first discussing it with me and giving me a chance to explain my situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am slightly more concerned that since there was no discussion with any of the editors whose rights were removed, how was it determined they no longer had a need for IPBE? Was a checkuser run on every IPBE holder to determine how/where they were editing from? While IPBE allows for review, it doesnt specify how that review will take place and the policy regarding Checkuser use on ENWP does not allow for that sort of fishing around in people's private data held by the WMF. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • How would a checkuser have revealed that for the last few months I have had no need for IPBE but next week I might be in China working under a consulting contract that specifies that I must access the Internet is through Tails and Tor? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Well it wouldnt, that was rather the point. Since no effort was made to contact the users with the exemption, as far as I can see (and from Mike's comments on his userpage) his decision was entirely based upon the editing history. Which means he would have had to checkuser hundreds of people in order to determine that. And I am still waiting for someone to point to where in the ENWP checkuser policy that is allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a check was performed. A check is permitted if done for a legitimate purpose. (The IP audit check is considered a legitimate purpose per the IPBE policy. I went through all available logs and avenues of information to determine the reason that IPBE was applied. (e.g. contacting other checkusers, searching through UTRS, digging through the history of talk pages, etc.) The reason the IPBE was applied was compared to the technical data. If the reason no longer applied, it was removed. If it was still needed, it remained. For those who I needed further information, I contacted via email. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Er the checkuser policy defines what is a legitimate purpose for checkuser, not IPBE. And it certainly does not give you permission to CU 200+ people because you think their IPBE needs to be removed. Neither the grounds for checking nor the 'legitimate purposes' section of checkuser give that as a reason. In fact the section you linked plainly states what is a legitimate purpose, and what you haveat given as justification is not it. The meta policy is even more explicit: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. What possible interpretation of your actions passes that threshold? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: The first point of the CU privacy policy states that "Checkusers are given discretion to check an account, but must always do so for legitimate purposes. Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." (emphasis mine) That is not exactly a narrow definition of "legitimate purpose." Since reduction in potential abuse of IPBE can "prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption" to the project (per ENWP policy), and can "limit disruption" and "prevent damage" to the project (per meta policy), this appears to me to have been an appropriate use of the tool. If you believe that Mike V abused the tool, then per Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse and m:CheckUser policy#Removal of access you are free to request that it be removed if you feel this issue remains unresolved. (Non-administrator observation) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - While I appreciate Mike V's efforts to clean up IPBE pursuant to the intent of IPBE, I understand the misgivings about users not being notified that the permissions were being removed; perhaps a new template to be substituted on the user's talk page could be created. I must, however, disagree wholeheartedly with Nyttend's restoration of a permission that is specifically designed to be temporary having neither full knowledge of why it was removed nor discussion with the removing administrator. Discussion regarding the removal of users' permissions is expected preferred before reversion takes place; the only plausible reason I see for reverting the removal of a user's permissions without discussion is a good-faith belief that the original administrator had "gone rogue," in which case I would also expect an ARBCOM case and emergency desysop. I support overturning Nyttend's reversions unless the affected user(s) can demonstrate a bona fide need for IPBE to be retained.

As for the process behind the mass removal, Mike V stated that an audit of IPBE permissions had occurred over the past month. I do not believe that users need to know the exact details and methods of the audit, save that such an audit can only be undertaken by administrators and/or bureaucrats. If a user doesn't trust an admin or 'crat to properly carry out such an audit, then that user is free to request that the bit be removed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – FWIW, I think a discussion among Admins about this needs to be held at WT:IPEXEMPT. I don't agree with the current discussion over there that it should be handed out like candy and never be removed. I also don't think that removal of the right needs to be "pre-warned" in the same way that removal of Admin and Crat rights are pre-warned. But the creation of a template for a Talk page notice, stating that the right has been removed, why it has been removed, and what users can do if they want to re-request it, would be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Removal without warning or discussion --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Appeal to a third. Hi. Mike V, this is not much different from standard dispute resolution in the articles, only it is far more serious. (You two should avoid wheel warring instead of edit warring, right? And the issue is the integrity of Wikipedia, right?) Arrange for you and Nyttend to have another checkuser (or several) review the evidence that only checkusers can see and let him appeal the removal. The advantage of this solution is that it is impervious to the faults of verdicts that arise out of us not having checkuser rights and therefore not having sufficient data to make an informed decision. And skip the issue of Nyttend not have communicated with you first. Consider this: What difference would it have made if he had briefly communicated with you and did it anyway? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This will happen on Monday. See User talk:Codename Lisa# IPBE (2). More on Monday; let's give this a rest until then. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Requesting closure: As the discussion has come to an end, would someone be willing to wrap this up? Mike V • Talk 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• I would close this but now pigsonthewing has taken strong exception to Mike V's removal of his IPBE, for reasons I think are justified. I don't think we're going to be able to sweep this one under the rug. Given this appears to be a grievance between an editor and a checkuser, do we have to send this to Arbcom to adjudicate? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• comment agree with Richiee333. Sadly, it appears that Mike V is digging his heels in on the "one size fits all" interpretation of one section of a general policy. [116] — Ched :  ?  15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Further: As part of this review on 20 February 2016, Mike V removed IPBE from LouisAlain, who has been unable to edit ever since. Mike insists that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost, but it is clear that Mike is relying on inaccurate information which suggests that the range used by LouisAlain's ISP, Free (ISP), is a webhost. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Mike has show no appreciation for the likelihood that he is working from outdated information; LouisAlain, a native French editor with 75,000 problem-free edits across Wikimedia projects, remains blocked on the English Wikipedia, despite an unblock request sitting on his talkpage for over two days. This is beginning to show a pattern and I feel strongly that this should not be closed until all of the issues that have a arisen as a result of the removals of IPBE are properly and fully resolved. --RexxS (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, how does that in any way have anything to do with the administrative action of Nyttend? That is what this section is for. It has nothing to do with LouisAlain, nor does it have to do with the general IPBE right. Having this section continually here seems to be a little unfair to Nyttend since it has their name on top. If you want to start a new topic feel free to do so. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that User:RexxS and I could start a new section, below this one, about the removal of IPBE from LouisAlain's any my accounts. What purpose do you think splitting the discussion in that way would serve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Majora: I was under the impression that this section was to discuss Nyttend's actions in relation to his reversal of Mike V's removal of IPBE from an editor - please correct me if I am under any misapprehension. If that is the case, then surely you can see that examination of perceived flaws in Mike's removal of IPBE in other cases is most relevant to how we should view Nyttend's reversal of one such action. I expect you are familiar with WP:BOOMERANG and you understand the chilling effect that making a report to ANI can have in stifling dissent. I am steadily reaching the conclusion that Mike V has not only exceeded his remit, but is now unwilling to accept the resultant criticism arising from more than one ill-judged removal of IPBE. While editors in good standing like LouisAlain remain needlessly blocked, and a Wikipedian-in-Residence like Andy (who needs IPBE to counter the potential disruption of a hard block on an institution's IP range) have had that right removed, then it is necessary to question the benefit of slavishly following the letter of some policy against the problems caused to productive editors. This is particularly so where it is clear that the editors involved have had the right for some time without it causing any problems whatsoever. From that perspective, it appears that Nyttend made a pretty sound decision. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
      • You do realize that there are better venues for that discussion to take place in right? The one time reversal by Nyttend is probably not going to happen again by any other admin. The removal was done based on confidential checkuser information. Information that normal admins have no access to and would not be able to comment on. Mike V has said repeatedly that if you have issue and need to confirm to either talk with another CU or to bring it up to ArbCom. If you have a problem with the administrative actions of Mike V, there is ArbCom. If you have a problem with Mike's use of CU, there is the Ombudsman commission. This is not the proper venue anymore. Pick one that is. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
        • This is a point I don't understand. Why is it so inappropriate to discuss these matters with the users involved? I don't understand the attitude that once an action is made, it can't be questioned, and that people with a problem should formally appeal through the appropriate venues. Why is there so much hostility towards a public and reasoned discussion of the actions taken? Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed it has been suggested that Arbcom may be required to resolve this, but I do think it is reasonable of provide the opportunity to Mike V a less stressful venue to reconsider his options first, which he has heretofore been reluctant to do. I did notice that he had said he was unavailable until after the 14th of March. While it is indeed "Administrative" and "CU" tools that are being questioned, I feel that community input is a step that should not be simply skipped over. Unfortunately, we have at least a couple of users who are unable to have reasonable objections addressed ... short of another CU/Admin. restoring those IP block exemptions. — Ched :  ?  23:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's now almost two weeks since I requested the restoration of my IP block exemption, and we seem to be no nearer a resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that it's time to file an Arbcom case, as noted above, since nothing else would seem to compel Mike to permit editors to edit normally. A pity policy doesn't just permit us to cut through the bureaucracy and enable individuals to have a tool they need to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Oh, wait: policy already says that. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This should be closed. Nothing of value has come from this thread in over a week. HighInBC 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just wish to note that I've reverted the non-admin closure. This should be closed by an administrator to evaluate the consensus formed and if necessary, remove the IPBE issued. Also, the closure was not particularly constructive in addressing the points made. Mike V • Talk 15:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well you have not been particularly constructive in addressing any of the criticism and singularly failed to explain why you checkusered hundreds of people violating their privacy absent any justification from either ENWP's checkuser policy or META's. Sometimes you dont get what you want. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe I have. I've been very transparent and have been participating in conversation on my talk page, other users' talk pages, AN, ANI, and responding to emails. in short, it falls under the checkuser policy, point #3: preventing, investigating, and responding to potential disruption of the project. Our local policy also permits the user of checkuser to verify the need of IPBE and it's conveyed to users when the right is issued. Mike V • Talk 15:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

By any reasonable standard the only disruption caused was by your removal. There is no 'potential' disruption in registered users with IPBE having IPBE except in your mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser seems like a very jobsworth response - looks like this'll need an Arbcom case to close properly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to close this, but in the course of reading it I developed a rather clear opinion on one aspect (noted in italics below), so I'll comment instead, and let someone else close it. With the exception of the italics, this was going to be my thread closing statement:

• There's no consensus to sanction Nyytend here. If Mike V wants Nyttend sanctioned, he should open an ArbCom case.
• There's no consensus to remove IPBE from Nathan. If Mike V wants IPBE removed, he should open an ArbCom case.
• AndyMabbett makes a very reasonable case for IPBE even though he is not subject to a current hardblock, and the only reason not to grant it is the paranoia that Mike V gets veto power on all IPBE, and granting it anyway will be considered wheel warring. I am going to restore this right to Andy as soon as I save this. If Mike V wants me sanctioned, or the IPBE removed from Andy, he should open an ArbCom case.
• There's no consensus for Mike V to be sanctioned here. If anyone wants Mike V sanctioned, they should open an ArbCom case.
• Our requirements for granting IPBE are stupid. If anyone wants to change them, they should participate in a discussion at WT:IPBE.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam. The closure that was reverted may not have found anything productive, however neither has this discussion. While I am involved I see no clear outcome either way. I guess we can wait for another uninvolved admin to close this, though I don't expect a radically different result. HighInBC 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing analysis of POV author in Hebron Pages.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources

After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.

The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution? It apears that administration tools are being used to block user input on this matter, and particularly that several users have noticed that the quaote author is POV and not objective.

At this point, the editors has accused anyone who disagrees with him as being a member of the community. and that they are being proponent of the community, and he doesn't need to be NPOV on wikipedea, and he keeps avoiding the main point which is that his source is POV and disqualified from being used to support the paragraph that he wrote.

166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This editor keeps posting long unfocused rants at Talk:Hebron, both as an IP and logged in. The editor seems to want to remove a source because the source may have a POV, which of course is not a valid reason for removal as all sources have a POV. Sepsis II (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 says (in part):

All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Any page, not just articles. If the IP editor's behavior is disruptive—and I don't believe I've ever edited Talk:Hebron, nor is it on my watchlist, so I don't know if it is—their messages should be deleted immediately or the page should be semi-protected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is enough abuse here to justify an admin semiprotecting Talk:Hebron. An IP is editing there who is probably the same person as User:Mrbrklyn. The latter has already been notified under ARBPIA, and has only about 100 edits which doesn't satisfy the 500/30 rule. The registered account has made six edits at Hebron on March 6, which explicitly violates the rule. In my opinion, Mrbrklyn should be warned to stop editing the article *and* the talk page until such time as he has 500 edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no abuse here other than sloppy administration policy on the part of the admins watching Hebron. This has been a registered account since 2007 not an anonymous IP and the administrators are objecting to my support of the observation that the paragraph in question is not NPOV.

Furthermore, I am obviously not an "anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days" which "are are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." And in fact have FAR more than 100 edits, which is not even a criteria for the talk page limitation or the Hebron limitation. Instead, the admins need to be held accountable to the NPOV regulation for sources, and it should not be allowed that the community with the biggest voice should be able to wrote that an entire Jewish community is messianic fundamentalist and trying to drive the world into the end of days, as was pointedly said in the article based on this biased sourced.

This is all about shifting the discussion from the valid points being made about the source, and the relating paragraph, to blaming the messenger. ~~Ruben Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement above is demonstrably untrue. The account in question has made just 106 edits since 2007; more than half of these have been made in the past three days. The AE restriction is from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"; this includes talk pages just as much as it does articles. Additionally, this editor misunderstands Wikipedia's policy on sourcing and neutral point of view. We do not require sources themselves to have a neutral point of view; indeed, in a topiuc area such as the Palestine/Israel conflict this would be near-impossible, and eliminate at a stroke many of the best sources. Instead, policy requires editors to be neutral in their handling of sources, including biased sources. In his insistence that reliably-sourced text should be removed from the article because he disagrees with the perceived bias of the sou, Mrbrklyn is flying directly in the face of policy. RolandR (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No - your actually wrong about my account. Perhaps your records don't do back to the early 2000's. Aside from that, you are making up your own rules. I am certainly allowed to participate even under you limited view. Finally, there is no misunderstanding on my part about the NPOV rules. They are quite clear and in plain English. Frankly, you are not an honest broker in this matter.

And what else can wikipedia do? You have thousands of "educational facilities" about the world, many with extreme biases, religious agendas, and political functions. Wikipedea can not just ignore the POV which is why we MADE the NPOV as the first matter for the validity of citation. You have a whole world of radicalized education programs publishing works, from Holocaust deniers in Teran, straight through to political repression in China and North Korea. And on top of that, there is no shortage of "peer reviewed" journals who are willing to publish, eagerly for that matter, works from these sources. NPOV is the VERY FOUNDATION STONE of Wikipedea, and when avenues of discussion are brazenly blocked by a group of similarly thinking advocates, in this case pro-Palestinian activists who admit their advocacy on there user pages, then TRUTH can never obtained. Truth and NPOV is a process, not an outcome. There will always be about 13 million Jews in a world dominated by billions of Muslims. and other hostiles, such as in the West. If you can not make NPOV the highest priority with regard to all the articles involving Jewish activities, from the settlements in the Jewish Homeland, to religious activities and terrorist attacks worldwide, then you have NOTHING but a system that echos the repression of a minority like the Jews, and no voice for truth.

The paragraphs in question are highly controversial. They accuse an entire community and the most mainstream Jewish theological movement as being a radical and dangerous entity. The source to support this is not reliable and biased. The author of the paragraph is likewise, biased. The paragraph in question even contradicts other areas in the same article, saying there is no relationship between the current Jewish residents of Hebron and the survivors of pogrom of 1929, and then says that there IS such an affiliation. This just further proves that there is no consideration for truth in paragraph, or the author. At no point is there even a question if it matters. If you kill all the Jews in Hebron in 1929, how does that justify anything about the settlers today? Does that paragraph advocate the removes of these Jews from Hebron based on their relationship of previous generations of Jews, who were slaughtered? Every Jewish editor has been locked out of editing the Hebron pages.

It is not my integrity that is in question here, it is wikipedia.

Ruben Mrbrklyn (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that when they blocked the initial discussion, they didn't figure that anyone with a long account would be listening. The group that is involved, a sworn Marxist and anti-zionist, Malik Shabazz, a committed Muslim convert, with radical left leanings, Nishidani, who devotes his entire user space to Palestinian rights, and so on, as a group they will never permit a balanced view of Hebron, or many other articles unless there is broad intervention from the top. It just can't happen. The paragraph in the Hebron section would probably be defined as hate speech in Germany.

Lets look at the claim that Mrbrklyn is not allowed to post. It says this in the talk section of Hebron. Here is the criteria as posted on the page:

"All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"

OK that does not apply. "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

That can apply but is not the issue. Mrbrklyn is being told he is not allowed to edit at all because he is disqualified.

Maybe it can be explained in plain English why he is not allowed to edit? 166.84.1.2 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - editors interested in this discussion should be aware that the IP who opened this thread also began a discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard seeking identical redress as is being sought here; arguably "forum shopping".--John Cline (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Mrbrklyn should be banned from Talk:Hebron because he keeps posting long incoherent rants there. As for the history of the account, there is no account creation log but there is evidence that the account existed earlier than the first recorded contrib. If there were indeed hundreds of edits back then that don't appear in the contribs, Mrbrklyn should be able to show us some diffs of them. But I think he should be banned from Talk:Hebron anyway. Zero^talk 08:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Um....aren't we having problems with IP editors in the 166 range lately ? KoshVorlon 11:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they're usually from the 166.17x.xxx.xxx ranges. I'd be a little wary of accusing all users in the 166.xxx.xxx.xxx ranges of being one of these banned users. Not impossible, but I'd be more inclined to seek more evidence before applying the brush. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@166.84.1.2: Mrbrklyn is not allowed to edit because his edit count as far as can be judged openly by his contributions list is below 500 edits. The Arbitration committee ruling in ARBPIA3(?) instructed that no user with less than 500 edits is permitted to edit in this area. This injunction was put in place to stop sock puppets, meat puppets and non-long term IP editors from filling the article spaces with filibustering / attacks / disruption / threats / etc. Blackmane (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC) see comment further down. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment There wouldn't be long off topic conversations if the admins on the talk section stayed on the topic, and stopped stretching the rules to suit their needs to create flames. For example, it was stated that I wasn't allowed to post by the arbitration rules. I 100% am allowed to post there since I'm registered. Even if I am registered and posted just 10 times I would have a right to edit in the Hebron page and the talk page. THEN there was the whole side conversation about the images I posted. Then there was a whole side discussion about my ip address. There was a whole conversation about if I was from the community (as if being a member of the Hebron community disqualifies one from editing) We have discussed everything but the facts.

This is the fact, the NPOV rule is being circumvented on that articl. Those that support circumventing it insist that that PLAIN MEANING of the NPOV rule is not effect in the Hebron section. Furthermore, earlier it was pointed out that the paragraph in question echos classical antisemitic texts, and this is academically true. The Jewish belief in the Messiah has repeatedly been used as a reason repress Jews for well over 1000 years. If we focused on these issues with a fair and unbiased assessment, we could quickly come to a compromise and corrected edit of the Hebron page. The POV that elements of the Hebron Community has strong views on the Messiah and are right wing is worthy to be noted (and actually is noted I think elsewhere in the articles). At some authors believe this to make them fundamentalists, is an OPINION and should be noted as such. To say that the entire community is fundamentalist is just WRONG and HATEFUL.

But instead the admins there have spent more time trying to ban those who disagree with them, and to suppress discussion, and to inflame users, than to arrive at an NPOV article. Will Wikipedea continue in this fashion? If it does, it is a very dark turn for Wikepedia and the Foundation.

Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 yet? You are prohibited from editing that page because you made less than 500 edits. Now you've been told numerous times. It is a ruling of the Arbitration Committee that we are all bound by. So stop editing there. Zero^talk 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Zero0000 - can you actually read ENGLISH or not. Zero0000 should be banned at this point for purposeful failure to follow the regulations. CLEARLY the arbitration says ANONYMOUS: All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure. CLEARLY I am not anonymous. So your either just baiting me, which is a despicable act, or your stupid as a rock, which I doubt, or can't ready English, which I also doubt.

Mrbrklyn (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrbrklyn, your reading is not correct. The restriction applies to both IP editors and accounts. The entity called 'Mrbrklyn' is an account, and it has less than 500 edits. You are right now, editing a thread about Hebron which is considered part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are not allowed to keep editing here. Please cease to edit this thread, or an admin may decide to block your account. It does not appear you are receiving the message. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

NO, that is NOT what it says

• 2) All anonymous IP editors

That is ONE category which I am NOT

• and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure

That is category 2

Which I am also NOT. It is understood hat AND means in this sentence?

So are we making up our own rules or following the rules? It is an embarassment to wikipedea to be so threatened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 05:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

1) I appreciate why we need a ruling to ban certain editors from pages but I also think we should not be banning them from talk pages and noticeboards. The editors vandalizing articles are not the ones editing talk pages and noticeboards. We should be encouraging talk page usage.

2) As written, Mrbrklyn is correct, he is not bound by ARBCOM ruling point 2, this is yet again another poorly written ARBCOM ruling. While I may know what ARBCOM meant when they wrote point 2, how is a user who is linked to that page supposed to know what is meant? There is an "AND" in that sentence. He is not covered by that because he is past 30 days tenure. The ruling needs to be rewritten to be more exact if it is to cover those who fall under Mrbrklyn's case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I might also add, getting back to the original complaint that the arbitration makes NPOV CLEARLY a requirment 4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

It is your arbitration. If you don't like it, kill the NPOV policy and change and to or.

Mrbrklyn (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see what's unclear about WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Both cases (500 edits, 30 days tenure) must be satisfied before an editor is no longer covered under that ruling. Logical conjunction, anyone? How about this as a comparison: in order to be president of the United States, you must be 35 years old AND a natural-born citizen of the United States. You can't be president if you only satisfy one of those requirements. clpo13_(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's less clear than that. Firstly, the ARBCOM ruling is a negative (and with a negative the AND is very important), your example is a positive. I think it could be written more clearly to better explain what ARBCOM means with their ruling. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Shit, you're right. I'm reading it as it's intended, not as it's written. Okay, so ARBCOM needs to read logical conjunction. clpo13_(talk) 06:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• With all those AND's in the the 500/30 ruling, it looks like a logic gate. The assumption at the time looks to be based on preventing brand new accounts and IPs from editing but it indeed fails to rule out old accounts with less than 500 edits, whether it be because the account holder doesn't edit much or the edit counting software doesn't count extremely historical edits. I'm striking my comment above as well. This looks to be something that needs a Clarification request at WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I need to give parsing theory or discreet logic. Run it through antlr v4. Your example is not the same as the arbitration ruling. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In order to be restriced one must be BOTH less and 30 days AND less than 500 edits. FWIW, for what it is worth I have over 500 edited and over 15 years of history. It is not my fault that wikipedea software fails to track edits from 15 years ago. The restricted seal has a concept of confirmed users which is worth reading. ALSO, it is clear from the arbitration that the run is not even supposed to include the talk pages. And lastly, none of this addressed to abuse of the NPOV rule which should be immediately corrected. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you check the code of the 500/30 edit filter, you will see that it allows an edit to go through only if you have *both* 500 edits *and* more than 30 days tenure. That filter has not yet been rolled out to all affected pages, but it should give you an idea of what the intended algorithm is. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

if that's the intended rule, then arbcom should modify the rule. You need to enforce the rule as written, not as intended.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The rule seems quite explicit and unambiguous to me it states that "accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The "and" makes it clear that accounts must have both 30 days tenure and 500 edits, not either. New accounts who have attempted to cheat this by making hundreds of test edits have been blocked for gaming the system. And the reference to "any page" means that the sanction is intended to apply to talk pages just as much as it is to articles. The intention and the wording of this sanction are clear, and it is a waste of everyone's time to play games and pretend otherwise. RolandR (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear or explicit. It's extremely ambiguous. Take it to a computer programmer or a mathematician. As it is written, it is not as it is intended. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, I did file an Amendment request at ARBCOM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3.23500.2F30 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be changed, especially since the software can't keep track of edits properly. There are already enough bariers. This is nota vandalism dispute, it is a dispute of the use of a NPOV source and the article written incoherently saying one thing in one spot and a biased counter point in another spot. The only people who want to keep the paragraph in question are political radicals and they are protecting the paragraph from being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

195.194.74.148

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could somebody lose this IP, which is, amazingly enough, registered to Merton College, Oxford.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

School blocked for one month as there has been very little that has been constructive from that IP address this year and it had a block for one week in February. It appears actually to be South Thames College's Merton campus, London, rather than the Merton Collage, Oxford. I'll amend the tag on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

""Yes, Oxford's a complete dump!" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for AN Closure Review at Talk: Maya civilization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:ANI

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) has closed an RfC at talk:Mayan languages talk:Maya civilization in favor of a minority viewpoint held by 3 editors against 9 editors citing WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. As I understand this policy, it is only to be applied in cases where the majority argument clearly violates a policy, and also it seems only to apply to admin closures in AfD discussions? Is this a valid and reasonable application of the policy on rough consensus?--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Maunus: I'm pretty sure you mean Talk:Maya civilization, as the talk page for Mayan languages has not been edited since October 2015, and that was by a bot. As far as the close goes, I agree that it should probably be looked over. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He does , specifically this RFC. KoshVorlon 11:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In looking this over, the real question is whether I misread what the Yes and No meant in the RFC. I didn't see a policy rule, and I didn't intend to be casting a supervote or inserting my own opinion. If I misread what the question was, then my closure should be reversed and substituted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have reinserted this discussion to the original location at WP:ANI. I dont think it is a good precedent to allow users to move discussions about their own actions to other fora. Your rationale quite clearly shows that you understood the polarity of yes and no, and that you personally agreed with the minority view. Your invocation of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS suggests the same. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please close an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wilks (musician). All established editors have policy-based reasons for deletion, and a variety of SPAs + multiple IPs who are clearly the same person/people are just spouting non-policy based arguments, and accusing editors/Wikipedia of being liars. They also keep multiple voting, and when Istrike out their multiple votes, they keep unstriking them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)!

I just popped in there; must've missed the original notification. Can I suggest that this has ceased to be merely a request for admin action, and is an incident in its own right? E.g.: user:PeterDow just refactored my comment. That- combined with his battleground behaviour- is worthy of AN/I. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd email

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On March 18th, I recieved an unusual email via Wikipedia's email server:

On Mar 18, 2016 3:30 PM, "Rationalobserver" <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (I have censored out the email addy per WP:OUTING)> wrote:
Thought you might be interested in this. HJ Mitchell is up for de-adminship on Commons. Please don’t mention that I contacted you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship)

--

This email was sent by user "Rationalobserver" on the English Wikipedia to user "KoshVorlon". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

First, I didn't vote or comment on the above link at all, second even though this isn't canvassing as the rules show it to be, I thought it odd that I was contacted, since I'm not active on commons and had no run-ins with H.J Mitchell, nor Rationalobserver, and that Rationalobserver states that she didn't want it mentioned that she contacted me. It struck me as an attempt to sway the vote in some way, even though she didn't mention how I was supposed to vote. Perhaps a warning from a sysop might be in order. KoshVorlon 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: It might be prudent to check contributions before saying something is odd because it really isn't odd at all when you think about it. As to a warning that is a little moot at this point. Also, enwiki have no jurisdiction over Commons. You may want to post at their version of AN for this matter. --Majora (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional link

This link was added by a user who appeared to be adding spam links to a bunch of articles.[117] We now have a different IP who has restored it three times.[118] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave the second IP address a spam warning. If problem persists from a wide range of IP addresses, we may need PC or protection for some articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Copy-paste merge"?

At Talk:Teaching English as a second language#Requested merge: February 2016 it has been suggested that Teaching English as a second language and Teaching English as a foreign language should be merged to Teaching English as a second or foreign language, since from an encyclopedic viewpoint, they're just variant terms for the same topic. An anon has suggested merging directly into the new article title, noting the merge-from pagenames, and essentially starting with a new history. That seems a bit irregular to me, and I'm not certain that it wouldn't just constitute a double copy-paste move, in effect. I've certainly never done a merge this way, and my normal MO in that regard would be to merge the weaker article into the stronger, then move the result to the new title (in a case like this; if keeping one of the original titles as the new one, I'd merge into that one regardless which article looked better, though some might prefer to do it the other way, then switch their names around). I really don't personally care, though, I just want to make sure that complying with the tabula rasa request wouldn't be problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer your MO, which seems pretty standard. Breaking out into a new history doesn't strike me as accomplishing much over it, and definitely makes things more complicated.  — Scott • talk 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The anon didn't elaborate, but my guess would be it's to avoid some kind of imagined pissing-match between the TESL and TEFL people. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I can sort of imagine that too... but I wouldn't want to set a precedent of creating a complex history structure just to stave off the possibility of some kind of content dispute.  — Scott • talk 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

UNBLOCK

PLEASE UNBLOACK THIS LINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accaptable54 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Turn off your capslock. What link? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I figured that Accaptable54 had been trying to add a link to a blacklisted site or had experienced the deletion of an edited page, but the account has 0 deleted edits and 0 filter log entries. It looks like the person operating this account has done exactly two things to Wikipedia: registering the account and leaving a note at this page. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it'd still be possible to tell us the name of the site or what sort of site it is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean that it's totally unknowable unless Accaptable54 would come back and provide more information. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There was only one catch- and that was Catch-22 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not so; Accaptable could describe the link, explaining what it is and where he's trying to add it. Accaptable54, could you provide the link in question? Just skip the http(s), and the link won't be blocked here; for example, if the problem were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, you'd give en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity

The user Finki2014 is persistently vandalising the article Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity by removing cited content and making inappropriate replacements ([119]), adding unreferenced content ([120], [121]) and using referencing to wrong sources ([122]). He was warned on his discussion page, but apparently the warnings didn't pay off.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24h to start with. The information they introduced in the last edit is not supported by the source, and they have been warned before.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Long list of Hoax articles in userspace by User:Odnailro

Thread retitled from "Long list of Hoax articles by User:Odnailro".

Reviewing stale drafts brought to light [123] an editor whose main activity has been to create elaborate hoax articles in userspace about events that look plausible at first glance but never happened. I've checked all the events on Google for any hint they are real (there is none) and spot checked pages for sources (there are none). I don't understand the point of all this effort, but the pages violate WP:HOAX and WP:NOTAWEBHOST and this is all vandalism. The editor has been recently active, mostly adding onto their hoax articles. Rather then me tagging each one individually for speedy WP:G3 would an Admin be willing to G3 this entire list? [124] Legacypac (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Odnailro/2014 Winter Children World Games. A quick read-through of the "incidents" section to this article, User:Odnailro/International Children Song Festival 2016, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is up to something. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And it looks like this editor is up to something in mainspace as well, considering the pagemove (in December!) of "Serbia in the Türkvizyon Song Contest" to Sandžak in the Türkvizyon Song Contest (Sandžak being a historical name referring to a territory encompassing modern-day Serbia and Montenegro that hasn't existed since 1912). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait, I'm apparently wrong. Sandžak is still the name of a subnational region in Serbia, it seems. Even so I think this editor's contribs need review. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've wasted over an hour trying to hunt down any indication that anything they created in userspace is real, and nothing checks out. Legacypac (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe it. The section I reference in User:Odnailro/International Children Song Festival 2016 above stands out as blatantly fake, given the quotations in broken English attributed to American celebrities. Particularly noteworthy is the fantastical story of a 13-year-old boy being beaten for being a My Little Pony fan, who attended this supposed festival in San Diego because Tara Strong (herself a voice actress from the current MLP run) would be a presenter in the final. On the off chance that this might be real, I ran a search for some of the names (specifically the boy who was allegedly beaten and a person who supposedly led an anti-Brony protest at the event) in the same query, and got absolutely no results. Something like this would at least have made the rounds on various imageboards had it actually happened. So yes, I have no doubt everything in this editor's userspace is fictional. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are clues that it isn't serious. Some of the sports are fictitious, and User:Odnailro/International Song Contest 1993 is superb, an international pop song contest where the USA's entry is "Youth Against Fascism" by Sonic Youth. And it came 5th!... Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have, as requested, deleted the articles in User:Odnailro's user space. The user's mainspace edits look constructive so I haven't taken any other action (such as blocking them). It would be good to hear from Odnailro what the purpose of all that was before we take further action - but if the user starts creating hoax articles again, that would be sufficient reason for a block. WaggersTALK 11:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I just gave the AN notice to Odnailro. @Odnailro: It would be nice to have an explanation of what was going on there. I concur with Waggers that you're editing constructively otherwise, but creating all those fake articles, even in your own userspace, is problematic. As an IP notified you back in September, someone had indicated in Bandy that the sport was played at the "Winter Children World Games". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note but this is a pretty regular occurrence. I think I've found four or five similar individuals who created a similarly large series of hoax articles, most of which is clearly just humor. The mainspace edits are minor but seem fine so I'm not sure if anything more should be done (typically these editors stop editing here once their nonsense is all deleted). One of the reason why there is a need to review old userspace drafts every once in a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

File related discussions needing closure

Greetings, there is a bit of a backlog developing on Wikipedia:Files for discussion and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files since there aren't many administrators who work there. Most of the stuff is not complicated copyright questions so it shouldn't be difficult.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by an IP editor at Palestinian National Authority‎

Can someone please have a look at Palestinian National Authority‎ and semi-protect the article and/or block the IP editor ? “WarKosign” 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indef semi-protected under ARBPIA3. Katie^talk 00:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy COI request

Today, a user posted a COI template [125] on a page about me, and created a redirect from my username to that page. I tried to draw her attention to the fact that I have never edited the article except for one accidental revert (rollback misklicked), but she was not interested in removing the template. I contacted the oversight, but they said they are not going to remove the redirect because since three years ago I said onwiki the article is about me. The template now says the article is autobiography and was written in a conflict of interest, which is not true and damages my off-wiki reputation (nobody in my professional environment even knows that page histories exist, and they would assume that I was the one who has written or at least considerably constibuted to the article). I request removal the template and the redirect. Posting it here since the redirect can obviously only be deleted by administrators, and the template removal can cause an edit warring. Trolls already visited the talk page in the past, claiming it is an autobiography. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As you haven't actually edited the article (except for the quick edit/rv you mention), I modified that template to reflect as much. As far as I know it's sort of standard to include that template for any Wikipedian who has declared their connection to the subject of an article, regardless of whether or not it's been edited. It doesn't mean those listed have edited the article, though. That said, if you don't want it there and don't plan to edit, then the connection is obvious enough that I don't think it would be a big deal to remove it. Based on the message above I thought you meant someone added a COI tag to the article; if it's buried on a talk page, it seems someone who doesn't know there's an article history also wouldn't be looking at the talk page (not to trivialize your concern). As for the redirect, I would urge SSTflyer to blank and tag for CSD. We should not be in the habit of creating username-based redirects unless the username has been well publicized in the sources in the article (especially if the user doesn't want it there). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The template still says that NPOV, COI and Autobiography can be applied to this case, which I do not find correct in my case. I am not planning to edit the article / talk page (never had, keep it on my watchlist out of curiosity), and I would appreciate if someone removes the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines are relevant, as with all articles, whether you write the particular article(s) or not. They are an FYI to readers of the talk page. I agree with Rhodo's changes and do not see a reason to remove the template. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how Autobiography for instance can be relevant if I never edited the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a valid concern. I've boldly edited the template to operate in exactly the same way but to omit the link to autobiography if the U1-EH parameter is set to no. See Template talk:Connected contributor#Linking to autobiography. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not my preferred outcome (COI and NPOV are also not nice since they are mentioned next to my name), but I can possibly live with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

With no previous exposure to prior versions of the template, it seems to me that this is an equitable solution. I didn't take the mention of possible COI and NPOV as applying to any action you've actually made. It's just a heads up to editors in case, for instance, you go off the rails sometime in the future (it has happened) and start to try to shape the article to your liking. Incidentally, kudos to you for not editing it - if there was an article about me, I don't think I'd have the willpower to stay away from it. BMK (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this thread perplexing. People are putting a surprising amount of effort into maintaining this unnecessary and contextless tagging (bizarrely, the edit was marked minor and with the edit summary of "fix"). Apparently this is on the basis of an imagined hypothetical future in which the editor who is also the article subject might behave completely differently than they have for the past five years of editing. In this hypothetical future, it seems, all other editors have selectively lost their ability to read, and need a tag in order to connect the username to the article subject. This dystopia is so likely to come to pass that preventing it is worth vexing the actual editor who has never touched the article, save for a mistaken rollback, since it was created in 2012.

Quite frankly, I think this is a BLP violation. If I'd been the first to see this post, I would've just removed the tag as good-faith but ham-handed, closed the thread, and moved on with my day. I guess now I can't unilaterally do that anymore, but it's still the right solution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Notable Wikipedian, before it was merged into Template:Connected contributor, gave a simple, neutral, factual statement of the article subject's identify on Wikipedia. The latter, if you somehow manage to get all its cryptically-named parameters just right, smirkingly implies wrongdoing; otherwise, it accuses outright. —Cryptic 02:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, fancy that. A PoV-pushing template. How shall we fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The talk page tag is bureaucracy-gone-mad, and it should be removed. An article about a person only needs a tag like that if the subject of the article is making a significant amount of fuss, and it might be useful to permanently record the fact that a conflict of interest may be behind the fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've removed the tag. It's intended for pages where an editor is involved with a page and has an actual COI in relation to it. Ymblanter hasn't edited the article or talk page (except by mistake, which he reverted). So while he has a potential COI, and would have an actual COI if he were to edit those pages, so long as he stays away from the article and discussions about it, there's nothing for him to disclose on the talk page (or for anyone else to add on his behalf).
  Probably every single one of us has a potential COI in relation to something on Wikipedia, but we don't add tags to every page declaring that potential. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've edited the template page to clarify that it's for actual, not potential, COI. [126] SarahSV ^(talk) 06:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sarah.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for not checking the talk page history; thanks for clarifying the use of the template. sst✈ 08:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• SSTflyer, I guess that's something, yet I can't help but wonder why you didn't check the article history, for instance, or engage in conversation with the potential-not-actual-at-all editor. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Opabinia regalis and SlimVirgin that the tag as previously applied to this article was unnecessary and inappropriate. I'm glad to see this has been dealt with, as I was prepared if necessary to address it as a serious BLP violation. Article subjects who are Wikipedians may not have greater rights than other article subjects, but they do not have lesser rights, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

After some discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor I prepared two versions of draft template to use when the subject is a Wikipedian. The idea is much simpler, neutral language, no links to policy, and completely divorcing it from the connected contributor template, which we could still use in those cases where there's a real COI concern. Perhaps most significantly, given the direction of these discussions, one version of the template requires a url parameter to link to a diff in which the Wikipedian self-identifies as the subject. If it does not receive that parameter, it will not display the name. Not a perfect solution, perhaps, but it seems like a step in the right direction. I'd suggest continuing the discussion there, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• We had a template like that for a few years and it wasn't universally loved. Is it added only when the editor herself has made the link? What happens if the editor gets into trouble and the connection leads to bad issues (community ban, unpleasant disputes)? Can subjects insist that it be removed? It would all have to be spelled out and the interests of the subject would have to be prioritized. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Anglosphere

If any admins have nothing else to do, would you mind watchlisting Anglosphere? This is a little-edited article which I doubt is on many watchlists, but gets a surprisingly high number of page views (averaging about 10,000 a month). For the last couple of months it's been the target of sustained low-level stupidity from a character calling himself "Oliver Lewis of Bellview Esq", who wishes to unite all English speaking nations into "one single, authoritarian, centralized union", presumably with himself as the dictator. Needless to say, his supposed political party doesn't exist, even as a gathering of cranks in a basement (one has to register with the Electoral Commission to call oneself a "political party" in the UK, so these things are very easy to check). I've been playing whack-a-mole since early February, but more eyes would probably help. (I assume at some point he'll realise we also have a separate article on English-speaking world, and move on to that.) ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Are most of the editors / IPs him, then? Watching , but not Admin, sorry for confusion! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming they all are, since they appear to do nothing but add mentions of his imaginary political party. (Per my comment in one of the edit summaries, even a couple of cranks in a shed would have some kind of presence on Facebook, blog mentions etc; this has literally nothing.) It isn't an article IPs (or anyone) are likely to want to edit, as there's very little to say about it that wouldn't be better said at English-speaking world or Commonwealth of Nations. ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I took the liberty of applying pending-changes protection for 3 months. This should make it easier for the watchers....Lectonar (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

AFC/R

Would an admin please take a look at WP:AFC/R#Redirect request: GXSOUL, WP:AFC/R#Redirect request: ᐁ, and WP:AFC/R#Redirect request: Leland Corso? Thanks. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Roger East (journalist)

About Roger East (journalist) ... i half-inched a lot of the biographical info that was on East's ABC memorial page. Since you can't copyright facts, i thought it would be OK? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: unfortunately, when facts are put into prose one can copyright that text :) We can only reuse text verbatim that is released under a compatible license. You are welcome to take the information from the ABC and put it into your own words, careful to avoid close paraphrasing, and use the memorial page as a reference. Keegan (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

AWB rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding this discussion, I'm asking to see how admins would agree about giving me back my rights to use AutoWikiBrowser. I lost them because of a misrepresentation of my actions, as proved by another discussion, WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not a fan of these kinds of appeals, where there's a claim that the initial sanction/admin action was in error, abusive, or resulted from a misunderstanding when there's been another review of that action that did not reach a similar conclusion. I'm also troubled by OP's combativeness in that review. First and foremost, Synthwave, do you intend to go back to the same edits that got your AWB permissions taken away in the first place? Given you are stating you don't need consensus for those edits, and that they aren't controversial, I think that's a very pertinent question. Particularly given you were given an edit warring block in connection with a dispute over these same edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  I have also notified Floquenbeam (who issued the block) and MaxSem (who revoked the permission). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hang on—who misrepresented your actions? Please give at least one diff showing misrepresentation. If there is to be a discussion at AN, it should determine who was responsible for any problems and deal with them accordingly. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxSem removed Synthwave's AWB permission here.

It is fairly clear from the later discussion (Synthwave's first link in this thread) that one or more people at some time believed that Synthwave's edits were controversial, or at the very least this is the impression Synthwave took.

Synthwave maintains, per the discussion at MoS and WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK that they were not.

In the event that we agree that there was good reason to believe that these edits would not have been controversial, then that is no reason to prevent Synthwave from using AWB.

However we may also consider whether someone, rightly or wrongly, objected to these edits, and if so, how Synthwave handled the objection.

If we believe that Synthwave handled it properly, or handled it poorly but will handle such objections properly in the future, they should be restored to the list.

Conversely if we think they cannot handle objections properly, we would need to consider other measures before restoring the account to the list.

There is no need to turn the word "misrepresented" into a source of further conflict.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

@Mendaliv: I perfectly know how to use AWB and the discussion taken from my talk page shows that Floquenbeam misrepresented my actions, while I perfectly respected well known rules. I always fixed links/incorrect MoS-related stuff without receiving any negative comments about my edits performed with this tool. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: As I said multiple times, Floquenbeam (and another non admin called Caden) misrepresented my actions while I was changing [[Hot 100]] into [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]. I justified my actions (because Floquenbeam didn't trust me) here, then with the three links I provided above. It's clearly enough to prove I know what I'm doing with this tool. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also maybe all of you should note that it was one of your fellow admins, Spike Wilbury, who first suggested me using with this tool. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but I am not an admin, and it is normal for non-admins to comment here. I had a quick look to try and find where the issue was discussed. A good clue is at your talk page (permalink) and the immediately following "Blocked" section. The preceding sections show some rather unusual bickering with Caden. The suggestion seems to be that AWB was used to change the format of some text on 900 pages, knowing that the change was disputed. Is that correct? Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Short-ish version: Synthwave and Caden got into a disagreement about how to link something. They edit warred about it, up to 5RR or something if I recall correctly, and in lieu of blocking them both, I page banned them; they could still edit the talk page, to discuss it, but not the article. In my opinion Synthwave's link made a little more sense to me, but as an admin, I'm not supposed to take that into account; being "right" is not a license to edit war. The next day, Synthwave used AWB to make the same disputed change on hundreds of other pages when he knew Caden still disagreed about this exact change, without gaining consensus first. I still didn't block Synthwave, but told him to stop using AWB and gain consensus first. But he then used AWB yet again to make the change on yet another article, so I blocked him for 24 hours. That evening or the next day, MaxSem took away access to AWB, for unambiguously violating its terms of use, in particular rule #3. (I later blocked both Synthwave and Caden for a week for edit warring about other things on different articles, but that has nothing to do with AWB, as it had already been taken away). If Synthwave had shown any amount of self-awareness about what he did wrong, I'd have supported returning access; all I wanted to see was an acknowledgement that he can't make hundreds of edits he knows are disputed by someone until there is a clear consensus for them. This does not seem like a complicated idea. Instead, he's decided that because a consensus eventually developed after AWB access was removed, it's my fault he lost AWB, because I should have foreseen this and just blocked Caden and supported Synthwave from the beginning.

At this point, I don't support restoring AWB access right away even if he starts saying what he knows we want to hear; I'd want to have some confidence that he actually means it. I'm not actually sure how I'll get to that point, and I'm not sure I ever will. Luckily for Synthwave, no one needs my OK, since I'll happily bow to any consensus that develops here, and since I'm not even the admin who took AWB away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Deny Restoration of AWB access The repeated abuse of the BRD process in addition to using tools/privileges to win an argument (in line with WP:FAIT) gives a very good reason why the privilege was taken away. Seeing that there has been no response understanding why their actions were harmful, I see no reason (as a non-admin) to restore access to AWB. AWB is supposed to be for editors who are very familiar with BRD and Dispute Resolution. Being vindicated post facto by consensus does not excuse prior edit warring. Until Synthwave demonstrates they understand why their actions were problematic and how they will prevent it going forward, I stand opposed to restoring the privilege. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Deny restoration of AWB access: Floquenbeam's explanation meshes with what I got from a read-through of the relevant background. Being right doesn't justify edit warring, and using AWB to further the same conduct implicated in the edit war strongly suggests removing AWB access. I'm displeased with Synthwave's approach to asking for this, and think it alone might be grounds for denying. Nobody has a right to use AWB. When you get in a dispute with something you're doing in an automated or semi-automated fashion, you're supposed to stop, explain why it's not a problem, and wait. If you've got other tasks to run, then you might run them. Or edit something else. Sometimes it takes time to clear up why what you're doing is fine. But that's a traditional and very important check on the damage that can be wrought with AWB. The operative question here is "What would happen the next time Synthwave got asked to stop doing something?" Everything said in this thread tells me that Synthwave would probably keep running the same AWB task, probably skipping over that one article in dispute. That's what a fully automated bot does, and there's a good reason why we require bot tasks to get vetted before they're set loose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't abusing AWB in any way. I explicitly justified my actions and that's not my problem if Caden and Floquenbeam were not aware at all about them. None of my edits performed with the tool were considered "controversial" by any other editor other than these two editors. When I was asked to justify my changes with AWB, I did it to prove I know what I was doing and it doesn't matter at all if the two editors ignore the rules I previously cited, especially since a full discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style confirms my edits were perfectly appropriate and harmless. Now let me answer you, Hasteur and Mendaliv.

"using tools/privileges to win an argument..." : I didn't do it to "win" an argument and I could justify my actions when Floquenbeam asked me to.

"Seeing that there has been no response understanding why their actions were harmful,...", "why their actions were problematic" : my actions were NOT "harmful" nor "problematic" in any way and I already explain why. A lack of knowledge is not an excuse to make me lose my rights to use the tool.

"What would happen the next time Synthwave got asked to stop doing something?" : I would do it, and by justifying my actions as I did with Floquenbeam.

"Everything said in this thread tells me that Synthwave would probably keep running the same AWB task, probably skipping over that one article in dispute." Not at all. Numerous editors, including your fellow admin who made me discover AWB, know I correctly use AWB. Just because two editors refused to accept my changes is not a valid reason to justify this removal of my AWB rights. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Synthwave.94 I'm not an admin, I don't even have AWB (though I've been considering requesting it). Let me put it this way. On Wikipedia patients is a virtue. One of the best things to do is just let a page sit at THEWRONGVERSION while you deal with a disagreement. Everyone on both sides always believes they are correct. When there's a disagreement, when someone is wrong, generally the best thing to do is back OFF the article pages and deal with them on Talk. If necessary, you go through whatever process is needed to squash them with consensus. You're thinking you should get AWB back because your edits were good. That is exactly why no one want to give you AWB back. The NEXT time there's a dispute you might end up on the losing end of consensus, and that's the detail you're overlooking here. People don't want you making an edit to 900 pages when you know there's a dispute, because you think the other person is obviously wrong. Alsee (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Alsee, you should be aware that I was first asked if I could justify my actions. It's true I resumed my good faith actions a bit too early, but if you ask someone who regularly edits music-related, they would tell you that there's no problem at all with my changes, because it's a common rule that any experienced editor knows perfectly well.

"People don't want you making an edit to 900 pages when you know there's a dispute, because you think the other person is obviously wrong." I didn't say the other people was wrong, I said I entirely justified my actions to prove I was using AWB correctly, which is not the same thing at all. Caden didn't know that [[Billboard (magazine)|''Billboard'']] [[Hot 100]] / [[Billboard (magazine)|''Billboard'']] [[Billboard Hot 100|Hot 100]] was incorrect and even attacked and bullied me on my own talk page, while I stayed civil by explaining him why my changes were correct and why he was wrong, something Floquenbeam probably didn't understood at all (or completly ignored, I'm not sure about it). Maybe should you also note that it was discussed on the article talk page, even if I guess you would say it was too late or something like this. Anyway it was discussed twice, and the discussions confirmed Caden was incorrect and completly ignored the music-related rule I previously cited. I also clearly deserve to use AWB again. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of being one of those people, I'll note that this thread was closed by User:NuclearWarfare yesterday, and reopened by Synthwave: [127]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And ? I was not given the time to answer the new (non-)admins involved in this discussion. It was not finished at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspicious external links

Could someone please check the mass external links placed by Aristote33 as the manner seems promotional. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not quite sure how promotional these external links are. It's all about publicly-funded academic research. Is it not the sort of content Wikipedia is interested in?Aristote33 17:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You're promoting academic research then. It's still promotion. I object to these additions. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Mlpearc, I'm with you. I see, for instance, this edit from way back when, and wonder why the user wasn't blocked then already. It's spam. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input Drmies, I thought I smelled a duck. P.S. Can you nuke the 'tribs ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to underline that case. They also seem to be links to descriptions of research, not the research itself. As such they pretty clearly fail WP:EL in that they do not contain content beyond what would be expected of an FA article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Aristote33, I checked a random edit of yours, could you explain yourself? You added an entry to the "General references" section. While I understand that GR is for references that support the article content in general, still - what kind of content does the linked extract support that's not adequately covered by other references, especially considering that Wikipedia is not a repository of links? Max Semenik (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended

The Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been amended by motion of the Arbitration Committee as follows:

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended

legal threats

Ratt Mlpearc (open channel) 01:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I have no knowledge of that band, so I didn't revert the edit as it could very well be correct. However, since making legal threats is prohibited, I've left them a stern warning. Amaury (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Per our no legal threat policy I have blocked Drtyrell for legal threats. HighInBC 02:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Does the edit meet the requirements to be hidden from public view? Amaury (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. While I don't see the need I have no objection if another admin thinks this should be done. HighInBC 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You dunno about Ratt?! [sigh...] Anyway, that band has been in a massive legal fight with its original lead singer Stephen Pearcy for at least a decade. Therefore, I'm not surprised that one party or the other is throwing around legal threats on Wikipedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've went ahead and reverted the edit. therattpack.com has been on the page since before the legal dispute between Blotzer and the rest of the band over control of RATT's trademarks and logos. Wikipedia should not be a battleground for that dispute. —Farix (t | c) 11:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please lock the article Guru Arjan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Guru Arjan has recently been through a lot of edit-warring between 2 users even while they were discussing at Talk:Guru Arjan. And when that was over more users indulged in reverting it including me 2 times and it will be stupid if I reverted again. Here's the history of the article. I warned others not to make more reverts or I'll request to have the article locked but I'm sure people will still revert again even if I'm not involved in it. Therefore to prevent any more edit-warring, I request the article Guru Arjan to be locked till the discussion at Talk:Guru Arjan is over. Additionally, if the admins will like to revert the article to before these disputes on the article began, then I shall have no problem as it will maintain a status quo. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Guru Arjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FWIW, I concur with the edit actions of JimRenge and Omni Flames, both of whom the new account @AkhtarHussain83 has reverted. There is no need for edit warring by @AkhtarHussain83 with two experienced wiki editors, when the topic is being actively discussed on the talk page. There is also a pending SPI, here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page editing while blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this appropriate use of one's talk page while one is blocked? I don't see how, but two editors seem to think it's fine. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically I'd say that's prohibited use. But it's getting changes made without edit warring, and with the cooperation of at least one of the people he was warring with. I'd be minded to let it go, as it seems like a net positive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Prohibited by what? Blocking policy doesnt touch on user talk page use other than references to appeals and when it discusses block options. User page guidelines dont cover what they can be used for if a user is blocked. About the only place its touched upon is regarding blocking a user's talk page access for *abuse* of their talk page while blocked as per the above link. See also Protection of user pages "Repeatedly inserting copyrighted content or other inappropriate material on your own user pages after being notified not to do so, or misusing user space following a block (e.g., for personal attacks or tendentious editing) are both considered disruptive and may lead to the pages being protected to prevent further disruption. User pages may also routinely be protected in the event of a ban." Emphasis mine, which also reiterates while blocked its only unhelpful (personal attacks/tenditious editing) that should lead to restrictions. Its a hard sell to claim constructive use of a users talkpage in order to improve the encyclopedia is an abuse of talk page access. It might not be intended that a user do anything other than appeal on their talkpage while blocked, but that isnt actually in policy anywhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know, I'd always thought it was! I guess that makes "abusive use" subjective then, which might make sense. But yes, that strengthens my view that constructive use of the talk page should be allowed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

From the protection policy: "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor." This follows the same theme as the above, that actually interacting with blocked editors is not a bad thing. It doesnt make any restrictions on that communication - 'Should only be related to block appeals' etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've always figured that's exactly what I'd do if I got blocked ;) You should probably go ahead and block me now to make me write an article instead of screwing around on AN. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for range block

Hi, User:Sir gidabout has been indef blocked since January 2016 for persistently using sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses. He was blocked originally for adding unsourced statistics to association football articles, which he continues to do with his socks. Since today, he has been editing using different IP addresses for each edit. I can not see a resolution to this without the implementation of a range block. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sir gidabout for all of his accounts and IPs that have been blocked. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request. When the original problematic editor was blocked, they appeared (assuming good faith) to be genuinely failing to understand the need to source their edits properly. The current incarnation can, and sometimes does, source and format their edits perfectly, but then adds unsourced content to or reverts to an unsourced version of the next article they edit. The disruption is getting extremely tiresome, particularly now the troll has discovered a supply of easily changed IP addresses. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The range is 82.132.216.0/22 and belongs to a UK mobile phone company — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried narrowing it down to the /23 range and there's still a bunch of collateral damage. Katie^talk 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Just made this thread not realizing there was one already open about the same matter I believe, take a look, thanks.

After looking at WP:RANGE, I believe a range block is required. The matter is that different IPs every week are making additions to dozens of Inter Milan football players' stats sections by updating their appearances for example, however without updating the |club-update=~~~~~ (time stamp). This has been an ongoing issue since the beginning of February, and despite warnings about updating the time stamp when updating stats, it falls on deaf ears as the IPs change slightly every week when a new game is played. The task that would be required to go around to virtually the entire squad and manually revert these changes would be much too time consuming.

It can be seen most recently by These additions for example on Éder's page as well as many others by taking a look at this IPs contributions. Some IPs include 79.126.201.11, 79.126.140.210, 85.30.82.199, 79.126.245.167, 79.126.252.64, 185.5.4.37, 79.126.199.12, 79.126.220.78, 79.126.220.196

I am not very familiar how to IPs, etc. work and was hoping someone could help me put a stop to these disruptive ranges of IPs. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Would it be easier to just semi-protect these articles? If there are only one or two that they are hitting that would probably be better. The IPs you listed above are contained in quite a large range, so a range block would probably have a lot of collateral damage to it or be impossible as there are restrictions as to how large of a range can be blocked. --Majora (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: If it were one or two articles, it would be, however, it is virtually the whole playing squad they are hitting

Here is the list of what one of the IPs edit histroy would look like:

Felipe Melo ‎ (current) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Jonathan Biabiany ‎ (current) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Éder (Italian footballer) ‎ (current) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Rey Manaj ‎ (current) 21:52, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Adem Ljajić 21:51, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Marcelo Brozović ‎ (current) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Gary Medel 21:48, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Yuto Nagatomo ‎ (current) 21:47, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Jeison Murillo ‎ (→‎Club) 21:45, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Miranda (footballer) ‎ (→‎Club) (current) 21:45, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Miranda (footballer)‎ 21:44, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Danilo D'Ambrosio‎ (current) 21:43, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Samir Handanović‎ 21:03, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Ivan Perišić‎ (→‎Career statistics) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Ivan Perišić

Notice, it's more than one... I don't know what the best situation would be since there are quite a few players, and you say the range of IPs is rather large; however this is a problem that must be attended to somehow since this is ongoing and can cause lots of confusion between editors who update stats. Whatever the best option is to remedy this, I will be open to. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I was working on the second part of this when the two sections were combined. We're looking at two different ISPs, geolocating to different parts of Europe. I did block 79.126.128.0/17 for a month - 131 edits from that range since the middle of February and I counted fewer than ten that weren't disruptive, so I don't think there will be much collateral damage there despite the size of the range. The two outliers are stale, so until/unless they begin to edit somewhere else I can't do anything about them. On the fence about the first part of this report still. Katie^talk 20:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of accounts using 79.126.128.0/17, just like most mobile ranges. I'd recommend blocking smaller ranges which are centred around the abuse if possible, or at the very least allow account creation from the blocked range. There is going to be an incredible amount of collateral damage blocking any mobile range, since more and more people are editing from those these days, but it's probably best to minimize the collateral as much as possible. There's always ClueBot and however many people sitting on Huggle to deal with what slips through the cracks. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the smallest range that gets the abuse stopped. I fiddled with it for 30 minutes trying to cut it down and I couldn't. I checked the /18 range and we catch too many of the good edits while losing the disruptive ones. Again, in the last 33 days, there have been 131 edits from the /17 range out of a possible 32K IP addresses, and about 8% weren't from this vandal. I thought I made a clear case that the risk to innocent editors was small, but just in case, I went back further - since January 1 there have been a sum total of 321 edits from IPs in that range. 31 have been productive edits, so 90% of edits from that range are disruptive since the beginning of 2016. If another admin disagrees with me that this block is too big or too long in duration, or that the collateral damage is too great, go ahead and unblock or reconfigure it. Suggestions are welcome. Katie^talk 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's the smallest it will go, then that's fine of course. As best I can see, most of the accounts being created from that range are making good contributions - would you be willing to remove the restriction on account creation that you placed on the block? Also, I'd like to point out that I have no problems with your actions, but just wanted to add my own bit of useless thought on how to keep the most number of people editing from this range as possible :) Ajraddatz (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's cool. It's a soft block (anon only) so registered editors are unaffected. :-) Katie^talk 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but you have account creation disabled so nobody can make an account without going through ACC if they want to edit from the range. Of course, the guy who is doing the vandalism could too. Up to you of course, and it's probably fine as-is because they can go through ACC. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

blp snow afd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If someone with the mop could drop in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Cruz_extramarital_affairs_allegation after a few hours/day it appears to be heading for WP:SNOW delete, with the only keep !vote coming from the creator. As it is a BLP concern, letting it ride out the normal 7 days seems like a mistake. Its borderline G10. (I actually nominated it for g10, but self reverted because I didn't want to blank the page as part of it) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The AfD should be allowed to run the full seven days, rather than just a few hours. There's a pretty good likelihood that the subject will receive considerably more coverage in the next few days. I also note that the article's author has been blocked for edit warring, so he cannot comment on this WP:SNOW proposal, which is a little unfair.- MrX 00:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This being an ordinary example of something that hasn't had a chance to get secondary-source coverage yet, there's no way it should be retained, regardless of how many primary sources get created in the next few days. A snow delete would be entirely reasonable — but at least let's wait a few days. SNOW shouldn't be applied to an AFD less than one day after its creation; I can see the first day of AFD resulting in an IAR speedy deletion if people are all arguing for it, but as only a few people are calling for speedy deletion on any grounds, I don't think we ought to speedy it at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning was a combination of gauging the consensus, as well as the article being a coatrack for blp gossip (the sources are weak, and most of the sources aren't actually about the affair, they are about the bickering about who is responsible for the leaks/story being run) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I'm sorry, but I disagree and I closed it. Sheesh, it's like I'm the defender of Cruz here recently. First, SNOW applies and I don't see why we should wait a whole day. That the creator is blocked is one thing; that they can't comment on this is not unfair--after tall, this is AN. Administrators' noticeboard. Finally, I got some serious BLP concerns here, and our even having this article is contributing to the BLP-violating mill called the current election. If the subject gets more coverage other than being fodder for the talk shows and the twitter feeds, then we can always recreate it. Like, next year. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• We disagree on the procedural question, but we agree on the bigger keep-or-delete question. As I noted, secondary sources can't possibly exist, because this is still an ongoing event: that's why we need to wait until next year or more, as you said, to judge whether secondary sources covering this incident are ever created. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing, Nyttend--thanks. In the end, I went and asked the first admin I saw on Recent changes and asked them; C.Fred deleted the article and I thank them for their service. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article I deleted with BLP issues was not related to Cruz; it was a separate subject where WP:BLP1E and considerations about individuals charged with crimes but not convicted were at play. Further, I did not delete it under the snowball clause; I deleted it under CSD A7. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel requested

Please can you revdel this as pure vandalism? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it this was an egregious personal attack, rather than "pure vandalism". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

It wasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, but it was "pure vandalism" that rose to a level of disruptiveness that meets RD3 in my opinion -- basically replacing the entire page's content with hundreds of signatures a bold text. When the bite-size alone is enough to crash browsers, protecting unsuspecting users behind a RevDel isn't very controversial. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Closure of RfC by uninvolved admin requested

The RfC I started to gather input about the inclusion of a hardcore pornographic movie in A Free Ride has been closed by User:Francis Schonken. Since this RfC deals with a contentious subject, and since Francis Schonken was involved in earlier discussions, I would like to request that the closure be undone and re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Francis Schonken declined to revert their closure when asked. I have no comment about the closure itself, I simply wish to avoid future argument by ensuring that this closure is procedurally solid. Note that there is an RfC about a similar situation on Debbie Does Dallas, so the question of consistency will undoubtedly be raised soon. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't even looked at the close or at either article or talk page recently, but I strongly and completely agree that only an uninvolved admin should analyze and close these contentious debates. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Also see User talk:Francis Schonken#Please undo your closure. The issue has been discussed to death and Right Hand Drive (talk · contribs) is still an SPA who is wasting community time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it's very contentious, and the RfC stands to affect dozens of Wikipedia articles by association. (Ideally, there should be a site-wide RfC on the subject of hosting full-length hardcore porn films on Wikipedia article space, but apparently to my knowledge no one has created such a sitewide RfC yet.) Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I concur.OVERTURN CLOSER WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE RFC! (per second expanded comment below) I find it baffling that User:Francis Schonken closed the RFC after participating in an (informal) debate about it elsewhere. Alsee (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding my above comment. I'll acknowledge I was involved - however I'll note that the "no consensus" outcome is effectively in my favor. When people raise concerns with a close that's already in their favor it strongly indicates there's something wrong here. A reclose could potentially go the other way. The closer literally cited Their own prior debate of the issue as the basis for his close. They linked to their own arguments on Jimbo's talk page, which they made while the RFC was in progress. I also find it problematic that they failed to address the strong policy arguments raised by the majority side in the RFC. The close merely hand-waved that both sides were somehow equal. WP:Concensus Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And WP:Close says to discard arguments: that flatly contradict established policy. If a minority is flatly contradicting policy then you can't hand-wave it as "equal". And if the minority weren't contradicting policy then the close should give at least some hint why the majority were wrong about it being a policy issue. (Ping BMK to note additional info.)Alsee (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding comment: Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! The close includes the strange statement "This includes the arguments regarding this article made at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 203#Debbie Does Dallas." The closer presented arguments in that discussion. The closer took the bizarre step of literally inserting their own !vote INSIDE the RFC at the same time they closed it. And one of the arguments they made in that discussion was that they wanted to "refocus" the debate OFF of policy examination. Policy Consensus says a closing MUST be viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. So they were involved, and they failed to address the policy arguments at all. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the terms of the close are accurate, properly describe and evaluate the discussion, correctly apply Wikipedia policy, and the closer was uninvolved in the RfC, it makes no difference whatsoever if the closer is an admin or not. It seems to me that this complaint is not at all motivated by it being a non-admin closure, but by the OP disagreeing with the close, and if an admin had made exactly the same close as Francis Schonken did, the OP would be here complaining about the close for some other reason altogether. Unless the OP can show that Schonken's close was inaccurate, improper, wrongly applied policy, or that Schonken was "involved", then they have no legitimate beef here. BMK (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
        • The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.
          There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
          • BMK, Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! See above. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I see the problem now. You want me to answer questions that you haven't asked instead of the question that you have asked. It really doesn't matter, since your only purpose in posing questions is to assert completely false things like that I "refuse" to say what my desired outcome was. My desired outcome was to gather input from other editors on whether or not there should continue to be a hardcore pornographic movie embedded in A Free Ride, which has been embedded in that article since 2012. I started that RfC because the article came up in discussions about Debbie Does Dallas. That article had an embedded movie for several months (I was not the editor who originally embedded it, but I restored that embedding) until it suddenly became a point of contention. There were many arguments put forward which were not based on policy or rebuffed the current practice of embedding public domain films in their articles. So I have embarked on a journey of discovery. It will be hard for you to understand this, but I am using the available Wikipedia mechanisms to solicit input from other editors to determine what the community thinks we should do in cases like this. I believe some people call this "collaboration". This contentious issue will probably (definitely) come up again in the future, so it would be sensible to make sure that it is handled properly now. Francis Schonken should not have closed the RfC because they were involved in the issue. Now please stop being rude and obstructive. Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Just clarifying something: Whereas a contentious AfD should only be closed by an admin, a contentious RfC has no such explicit requirement per this RfC from a couple years ago, and linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Any close can be contested, but that a non-admin did it can't be the sole reason. So the non-admin part is just kind of a distraction in this thread. That said, RHD has been pretty clear from the start that he/she objects to Francis's previous involvement with this issue, even if the non-admin part confused things. I don't think this fishing expedition of trying to get RHD to say what his goals really are or speculating as to what his actions would be if someone else closed has much of a point -- RHD is more or less an SPA and not a neutral party, but other people have raised the same objection. That Francis didn't participate in that RfC doesn't mean he wasn't involved. He took part in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and the discussion at VPP, both of which took place just before this RfC and concerned the same basic question. Personally, I think this RfC was wrong-headed from the start but it did draw decent participation so merits a sound closure from an uninvolved party. (disclosure: I participated in the discussion, too) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I do not regard RHD's preference for a closing result as being ireelevant. In fact, I think it's highly relevant, and that RHD's refusal to say what close they preferred is simply a tactic, knowing that if they said they preferred X, and FS closed it as Y, it would cast a bad light on RHD's attempt to revert the close. I'm not buying the tactic. RHD's refusal to say why they started the RfC and what close they preferred isn't a "fishing expedition", it's an attempt to determine RHD's motivation in bringing this to the noticeboard. In the light of RHD's repeated refusal to comply with what is a very simple and natural question, I have no choice but to see the attempt to overturn the close as RHD trying to get what they want by foul means.

As for FS's involvement, participation in a different discussion in a different place about a different film may bring them to the borderline of involvement, but as long as the evaluation of the RfC in the close is accurate, and the application of policy is correct, it really makes no difference. Remember, even with admins, if an involved admin takes an action which, it is agreed, any other reasonable admin would have taken, the admin's involvement is deemed to be irrelevant. I can't see why it should be any different for a rank-and-file editor.

In short, any application for overturning the close should be made on the basis that FS did not correctly evaluate the RfC or applied policy incorrectly. Both the admin/non-admin and "involvement" arguments are red herrings and should be rejected, especially in the light of what appears to be RHD's machinations to get a preferred close. BMK (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I left you a lengthy explanation above of what I was trying to get out of this RfC, but you have again falsely stated that I "refuse" (now "repeated refusal") to answer your question. You have your answer already. If it wasn't clear, let me say it again. I want to have a result that is not likely to be challenged in the future when this issue comes up again. I will accept any result, but as far as I am concerned, the RfC has not been properly closed. I do not know if an uninvolved admin will share Francis Schonken's opinion on the RfC or have a different opinion, so asking for this closure to be overturned can hardly be called "machinations to get a preferred close" (or maybe I'm just a complusive machinator). So far, User:Softlavender, User:Alsee, and User:Rhododentrites have expressed agreement that the RfC should be re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Are you willing to go along with that consensus? Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Simple question, doesn't require a wall of text, or wikilawyering of any kind: what close did you want from the RfC, oppose or support? BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have an opinion about how I think the question should be resolved, but I quite deliberately did not participate in the RfC because I wanted to gather input from other editors, not argue for my own views. So long as I am willing to accept what result, it really makes no difference what result I would have preferred. I'm really quite puzzled by your insistence that I have some secret agenda. I didn't vote. I'm not advocating a particular closure. If I have some secret agenda, I'm not doing a very good job of pushing it, am I? Now please stop badgering me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm left with no choice but to reiterate that this request for re-closing is simply an attempt by RHD to get the result he or she wants, which I have to assume is not the current result of the close. There's been absolutely no criticism of the terms of the close itself, the admin/no admin and involvement questions are non-issues, so, no re-close is necessary; but perhaps RHD should be warned for WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BMK (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

BMK, IDHT? There has been criticism of the close. The closer admitted they copy&pasted their own !vote into the RFC, the !vote they copy&pasted into the RFC was that the close should not be made based on policy, they proceeded to disregard the policy arguments, and they failed to discard those that flatly contradict established policy. The closer was directly involved, and they failed to apply policy. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That is criticism of the closer, not of the close itself, especially since you don't mean "established policy" you mean prevously established editing norms and guidelines, since there was no policy involved. Since norms and guidelines are not mandatory, there was no requirement for the closer to ignore those people who disagreed with them. Only policy is mandatory, and only comments which advocate violating policy should be thrown out. If this was not the case, there would be no way for editing norms to evolve or change. BMK (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

BMK policy was involved, and several people were advocating flat out violation of policy. As was noted in the RFC, anyone who dislikes policy and wants it changed needs to present those arguments on the policy page. Alsee (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone goes to David_(Michelangelo) and says the lead image should be removed and the sole argument they present is Wikipedia is not a porn site and should not be hosting porn, then under policy that rationale is invalid and should be discarded. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm left with no choice but to wonder how far one can shove one's head up one's own ass, but I begin to suspect that there is no limit for some people. Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oooooo! Feisty!! BMK (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas RfC needs closing

Despite four editors from different "sides" of this issue agreeing that Francis Schonken's closure should be overturned, no one seems willing to brave the muck that assorting monkeys are throwing. The good news is that the RfC on including a hardcore pornographic movie in debbie Does Dallas has now finished and needs closing. I tried to suggest that particular RfC be postponed until the A Free Ride issue was settled, but my efforts were met with rudeness, name-calling, and harassment. I would advise anyone thinking of closing the Debbie Does Dallas RfC to take a moment to understand how embedding works and to review earlier discussions (about WP:NOTREPOSITORY for one). Good luck! Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

CLOSER HAS BEEN BLOCKED

I went to the closer's talk page to see if he would reconsider his close based on new information, but I found the closer has been blocked.[128]

Three of the people in the RFC presented arguments based on NOTREPOSITORY, however this policy RFC firmly established that those arguments as invalid. That very likely changes the outcome. As the closer is now blocked and obviously can't address this issue (in addition to the issues cited above), can someone put a close on this discussion authorizing a new closer? (Preferably an admin.) Alsee (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The closer was blocked on March 21. This request was filed on March 11. That gave the closer 10 days to decide to undo the close, which the closer clearly did not choose to do, as they were editing Wikipedia the entire time. [129]. That the closer is now blocked is therefore irrelevant. You have your answer: the closer does not wish to undo the close. It will take an admin deciding that the close was improper, and if you haven't gotten that is 11 days, you're unlikely to get it now. I suggest that this thread be closed and archived. BMK (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ip closes

Have we ever had any discussion about whether an ip can close anXfD? DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember one from 2015. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#AfD closures by IP users seems to be the one I'm thinking of. The result was a change to WP:XFD to explicitly state IP editors are barred from closing deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good Tuesday admins! Cordially inviting you to spare a moment for WP:MFD, where a backlog of 21 threads open under "old business" going back as far as January 26 are waiting for fairly simple but admin-necessary closes. Please take a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for edit filter manager permission

Hello admins, please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Request_for_edit_filter_manager_permission for an active request for a non-admin access to this tool. Please comment on the EFN to keep the discussion in one place. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several IPs with the same first 7 digits are vandalizing Shawn Loiseau. I thing we need a range block on them. CLCStudent (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Those same IP addresses are now attacking User:E0steven. CLCStudent (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A post-review would be good

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ANI discussion
• Talk page discussion
• UP Page History

--QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose dragging that thread out any longer. Exactly the wrong direction the (now reopened) discussion needs. Let's keep this on one noticeboard for now, and then relocate the overall discussion to someplace where we can work on policy rather than trying to use sanctions to end the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is someone vandalizing a Wikipedia page -- I am not familiar with Wikipedia, or it's use. But I do see vandalism in action. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the page is not protected and the content is cleary vandalism you could remove it youself without any issue.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lulu1984123: what page? SQL^{Query me!} 07:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected Page

Is there a way to protect a page so it cannot be corrupted with vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is, but without the page name - we cannot do anything. SQL^{Query me!} 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

message Privately

Hello! I am not very familiar with all of the ways to operate Wikipedia. Is there a way for me to respond to a message with someone privately? As I am messaging about vandalism, I am nervous to draw more attention to the name in a public forum...

Thank you so much for your help!!! I can see when I receive messages, is there a way to send you a message privately, I don't know how to reply. Also I could not undo the changes the vandelizer made.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep contents remove resources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hi

do you know why persian version of wikipedia is like a disaster? it is because your amateur admins remove all reference to any website and claim that are advertising. they keep the content and just remove references. I do not know is any content without reference useful for you? do wikipedia want to claim it has generated all contents! it is shameful and I think you should revise your regulations! nobody would share its knowledge when they see you are removing their references and just using contents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdimalekii (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Mehdimalekii, this is a matter that you must take up at the Persian Wikipedia. The community at the English Wikipedia has no authority over the Persian Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, and cannot help you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

req?

Hi, pls @admin/s put texts Araz (musical group) in User:Samak/Araz.--Samək^Talk 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My possibly flawed reasoning

Could someone please check my reasoning here:

• User talk:Michaelcaine346#March 2016 2

• User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Username block on Pankajchoudhary IPS

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I can not fully agree with you. For example, User:Barack Obama (we used to have such user, but they were forcibly renamed because of the SUL issues, but we still have User:Barack Obama is Satan!) was a clear impersonation of a famous person just because of the username, even if they never edited Obama-related articles and never claimed any relation to Obama. In fact, if Barack Obama themself wanted to edit Wikipedia under his own username, we would likely require an OTRS permission. I am not sure whether Michael Cane and Pankaj Choudhary raise to a comparable level of fame, but the requirement to rename the user might be an overrreaction (and as such it is debatable, I guess there might be tons of Michaels Cains walking around), but I would certainly not reject it outright.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that "Michael Caine" is a common enough name that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's an impersonator, unless they're editing pages related to Michael Caine the actor. That doesn't mean there's not necessarily other problems with that account. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC).

Opinions on ANI thread

Can we have some eyes on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#MfD end run GAME? I did suggest a topic ban and any progress on the issue on sluggish and barely non-existent. Not to mention, it might just hit 36 hours too. Any opinions there are encouraged. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated undone/reverting edits on Godzilla (1998 film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As stated above, there's been repeated undoing/reverted sourced edits in the lead section of the Godzilla (1998 film) page by an anonymous IP user. As shown here, I added in the lead that the film was a box office failure and provided three sources that support the claim however, this anonymous user keeps undoing the edit to state that the film was a box office success without citing any sources. If you check the revision history, this has been going on and on for nearly a week or so, examples here and here. I can't contact this person to discuss the issue because he/she has no talk page and keeps using various IP addresses. I'm really at a loss at what to do here and bringing this issue to this notification board was the only logical thing I could think of. Someone please help? Armegon (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Your three sources don't support an absolute statement that Godzilla was a "box-office flop/failure". The takings were disappointing for the studio, and the "initial perception in the press that it was a box-office failure", but it made a profit of $175 million and did better internationally than in the US. Instead of battling over failure vs success you can add some nuance, e.g. "disappointing takings despite a $175 million profit", "perceived as a box office failure by the media". Fences&Windows 20:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Would if then be fair to say it was a moderate success? Armegon (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advance notice: deprecation of several JavaScript functions

Several legacy JavaScript functions built into MediaWiki are being hard-deprecated with the release of MediaWiki 1.27 in April; for more information, see this mailing list post. These functions are listed at WP:VPT#Breaking change: wikibits. Any user script, gadget or other JavaScript file that uses these functions will stop working sometime within the next month. Please check your personal JavaScript pages and refer to mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript for details on how to refactor your code to accommodate these changes. If you need help, please ask at the Technical Village Pump. MER-C 12:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not that it won't work, it's that the library containing importScript (mw.legacy.wikibits) is no longer loaded by default, and you have to load it youself, or switch to mw.loader.load(). I recommend the latter, as the wikibits will be removed in November. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Just wanted to give you fine admins a heads up on the backlog of usernames listed at WP:UAA. Looks liek some request go back to the 14th, and there's quite a few on the page currently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:UAA

If a few admins can take a look at WP:UAA, it would be appreciated - there is a major backlog of entries there requiring review. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ja⍰alif

Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasewteru (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? BMK (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks like an encoding error - the symbol is one from the APL programming language. Is it intended to be another spelling of Jaꞑalif? Peter James (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Enacting a topic ban

Need an admin to enact a ban here. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cloning an article

• Yesterday someone, faced with a history attribution problem caused by splitting off a daughter article Y from an existing article X, wanted me to "clone" an article Y from the existing article X, and (so he seemed to think) at once Y's history would display a copy of all of X's editing history. If (for example) the original single article was about cows and sheep, after cloning, the matter about cows could be edited out of article X and the matter about sheep could be edited out of article Y.
  • I explained that (as far as I knew) this "cloning" was impossible and that he would have to copy-and-paste or partially cut-and-paste from X to begin Y and then put a history note in Talk:Y .
  • He said that this "cloning" was common and sometimes compulsory in the German Wikipedia. (I have never edited in the German Wikipedia.)
  • Please what is the true situation? Is this "cloning" a new feature that I had not been told about? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cloning the history? Never heard of it, Anthony. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if this could be done by importing the history elsewhere, and importing it back to the desired location (Graham87?). Whether it's a particular good idea, or permissable, is another question. –xeno^talk 11:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Xeno: It could, but I don't think it's a good idea, as it would make people's contribution histories seem really weird, among other things. I first noticed this request at the requests for page importation page. Graham87 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• There is the Special:MergeHistory tool which can duplicate page histories, but the content of the current revision stays the same - as it would with importing, unless you imported a newer revision). Because of how the software works, it isn't possible for either of those methods to actually add partial content to the current revision. Dewiki might have a separate tool for doing so, but I haven't heard of it. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• As an example of the "Don't try this at home" effects of imports see User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. The edits were only literally made on "A", but now appear in both "A" and "B" and the contributions appear in the contribution logs as if they were made in both. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  Notice my other account's contributions in both. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This could be accomplished locally if we added ourselves as a transwiki source, bascially creating a Special:Fork tool - as Graham87 says, this would be "weird" at least at first. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• As far as the user that wants a split, you can refer them to the existing processes for documenting attribution for split pages at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Hey everybody, as the one who asked Anthony Appleyard for article clones, I'd like to point you to de:WP:IU where articles from both international Wikipedias and the own, German Wikipedia may be nominated for import. The duplication process is equivalent to what we do at WP:IMP (or what xaosflux did with User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. It is roughly explained in de:H:AIA#Lizenzkonforme Auslagerung durch Duplikation, where it is stated that this is the required process for article splits, wherever reasonably possible.
  I'm also inviting Doc Taxon, who is the admin overseeing imports in de.wikipedia, to weigh in here. Doc Taxon, I just noticed that the second-best, alternative procedure has been used more often in the last weeks – if you found the time to shortly explain both the procedure and the pros and cons to all of us, that would be awesome! :)
  Just another remark: Note that for me, this isn't in any way about my latest cases at all, and I'm fine with either decision. I think it was a great idea by Anthony to introduce this question here – it might indeed be interesting for us to (re)discuss all available options for attribution in such cases. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  Please note, the don't try this at home example I have above is not available directly on enwiki right now, it should have the same results (except for an extra log entry), but required bouncing it off another project. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  PanchoS Thank you for working with everyone and taking care to ensure that attributions are maintained for content. We may need to revisit this topic to determine if there is community consensus to change the enwiki processes. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  Xaosflux At least I think it's worth considering, but Doc Taxon's input would IMHO be key to assessing the de.wikipedia process as an option. Before even trying to obtain consensus, we should probably work on the tools, ensuring that it wouldn't unreasonably add to our administrators' workload. As for the restriction currently allowing only full clones, I can imagine a tool that filters a page history by sections involved should be possible. Corner cases might be difficult to solve and might need much testing, but I'd be ready to help with that, and I can imagine there would be interested admins at a number of major Wikipedia locales. Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• In an article as it is edited, often sections come and go, and in some edits but not all, topics are mixed in one section. I do not hold with altering the texts of past edits :: that is gross falsification of editing history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  As far as mechanics go, past edits wouldn't be changed in this process, some or all edits would be copied as-is to a secondary page. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard Pls rest assured that nobody wants to rush into any new, half-baked process – at least I don't. All of this would clearly need extensive discussion and testing, plus there's no urgency as we currently do have a halfway working process. The only process worth being introduced might be one that works considerably better than any of the currently existing ones, including the one in de.wikipedia. --PanchoS (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. But you partially have written this section in difficult English, so @PanchoS: please translate it that I can reply sensibly. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk)

@Doc Taxon:, thanks for joining in! I gave you a shortened German translation on your Talk page. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the right place for an oversight request?

I made an oversight request which was granted, but was told to come here instead from now on. I merely forgot and left some text from a copyrighted source in the article I was working on when I clicked on submit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Requests for oversight. However, that does not require oversight; WP:Revision deletion could be appropriate. When the copyrighted material has been removed, use {{copyvio-revdel}} on the page in question. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• The answer is no, this is not the correct place to request oversight since typically material requiring oversight should not be posted in such a high-traffic location. However, it would be a fine place to request rev deletion of accidentally-submitted copyrighted material. –xeno^talk 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Xeno is correct. While copyright violation RevDel requests need not be hidden from the public before they are handled, any request for Oversight does; make them only by email. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel is the word I was looking for. Hopefully there won't be a next time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel requested (2)

A user requested that this IP's talk page be revision deleted, and the same should also be done for the IP's user page. I assume it is so the named account can hide their IP address. Altamel (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think he/she is confused. I have made a few revdel actions and deleted the user page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel requested

Can I have a revdel on this, as a personal attack? Also, on this and this as aggressive edit summaries I don't want in my edit history. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the vulgar edit summary. As to your own own edits, revision deletion is not for hiding "unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms". –xeno^talk 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

They're not unfavourable, they're heated accusations that border on attacks (and I apologise)- at the time, revision deletion was suggested here, but I never actually did it.

Also, a revdel on [130] and [131] for the same reason would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to RevDel edit summaries just because they accuse a user (even wrongly) of racism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How does it not meet WP:CRD#2 "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material"? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

RevDel is not designed to be used to allow users to mask their own regrettable decisions. --Jayron32 19:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The worst is the word "racist", which doesn't justify RevDel. The purpose of your request here isn't to protect Wikipedia's readers or the user, it's for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Deceased editor

I know this is old news, but I just found out that Jinnai (talk · contribs) has passed away four years ago. See also WP:ANIME#Jinnai and User talk:Jinnai#R.I.P.. Also, here's the news to confirm it: [132]. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Social work

The talk page of Social Work has codified anonymous editors IP's as all the same editor and in talk page history cited as rogue. I have two edits in it - but I find choosing to add continuously any IP's for personal pleasure of sorts goes within the boundaries of Wikipedia:Harassment and Bullying/Bite.(Do wikipedia have an Anti-bullying policy) Any edits that made are reverted or disrupted using policies. Further more there also seem to be a matter of ego or something else going over materials which have clear and genuine citation. Page protections are used extensively to avoid discussions or making any changes. I am at my wits end how to respond to these when it comes to Ego and Content Contribution. I am of the opinion both these shouldn't gel together.117.215.192.154 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the reality is Wikipedia is full of rules and rules, and if you edit a higher profile article you'll be expected to figure 'em out or listen when the regulars try to explain them. My suggestions would be to find other articles to start with -- there are oodles in which somebody thought it would be a good idea to slap a this is wrong but I'm too lazy to fix it tag on top, and ask for help at teahouse, where the friendlier Wikipedia folk help out. NE Ent 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"All Hands On Deck, that might be the biggest problem Wikipedia faces in the future. It’s a project that really relies upon the goodwill and enthusiasm of unpaid editors, who’ll dedicate hours to writing, referencing, and structuring articles – and then spend more hours arguing with one another about changes to those articles. If those people feel like the project they’ve devoted so much time to doesn’t appreciate them, or if they feel like they’re contributing to something other than the thing they’ve poured so much belief into, well, they’re just going to stop doing it. The problems faced mainly if the die-hards stop editing, Firstly, the site will start to become outdated, and its rate of growth will slow down. That could lead to greater unreliability of articles, and gaps in Wikipedia’s usefulness. Secondly, though, if Wikipedia ends up being written and edited by a comparatively small number of people, its ethos of objectivity could be at risk." taken from Micro Mart - Issue 1407 (2016), p. 64117.213.18.1 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I read about AI's being developed by Wikipedia. Is there an Grammar and APA Style AI in development, if so where can a person keep track of its development.117.213.18.1 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• IP-hopper, you've been repeatedly vandalizing (yes that is the correct word) the article's talk page (and my user talkpage), and repeatedly disruptively editing the article itself against consensus. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Softlavender, The term IP-hopper is used to point one person. But when any edits made from an independent ip, the edit is reverted and added to the list compulsively with your or without your consensus on your edit by Jim1138. If IP-hopper titling was for citing all the independent ip's it is redundant since wikipedia has a format that ascribes each edit to their ip. If there has been any vandalizing on your talk page you may show proof. If those were attempts to contact you because of your concern on the page using vandalizing is way out of line and an angered response. The article's talk page is an ongoing or silenced discussion of sorts which may reflect the above concerns. If you look at the edit history it resembles to staring contests: Mind games to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion, no edits are allowed and certain scrupulous edits are silently approved. Editors like Jim1138 belief is that Social Workers shouldn't be paid when an simple indeed search will show otherwise, in this cases consensus is already defined as: "There will be times when some people do not agree. Everyone's beliefs should be discussed, but there still may be some people who will not compromise. This does not mean that there is no consensus." One more thing why Social Work as an hot topic during that time "BSW " classes have started on the subject at-least for me. So a general interest is there. The fair approach will be removing the discriminatory IP-hopper title and list. Or cite your genuine sources for labeling. New comers should be accepted. Discriminating or biting them would damage what wikipedia stands for.59.99.36.126 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP-hopper. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel/Oversight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit in question is here: [133]. Not sure what is going on here, but this is info that really needs to be removed and quickly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And as I posted this Wldr took care of the issue, thanks for the REALLY quick turnaround! RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've oversighted the edit and blocked a few other related accounts doing the same thing. Mike V • Talk 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: For future reference, please don't post sensitive requests like this to a public forum as it will surely attract unwanted attention. Instead, please send them to the oversight team. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll make sure to do so in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have copied the warning about this from the ANI editnotice to the AN editnotice. Four such threads in a row is too much. BethNaught (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminder for April Fools' Day jokes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a few hours, April Fools' Day will be upon us. The day has historically been a day where editors play jokes and pranks on others. Wikipedia:Rules for Fools gives important information for users who might be considering playing a joke. Namely:

With the exception of the Main Page:

• All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace. Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism.
• All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}.

There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'. However:

• Editors who revert non-harmful jokes should be assumed to be acting in good faith and should not be sanctioned as such edits may appear to be vandalism. However, editors should generally avoid reverting jokes that comply with the above rules and are made in the spirit of April Fools' Day.
• Vandalism, including inappropriate joke edits in article space, should be treated in the usual manner as vandalism on other days of the year. A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day.
• Editors creating a joke AFD page must immediately remove the line "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}". Otherwise a bot will add the deletion notice to the article.
• Jokes must not be hateful, discriminatory, or intended to make others feel unwelcome.
• Jokes should be funny.

Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I'm logging out now until April 2! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's probably the smartest move Boing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno; I've always looked forward to seeing the hijinks myself. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wherever would we be without our cadre of old farts, wet blankets, sour-faced misers and head prefects to kill all sense of fun from the world because it doesn't conform to their thin, almost imperceptible sense of humour? You get one day a year to do this, just one yet you get some for whom this is all deadly serious and will have lasting ramifications, that's just en.wiki for you. tutterMouse (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Most AFD pranks are the same old lame uninspired rehashes every year. It's not quite so hilarious to see Jimbo fake blocked or Wikipedia nominated for deletion for the billionth time. It's a fine line between clever and stupid, as they say, and a lot of these jokes fall on the wrong side of that line. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Per consensus from last year, I added a separate section to today's AfD log for joke nominations. If someone feels like it, maybe the other XfDs could do the same thing. Cheers, ansh666 02:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, I don't want to be blocked too! I am sorry. I was unaware of Wikipedia's dietary policy. Sorry for the "dietary" crack. And for using the word "crack". Look, I'm sorry all around. I've never posted anything April Foolish before. It just got the better of me. That's it. I'm done. Try the veal...although that may not be the best food.... Stop me! Seriously, I'm done. And I will mitigate with a spate of good ol' fashioned vandal reverting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an AfD tag on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.

Facepalm. Luckily, the tag was deleted. epicgenius @ 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was just absolutely hilarious. BMK (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First joker of the day, apparently

[134] EEng 01:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Harshly talked to and appears to have stopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, from his talk page that guy probably deserves a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE block, but meh. ansh666 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Déjà vu all over again

I thought I made the rules on this clear eight years ago. Please see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thought WP:BADAFD was broken

...But we now have the gem that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Wales. Someone want to firm up a rationale and run with it? Or are we happy with "Taco"? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How long should collateral joke pages exist?

The 4/1 version of Signpost had an article for Trump/Wales 2016. To support it though, they created a number of backdated stories from previous years. e.g. [135] was a deletion request since it's not clear this article title and location is related to 4/1/2016. Do we tolerate the expansion of such articles beyond 4/1 spaces? It has since had the "humor" tag added but I think this is a slippery slope. There are many "humerous" pre-dated titles that can be created. --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The jokes should run for the duration of April 1 only, after that, it's no longer April Fools, so out with the joke. KoshVorlon 14:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. Don't break page histories. It's not like a new issue of the Signpost is even out yet, and there's already a push to make the page no longer work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer, 12AM April 2  Done. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If an uninvolved admin feels so inclined, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes can probably be speedily closed as snowy, and it probably should be given that it deals with BLP violations. ~ Rob^Talk 12:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging procedure and tagging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A proposal has been made by another editor to merge Short-Fingered Vulgarian to Donald Trump. Per Step 2 of WP:MERGEPROP both articles should be tagged. This is unambiguously stated. No exception is given. User:Floquenbeam removed the tag, without a rationale, in this edit. I am curious what admins and other experienced editors make of this. AusLondonder (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason given here seems justified. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The merge notice was removed for a very clear and legitimate reason. I don't think we are so process-bound that we would allow an article created by sock puppet troll to reflect adversely on a BLP subject. As the merge proposer, had I rememebered that merge proposal notices appear at the top of target articles, I would have found a more discreet way of proposing it. - MrX 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with kelapstick and MrX. I'm beginning to have some serious doubts about you, AusLondonder. Now might be the time to adopt a low profile instead of seemingly seeking confrontation and/or drama. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking to the subject and launching a sideways attack on me; @Sitush:. I can't even recall interacting with you in the past. I have literally no idea what you are talking about. AusLondonder (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Judging by this report, you might not have much idea what anyone on Wikipedia is talking about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I've interacted with you, AusLondonder, and I've found you to be a throughly disruptive individual. I'm not surprised you've ended up here. Cassianto^Talk 13:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: We interacted once the other year. Is that what you mean? Talk about holding grudges. Move on with your life. Get involved in content creation AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a report, @Johnuniq:. Congratulations on [redacted] and choosing to mindlessly insult someone. I didn't post it on ANI as a report. It was simply a broader seeking of views from other editors. WP:MERGEPROP should be reworded to include a BLP exemption in this case. On the other hand, @MrX:, I question why you didn't simply nominate the article for deletion. Is the content of short-fingered vulgarian really notable enough to be merged into the Trump article? AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not escalate to outright namecalling please. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is the name calling of Johnuniq not redacted? AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In retrospect, I should have G5ed the article the moment I saw it. I guess I was assuming too much good faith.- MrX 02:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's rationale in the diff offered by Kelapstick is quite clear. You say "no exception is given" in that policy, but BLP is the exception to every policy on Wikipedia. BLP trumps (ha!) other policy concerns, and common sense trumps all of that. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP concerns, I think we are being slightly alarmist here. A whole article of BLP violations exists in Short-Fingered Vulgarian. How on earth is that acceptable but a merge tag not? AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Donald Trump is visited by 340,000+ times per day. It's a REALLY big deal.- MrX 02:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A single obscure article on a topic is not quite the same thing as putting those words in a tag at the very top of the Donald Trump article - for months the most seen page on the seventh most popular website in the entire world - as announcement to the entire world. Gamaliel (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why not a simple piped link? Such as:

Seems to assuage both concerns of: A) not having the controversial words appear in the main article, but B) still having a notification of the discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the discussion is not deserving of the attention it will get — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that @Salvidrim:. But apparently all past grudge holders come out from the woodwork to scream it's "disruptive" to even try and bring up discussion about the matter. What a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment An admin or other editor should close this. Nothing is being achieved here. I think we all should have better things to do with our time than criticise each other. I think the fact that an editor cannot raise a question about inconsistencies in good faith without accusations of "disruption" is predictable but disappointing. Discussion is not disruption. I suggested amending WP:MERGEPROP to note BLP concerns in merging tags. It is becoming obvious to me most editors cannot put aside their feelings of personal dislike over, say, a disagreement a year ago and respond to a query/proposal without insults and personal criticism. Other editors race to defend the actions of an administrator colleague in the most vigorous way imaginable. Then the editing community wonder why so many people (women, young people, people who dislike being criticised) are turned-off editing. AusLondonder (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot speak for anyone else (and ain't gonna try) but you might consider this; all content on articles requires a consensus of editors. That includes tags, banners etc.. The merge process is not a formal guideline and certainly not a bright line rule. While you centered on step two of the process...you forgot number three of the types of mergers normally found on Wikipedia, controversial merge proposals. Right now the article has been nominated for deletion and placing a merge tag on the top of a BLP article based on a stub of this nature is not a good idea for many reasons. Pushing to keep the tag could, in itself, be disruptive because it looks as if you are not getting the point. For the most comprehensive collection of our merge procedures you can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible and reasonable reply, Mark Miller. I never pretend to know everything so I thank you for your good faith advice. I don't actually see why a merger was ever considered. The article was basically just a sentence about an insult from a magazine. AusLondonder (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information from deleted page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am looking for some information for this article that was deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter

If it can be userfied. I would appreciate it.

I have already created this article and would appreciate any additional information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cardoza_Poindexter?redirect=no

Thank you. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted article, which is really just a poorly written stub with three dead external links as references. Your article is about 600 times better than this old stub. I'll put it into your user space if you really want it - it's actually short enough to go into a section on your talk page - but you've got lots more information, better references, and I think you'll be disappointed and kind of embarrassed that this was the best we could do with a biography like this. Katie^talk 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Yes, I am just on a search. So I will take any new info. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As they pertain to the same topic and there was evidently no overlapping time spans, I instead did what we usually do and I've histmerged them -- all revisions can now be explored through the Revision History. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please undo the merge. I only wanted some information from it. That is why I asked for a userfication. I worked hard as the author of this article. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All your great contributions to this article are evident in its history and your contributions. What else do you need? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if that is sarcasm, but I am no longer listed as an author. [136] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about that :) Your contributions are no less important just because you didn't made the first edit; you're still an author of the article! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm in undoing the merge, if it matters to BlackAmerican that they're listed as the article creator. They didn't use any of the old version to write their article, so there are no attribution issues. If something matters to someone more than it matters to us, it doesn't mean they're wrong to let it matter to them, and if there's no harm, no reason not to go along. BlackAmerican, I think this should be filed under "be careful what you wish for...". And no, I'm confident Martin wasn't being sarcastic.

Anybody mind if I unmerge? Or, anyone want to just do it themselves, in case it takes a while for me to get online again? Just to keep an editor happy? @Salvidrim!: in particular, any objection (no good deed goes unpunished)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Instead of unmerging altogether, why not delete it all where it stands and selectively-restore the 2014 revisions? That way both the histories of the deleted 2007 version and the live 2014 versions can be easily found under the same title, and BlackAmerican gets to keep his "creator" credit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's actually what I was going to do, anything else would seem like *far* too much work. I know, "unmerge" was inaccurate wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, S! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly no sarcasm from me! There is surely no reason to doubt my sincerity when I called your contributions "great"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, can the older version be userfied? or is there someplace I can view them? Thank you. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean you didn't take a look before they were deleted again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've put the original version at User:BlackAmerican/Poindexter. Please tag it with WP:U1 when you're finished with it and someone will delete it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

that's the last version. There are a couple of versions that go back years that I wanted to see if possible. thank you in advance. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now restored all revisions to Charles Cardoza Poindexter again. Please do not complain now that you are not the creator anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Wikipedia:Standard offer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wackslas (talk · contribs)

Wackslas has requested permission to invoke Wikipedia's second chance quasi-rule. Their account was blocked on 29 Oct 2015; making this request a few weeks early but I'm bringing it forward to discuss. For those with UTRS access, the ticket number is UTRS appeal #15556. Wackslas was blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry. They've acknowledge what they've done is wrong and have committed to not socking anymore. They'd like to participate by editing music related articles. I make no judgement on the merits of this request, I'm only facilitating it.--v/r - TP 04:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wackslas appears to have been openly socking just this week, vandalising music related articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (Formally opposing now after checkuser confirmation, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

Based on that, he should obviously stay blocked. ~ Rob^Talk 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Just confirming that Wackslas2 = Wackslas. No imposters here. Mike V • Talk 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on their stated commitment to not sock any more, and the checkuser evidence showing they were socking just a few days ago(using a near identical name for some reason) I would say we still have a serious trust issue here, or perhaps a failure to get what socking is. HighInBC 15:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Or, given that Wackslas2 has been vandalising, and given the nature of the unblock requests at User talk:Wackslas2 and the very first edit from that account, perhaps we just have a troll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed. We could spend the next day or so all opposing this, or someone uninvolved could just close it as not going to happen. HighInBC 15:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - this request is pointless, as the individual isn't respecting the block. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need your help!

·Hey bored admins, got nothing better to do with your time? Well come on down to RFPP and help clean out some requests! We've got 55 requests just sitting there, waiting to be handled deftly by your keen insight and judgement, you also look great today! Don't wait, start protecting (and declining) today! tutterMouse (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a few and then some. Widr (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly  Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

IP-socks with talkpage access

Someone mind removing the talkpage access of these blocked User:Nolantron IP-socks?

• Special:Contributions/24.114.106.179
• Special:Contributions/24.114.93.163
• Special:Contributions/24.114.86.61

He also mentions the supposedly-extended rangeblock wasn't actually extended. Someone may want to deal with that, too. User has also been harassing User:Kailey 2001 at least yesterday. (On one of his named accounts, he claims he was just pretending to be the harasser active on Kailey's user talkpage before. No clue if he's honest or lying, don't care either.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Range 24.114.64.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked). Not sure if that is feasible. Fences&Windows 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Organized editing effort

Organized editing effort from 4chan's /pol/. Found boards.4 *** chan.org/pol/thread/69811494/1st-pol-wikipedia-editathon (view at your own risk; link blacklisted). FYI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Psst, Nick-D... regarding David Irving. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the edits to the Irving article had that look to it. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

69814951 suggested: Edit /pol/ out of the "Alt Right" page, or at least make it less biased. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Maybe /pol/ is capable of subtlety. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: Surprisingly (?) the editor who removed it made a good point: the sources don't support its inclusion. There's at least one seasoned wiki editor in that thread on 4chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Iranian people by net worth and Setad

Hi,

Same problem has occurred again (and again for past 2 years) as reported [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277#List_of_Iranian_people_by_net_worth] more recently. Can someone please take action and/or protect this page indefinitely, as I don't want to turn it personal (no "agenda" whatsoever on my side). Thanks. Similar problem for theSetad article with an editor who is making WP:unfounded personal attacks (possibly a sock-puppet of blocked user: Sheildy?). I have edited economy-related article on WP for more than 10 years without a hitch but those 2 seem problematic because it is a list of persons may be?

Thanks much,

Duvalier123 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Please block this account because of doing VandalismModern Sciences (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, this is severe POV pushing--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sysmessage change request

Hi guys! If everything works as planned the new protection level is comming in about 1-2 hours. so you need to adjust the text of two messages:

• MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning
• MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext

You need to use a switch to display the right things, if the new level is used. But I guess you got already experience in that, because you got the templateditor level. Otherwise you may take a look at the french pages with the new names, they got their new level yesterday. Greetings, Luke081515 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See also this discussion at the technical village pump. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Savintomar repeatedly recreating CSDed article

@Wgolf:: The discussion has been moved here froom WP:ANI.

User:Savintomar has been repeatedly recreating Savintomar as a page about himself (which in its present form is U5, A7, ... CSD), even after it has been speedy'd many times. He has also been repeatedly uploading a photo of himself to Commons and Wikipedia, which does not give any indication of permission or release on a free licence.

Also the user appears to have a sock: User:Savin.tomer, and has also been removing speedy templates from the articles created by the master. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging MER-C. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Savin.tomer, as it's quite clear they're the same person. I'm not completely convinced this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar -- is this user so desperate to get onto Wikipedia that he'll misspell his own name in order to do so? I salted all variants of Sachin Tomar via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist not too long ago. MER-C 08:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of Iamsachintomar, if a user repeatedly creates a speedy deleted page, and even creates a sockpuppet to continue the work, this should be grounds for blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. The main reason why I'm raising this up for admin review, is if the user is unable to interpret and understand Wikipedia policy on article creation, copyright and multiple accounts, I believe he should be sanctioned. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: @Od Mishehu: Please refer to [137], the personal page of the user (MER-C, remember the photo I tagged and you deleted?). This page may help you to identify who are his socks or not. (I am not outing, reason is because the user had already revealed his homepage in his contribs and also used his own photo, which came out on a Google image search) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent future article creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Od Mishehu: fair enough. I've indeffed the other account for not being here to improve Wikipedia. I've also amended the deletion summaries to U5/G12, as it's not particularly clear Savintomar == Sachin Timar. MER-C 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Help required at AfD

There is a discussion here which an editor has moved the main article to its userpage, can I ask for assistance from an administrator re what to do next? Thanks Nordic Dragon 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have performed some cleanup and commented there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User created a WP:FAKEARTICLE so Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vanossaro1567 Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed user

I have just noticed that a permission for users called "Extended confirmed user" and a request board called Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed has appeared. THis started around 23:24 on 5 April. The noticeboard suggests that only alternate accounts of those who have automatically received the permission should be granted this permission. Is there a clear statment of this policy or process? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This from 19 March- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Also this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this also apply to Gamergate controversy? Maybe the edit filter there is sufficient. I just noticed that an editor's status on their user page (which is seen if you have particular scripts) says they are "extendedconfirmed" (no space) instead of "confirmed". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think GG was its original intended use, in fact. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is no process or consensus for adding this right manually, this page should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding was that the right would only be manually added for alternate accounts. ~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, admins can apply to this level of protection, either through requests at WP:RPP or they become aware of the need for protection on eligible articles/pages in the WP:ARBPIA area? Does this also apply to caste-related articles? We should also alert admins who regularly check the RPP noticeboard and I've requested that this level of protection be added to Twinkle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. This level needs Arbcom authority, as described in WP:AC/DS. If you see a need for 500/30 protection on an article that doesn't yet have it, I suggest requesting it at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The article needs to fall in the scope of some Arbcom case. Unclear if adding this protection level to Twinkle is a good idea, or if allowing requests for it at RFPP is wise. RFPP doesn't hand out 1RR restrictions, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be of use in seeing how the rollout was discussed and any links that may help Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at special@Log/rights. Irondome (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom authority includes WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Administrators may unilaterally apply extended protection to articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict topic. RFPP is as good a place to ask for it as any. BethNaught (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(another ec!)

What about this AE decision where you state that A 500/30 restriction is authorized for use with caste articles under certain restrictions. You tied this new restriction to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions and specified the articles 500/30 applied to at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#India-Pakistan. But, you're right, ArbCom never passed a motion to authorize 500/30 for the India-Pakistan area (or Gamergate) as they did for Palestinian-Israel conflict pages. Hence, my confusion on whether these caste articles could be covered by this new level of protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought the 500/30 sanction was a result of an AE request for gamergate originally? When did it 'require' arbcom authority? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be clarified by ArbCom whether 500/30 is an appropriate discretionary sanction. I could see that going either way. ~ Rob^Talk 16:36, 6 April 2016 UTC)

The new protection level is for authorized topics only, as listed at WP:30/500. New pages will be created that will clearly relate to these topics, so users need a way to request this new form of protection (see also WT:RFPP#New options). It is up to the admin to determine if the page qualifies, and if they are unsure, they can defer or ask here at AN. I plan to add support for the level of protection to Twinkle, but it will abundantly clear this is for Arbitration purposes only, and will list out the qualified topics. The text that is posted to RFPP will also clearly denote what that protection is for, so patrolling admins should not be confused.

The WP:PERM/EC page is more or less purely to assign the right to alternate accounts. We put it there to centralize with other permissions requests — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope the list of articles is going to be kept somewhere else than Wikipedia:Protection policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is the list of topics. The list of articles can be found at Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Those topic links are articles, just saying :P. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be a useful tool to cut down on some of the vandalism and occasional terrorist POV pushing on some ISIL related pages like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Heads up: No editing for 30 minutes in about two weeks

This is a quick note to make sure people here have heard about the new dates for the m:Tech/Server switch 2016. The net result is that there will be no editing at any WMF wiki for 15 to 30 minutes, on both Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday 21 April, started at 14:00 UTC (10:00 a.m. EDT). Also, there will be a few things that may be slower to update than usual (e.g., red links persisting for a few minutes after you've created the article); these should resolve whenever the servers catch up.

I've requested a watchlist note at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details here (an admin will need to make that happen, but there's no rush right now), and suggested it to several other larger communities. There will also be MassMessages to the usual Village Pumps for about 600 wikis, and a CentralNotice (sitenotice banner) shortly beforehand. The project was described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/Technology report.

I request that you share this news with other sister projects, projects in other languages, and editors that you interact with regularly. If you have questions or suggestions for more ways to reach people, then please {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to be a vandalism problem? It might be wise to not give too exact of times. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I heavily agree with this. It would be ideal for you to give a window of an hour or so and start it at some random time within that window. ~ Rob^Talk 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect the time to be exact (it's triggered by humans, not by a script), but they ran a test of this a couple of weeks ago, and there were no reports about vandalism then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't set up mass warnings about the exact time it was going to occur two weeks ago, though. I don't want to WP:BEANS this (and hopefully am not) but if it's going to be widely advertised, with a near-exact startup time, it really opens us up to danger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but, easily solved; Whatamidoing, please make sure the humans pressing the button take a coffee break of random length between completing their final checks and halting editing. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Article needs deleting and salting

Can someone delete and salt this article [138]? I linked a prior deletion discussion to the request template and you'll see it has repeatedly been recreated under various names by a determines sockmaster over the years. A couple other variations of the name are already salted. GigglesnortHotel (talk)£ —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Already deleted, I have added the salt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

State of TfD

Lately, participation at TfD has been extremely low. I've been essentially the only editor closing discussions over the past several weeks. When I'm unable to close discussions (either due to involvement or because the close would be inappropriate for a non-admin), they've sat there for weeks, some for months. When I do close discussions, they often have little input, and I doubt that many of these discussions actually represent a global consensus. Not to mention the backlog at the holding cell, where discussions with consensus as old as 2013 sit waiting to be enacted.

In short, TfD badly needs more participation in all respects. Non-administrators can help by simply contributing to discussions or by closing discussions, including those with non-contentious and obvious deletion outcomes, as per a past RfC. Administrators are especially needed to close old discussions that non-administrators are unable to. If you're unfamiliar with closing TfD discussions, you can find instructions at WP:TFD/AI, or I'm happy to be of assistance.

This is not just a request for closure. While the backlog is an issue, I'm most concerned that decisions on templates with thousands of transclusions are often being made by less than five editors. That's extremely unhealthy for the project. Non-administrators can be just as helpful as administrators in fixing that. ~ Rob^Talk 12:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've started going through and closing some of the more unambiguous discussions, but I lack the time and experience to do much more than help occasionally. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• +++++ Agree with Rob, more participation and more admins needed! I used to do a lot of TfD closes but haven't had the time lately, and there's a growing backlog of discussions that need an admin or at least an uninvolved editor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there perhaps a handy-dandy TfD closing script we can employ?--v/r - TP 05:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • TParis, I have User:Doug/closetfd.js, which I don't use, but I loaded it when I loaded the MfD closer, which is not as automated as the AfD closer, however.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @TParis: There is User:Doug/closetfd.js, but it just adds the closing templates and doesn't actually do the deletions or untag templates being kept. I usually go through one day's log and then use Twinkle's D-batch, which is handy when there are group nominations or many subpages and redirects. Someone was working on a more comprehensive script awhile back but I think got distracted by other things (just in case anyone reading is looking for a project, hint hint.... ;) I had vague intentions of writing one myself but my dislike of tedious repetitive tasks never quite overcame my dislike of all things javascript. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've used the script before, but personally, I think just opening up WP:TFD/AI in another tab and following the instructions is easier. That's what I do, and it's quite productive. Personal preference, of course, so your mileage may vary. Again, I just want to underscore that I'm happy to answer questions! For those who close discussions, please note the following few pieces of advice, which differ from other deletion processes:

• Please do not delete templates which still have remaining transclusions! You can check for this by clicking "What links here" and then "Transclusion count". If the transclusions aren't zero (this includes anything in the userspace, etc.), then you can either remove/replace the transclusions as necessary or list the template at WP:TFD/H so another editor can do so. The template should remain until all transclusions are removed and then listed as G6.
• If you close a discussion as "merge", please list it at WP:TFD/H unless you're very confident you can handle the technical aspects of the merge. If you do decide to carry out a simple merge yourself (such as merging navboxes, which is fairly easy), I recommend using the sandbox to test your edits.
• If using the TfD script (or closing discussions without it, for that matter), be sure to remove the TfD template from the templates being considered if you close as "keep". The script doesn't do this for you, and it's a common mistake to assume that it does. You should also place {{Old TfD}} on the talk page of the template.

~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

user:Chjoaygame has various misinterpretations of quantum theory, its concepts, formalisms, and notations. He will not break out of them, instead resorting to treatises of the pioneers as the final word. Including pioneering work of Dirac, Feynman, von Neumann, you name them, is a good thing for historical context. Trying to write an article in the same archaic terms they used is not helpful as Ch would have us think. As much as possible, Ch avoids mathematics, including standard terminology, and uses enormous quantities of prose.

His style of talk page discussion is particularly tiresome, endless nitpicking, thanking, apologizing, citations, quotes, and insinuations when he doesn't get his way, and even accusations that his point (or a point made by a pioneering physicist) has not been resolved. Often wall after wall of text is written. Also, when other editors propose a rewrite, whatever the choice of terminology, however things are phrased, Ch simply must use different words, often obscure, non-standard, or archaic. This is all cloaked in a very politically correct style.

Examples I have been recently involved with are

• Talk:Bra–ket notation
• Talk:Wave function archives 3-10 (especially 8 onwards) and edit history

but see also Talk:Quantum mechanics and its archives and edit history. For Talk:Wave function, the fact that four archives this year and three archives last year have been necessary, AND no progress has been made from "WP:AGF" discussions with this editor, is a clear sign the articles will not progress either, and they have not as long as he edits. Everyone just leaves frustrated.

I have not engaged with this editor as extensively as others, such as user:YohanN7, user:Tsirel, user:Waleswatcher, but enough to convince me that Ch is wasting time. Also, Ch engages with the thermodynamics articles, but I don't follow them much. Many users on this Wikiproject will know I am prone to mistakes, misinterpretations, and even get rude/uptight sometimes. But I do not perpetuate, nor argue on and on and on to have things my way, or the pioneer's way. Get this - even I can find Ch to be mistaken, which says something.

This is not a personal attack. It is well meant. Ch may well be polite and seem very resourceful, but is overall destructive for the above reasons, at least in the quantum theory articles.

If this ban fails, then it fails. But it's high time for Ch to desist from editing quantum articles until he changes his view on the subject, maybe even self-experiment in the basic mathematics required for the theory, it leads to a deeper understanding than just reading. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. User does not edit to improve articles but to exercise his idiosyncratic views. Extend ban to all physics topics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
• I remember a couple of years ago the user was a part of the gang which was doing damage to the articles on thermodynamics, and refusing to accept the quotes from the undergraduate text I am using in my teaching saying they are "wrong". I just walked away, unwatched all the articles, and never edited any of them ever since. Now I see the same damage to the quantum physics articles, endless rewriting without any point, using 100-years-old terminology. This needs to be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Here.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Bingo: [139]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. About his idiosyncratic views: he belongs to a small minority of the so-called "entanglement deniers" (or "Bell theorem denialists", etc). I tried hard to discuss this matter with him, but unsuccessfully; see here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The trigger for this proposal to ban was [140], saying that I do not accept the proposer's airbrushing out Dirac's repeated and clear statement that bras and kets cannot be split into real and pure imaginary parts. No problem for that with wave functions, of course. If Editor Tsirel thinks that bras and kets can be split into real and pure imaginary parts, I will be enlightened. If he thinks my holding fast on the point is a fair trigger for a topic ban, I will also be enlightened.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bra-ket notation is certainly not the only trigger for having you banned Chjoaygame. Your rambles, quotes, and insinuations all over the QM talk pages (especially Talk:Wave function) have multiple people frustrated and enough is enough. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

On the entanglement thing. Of course I agree with Schrödinger that entanglement is a fact. So I don't accept that I am an "entanglement denier". I don't accept reasoning that this implies action at a distance. If Bell's theorem is taken to imply that there is action at a distance, I still don't accept action at a distance. The setting of the angle of the polarizer sets the wave function basis, but it doesn't affect the quantum state, which is independent of the wave function basis. The physical thing is the quantum state, not the wave function. So changing the setting of the angle of the polarizer can change the wave function at a distance, but that is not a change of physical fact. Subject to correction, I have an idea that Editor Tsirel doesn't accept action at a distance? Whatever, I don't edit on the Bell thing, so I don't think that is a reason to topic-ban me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

May be some explanation would be in order. It is not the best Wikipedia argument, but in this thread, most of the people voting for topic-ban have some real-life credentials related to quantum physics, whereas Chjoaygame, to the best of my knowledge, has none.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Interaction ban, That user keeps doing something negative things to the talk pages. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with topic ban Either a ban or a warning Here is a sample bad edit on the Heat article. The second paragraph (Because...) in this original version contains a useful discussion of how heat is not a state function. A version of this paragraph was inserted over a year ago as per this discussion (I called myself guyvan52 back then). After a few edits by Ch we have this newer revision in which the second paragraph was replaced with historical content (Originally...), and the links to State function and Process function were removed (although I concede that the new link to Thermodynamic process is welcome). The editor has good intentions and is extremely knowledgeable about the history. Perhaps a warning and some coaching would be more appropriate? He needs to understand that the community probably wants articles that explain the physics/mathematics, not so much the history.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Some coaching", WP:AGF, and general patience has occurred long enough with Editor Chjoaygame. The time when Ch could be collaborated with is long gone. Hence this topic ban. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I said either..or, so a topic ban on quantum would satisfy that request. And it would serve as a warning on Thermo.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion that a warning might be sufficient. After reviewing Talk:Bra–ket notation I realized that the detailed effort to quote from four editions of Diracs book (1930-1958) exposes either a complete lack of understanding, or an inability to control one's emotions in a discussion. A topic ban on quantum mechanics is entirely appropriate.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps an interest to try to see the progress of Dirac's thinking on the way to his bra-ket notation? And to show that he didn't change his mind all that much?Chjoaygame (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame seems to have a poor understanding of quantum mechanics (despite high self-confidence) and has caused lots of wasted time and frustration for a lot of people because of that. --Steve (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely wasted. I have learnt valuable things from my efforts to respond to undoes of my edits. The undoes were thereby valuable. And even another editor learnt a small thing.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame is simply beyond reach for sensible discussion. There's nobody home. This, by itself, is not punishable. Ignorance is not either punishable. But I believe that Chjoaygame's behavior on talk pages is punishable. Behind all politeness, there are usually badly hidden insinuations. He'll never drop an old discussion. He is occasionally hiding behind "good faith" and affects the look of a puppy that someone has kicked ([141]). Follow the link to the actual eidt of the article, and you shall see that Chjoaygame is preaching some sort of religion rather than established science. He knows what he is doing (no "good faith" there). His style of editing when he encounters resistance is the most provocative imaginable. He knows what he is doing in that respect too. The result is that competent editors busy in real life are shying away. I know this for a fact, since I have email contact with more than one around here. Chjoaygame is in my opinion a burden for Wikipedia and is hindering article development. YohanN7 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. We are not into punishment here. We just want to make sure that the development of Wikipedia is not obstructed in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

Editor Xxanthippe makes a fair point. Editor Ymblanter complains above about me that I was a member of an alleged "gang" that over-ruled an edit that he made. His edit was based on one textbook source. He did not try to weigh it against the many other sources that his alleged "gang" relied upon. His edit was over-ruled indeed by several long-standing editors of the page, acting in accord with a long-standing consensus, the result of long debate. But it seems that he now holds it against me that I supported that consensus, by which his edit was rejected. Editor YohanN7 just above says above about me that I am "beyond reach" and that "there is nobody home". This in a context in which one of the two points at issue was later settled mathematically in my favour, after the present topic ban proposal. Was I not home there? If my edit were to be struck down safely, some other reason would have been needed. But instead, a topic ban was proposed. No RfC, no third opinion. Editor Sbyrnes has now, during the topic ban process, appeared to give a third opinion, against my edit on the grounds of non-notability, in favor nevertheless of my mathematics. If Editor Sbyrnes had offered his third opinion earlier, things might have turned out very differently. If other editors had been "home", they might also have given their opinions. Editor Tsirel holds it against me that in user talk-page conversation I did not knuckle under to his belief that there is something "shocking" about Bell's theorem, a topic on which I now do not edit because I know the strength of belief of Bell's theorists. Editor Tsirel branded me with the incriminative term 'denialist'. The point on which I stand is that Bell's theorem cannot be used to establish action at a distance. I think that some Bell's theorists also believe that Bell's theorem does not establish action at a distance, which they word as 'no transmission of information'. I think, subject to correction, that even Editor Tsirel holds that it does not establish action at a distance? He holds that it is "shocking". Is this a sound basis on which to topic-ban me? Editor Xxanthippe just above is of the view that respected editor YohanN7 is talking about punishing me. With a permanent ban. Sudden death, not even an RfC between a BRD (in which I did not offend) and a permanent ban. Editor YohanN7 complains that he is the only editor to weigh in heavily against me; indeed he has not received much support from other editors, who seem to have relied on his respected status to act on their behalves, perhaps as their proxies. He is even calling on private emails as proxy support. Suddenly even Editor Ymblanter takes an interest. My transgression is too much talk on talk pages, and too many citations of candidate reliable sources, and not knuckling under, even when I have mathematical correctness on my side. My dissent is that the approach of these articles is massively overweighted in favour of mathematics not supplied with physical meaning, when the topic is essentially physics. Editor YohanN7 has been left largely alone and unsupported, along with Editor Maschen, to defend the no-physical-meaning over-weighting. This is Wikipedia, not a textbook of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Wikipedia is primarily an ordinary-language general-access encyclopedia. Editor YohanN7 has an axe to grind, that mathematics is the sole language of physics, and that my ordinary-language approach is inappropriate. One can understand his frustration. One may ask, is it best simply to censor dissent with a sudden-death topic ban? I think Editor Xxanthippe has made a fair point.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To simplify my point, I believe that you are lacking basic knowledge of physics (not just quantum physics) while pretending the opposite and editing the physics articles disruptively, wasting time of other contributors. Therefore you should be forced (by means of a topic ban) to stop editing physics articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the place for a content dispute, but here is my short reply. (1) No one says that Bell's theorem establishes action at a distance; rather, that at least one of "three key concepts – locality, realism, freedom" must be abandoned. (2) Maybe "entanglement denier" is not an apt term, but I did not invent it; this is just a label used in discussions (on the Internet, and privately); also "Bell theorem denialist" is (just ask Google). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to Xxanthippe: Now, if we don't say that Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are punishable, how are we going to say that his "future edits and behavior are preemptively punishable"? How the hell are we going to say that? (There you go Chj. A bit of support for you.) No, either you say Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable, hence punishable - or you don't. If you don't, you have to let him go. I am clear: Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable. YohanN7 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Additions to the initial post: I forgot to mention at the top (though it may be well-known and unnecessary) that:

• "Quantum theory" here includes any article which involves quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, non-relativistic or relativistic.
• Editor Chjoaygame's interactions are very delocalized, and there is always something new for him to argue about.
  • When caught out on the spot and unable to answer, he evades the situation, and changes the subject with excuses like "no comment", "Argumentum ad verecundiam", "the foregoing thread was disorderly, it would be out of order to reply to it" (see Talk:Wave function/Archive 10 for examples).
  • A talk page thread could start on the topic of the article, say wave functions, then it will soon change to preparations of states, mixed states, species, "quantum analyzers", "ovens" and "anti-ovens", Stern-Gerlach magnets, measurements, Bell inequalities, the list goes on...

Ch is absolutely refusing to change his behavior, continuing to accuse others of being wrong while he was supposedly correct all the time, trying to convince us the ban is out of sheer spite. It is not a "sudden death" - Ch is not being killed. Something must be done else the QM and QFT articles will be a disaster complete with ovens, anti-ovens, and analyzers. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Chjoaygame does not respect when an editor retracts a comment: [142]. He retracted the retract. I remade it: [143], asking him politely to respect that an editor retracts his post. Chjoaygame cannot respect that either. I am in favor of a ban period, at least for a good while, of this individual. He is apparently trying to make life a living hell for anyone having ever opposed him in the past. It doesn't quite bite on me, and it is also probably not possible to keep him legally from raising mayhem on his own talk page. I can easily sense that others, less used to Chjoaygame, would feel not so at ease having him around. It is not only a matter of knowledgeable editors with plenty of routine. It is a matter of newcomers and fresh students. They can certainly make contributions, and may be very enthusiastic about it, but what if they suddenly face Chjoaygame? It is hardly an inviting environment for article work. YohanN7 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I recall this message from Chjoaygame: this diff "Thank you for your care in this. Sorry to take up your time. This isn't really a problem to ask you about. [...] Please don't spend more time on this; you have other things to do."

Assuming good faith (for now), I treat this as genuine concern about my precious time. Assuming the good faith also in other cases, I guess that Chjoaygame divides all wiki editors into two classes: experts and non-experts. Experts should concentrate on more important challenges than Wikipedia. Non-experts should not prevent him to improve Wikipedia. Thus, I conclude, he is a very interesting case of "ideal wiki editor": not too busy and enough qualified. He is also ideal editor in his attitude toward sources: he reads great minds (mostly, Dirac), makes them available to everyone, and always provides refs. His deep understanding of the great minds gives him the right to go against the mainstream in quite fundamental matters (such as Bell theorem). But, assuming the good faith, I get a contradiction. His time should be more precious than mine: he should return the (lost in the dark) mainstream back to the light of founding fathers! Well... maybe the solution is this: Wikipedia is, in his opinion, the right instrument for this work. Wow! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

His collaboration mode: "That is why I have chosen my own particular profession, or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world" (Sherlock Holmes). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I followed the discussion between Tsirel and Chjoaygame on Bell's theorem, but was unable to ascertain whether Ch is or is not an "entanglement denier". It seems to me that Ch just likes to redefine terminology (e.g. by replacing the conventional phrase "Quantum pseudotelepathy" with "absence of action at a distance"). My unpleasant experience with Ch on Heat was partly my fault. While three editors were involved, the third editor did not participate very much. Chjoaygame's insistence on doing the lede his way was too much for me and I began to curtail my edits after that. The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists. The issue that caused me to vote for the ban on quantum articles wasn't rude behavior but his insistence that Dirac's bra-kets cannot have real and imaginary parts. That issue suffers from a severe lack of WP:notability (the complex conjugate of a ket could be defined but nobody would want to do it). Statements about notability involve opinions (not facts), and therefore such discussions need to end quickly. His efforts to push such nonstarters on the talk pages makes it difficult to improve articles. Aside: I also moved my Let me digress a bit to my talk page to make it easier to add comments to this discussion--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists." — Yes! I guess, he knows physics better than a typical historian of physics, and knows the history of physics better than a typical physicist. That should be nice, but... I know personally a historian of mathematics that is extremely aggressive toward the current mathematics. I also know one or two others who behave much calmer, but are critical, too. I guess that there is such a phenomenon: someone studies the history of science, and feels competent to correct the present-day science by some return to the past. I guess, this is futile. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another "problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't" speak "like most (or nearly all) physicists". His way of using language is closer to that of humanities (which is natural for a historian), and quite different from the style of hard science. "Too long; didn't read" is often the reaction of a physicist. Our thoughts may be fuzzy when we think, but our arguments should be sharp when we speak/write. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. What Dirac was saying is that complex vectors are required because real parts or imaginary parts of these vectors don't describe physical objects by themselves (when taken separately). In dim 3, when you only have three real coordinates, you are unable to perform a change of basis, i.e. describe what would see another observer. Because this would require to know the six real coordinates (i.e. the three complex coordinates). I am not sure of what User:Chjoaygame wanted to say, but I think that assertion "three is less than six" is (1) sufficiently short and simple to be read by anyone of whatever background (2) stated in words whose meaning should have not evolved along the centuries. Pldx1 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Chjoaygame's latest activities in talk:bra-ket notation would never by themselves have provoked this. His current activities there reflect an attack of sanity unusual for him. Presumably, the present ANI makes him tone down a bit. He can't refrain though from trying to create the impression that "he was right all the time". This is still typical. His more honest reflexions on the topic at hand can be found in talk:wave function. There is a 100-fold worse material in talk:wave function, present and archives. It is important to point out that this is not about right or wrong in the hundreds of different issues and (usually) non-issues raised by this individual. It is about Chjoaygame's relentless and provoking pushing of his unique POV. YohanN7 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Final additions Although a couple of days ago I swore off to myself to not contribute anymore here, for the uninvolved I'll just give one more heads up to a better picture of the editor, in case it isn't obvious. See his recent edit history since the start of this ban, as well as User talk:Chjoaygame (especially User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 3). Ch, with some nerve, is taking every opportunity to display other editor's comments (however old) censored to his convenience, displayed on his talk page or an archive, while touting his apparent "correctness" and other people's "errors". Since Ch defers to WP policies when it suits him, there is WP:STICK to consider, and yes WP:TLDR is definitely relevant to Ch.

Also, along with Xxanthippe and Ymblanter, I agree the ban should extend to all physics articles, shuddering to think what will become of our relativity articles if Ch invades those too as some self-portrayed disciple of Einstein, Lorentz, Schwarzchild, you name them. However, others here may only agree with a topic ban on quantum physics, which should be the minimum that most of us agree on. This is the last of what I will say. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Maschen: a minor correction: A ban isn't what most of us agree on, but what all (but Ch) agree on (apology for dangling participle). Switching the question to a physics ban would require that we start this discussion from the beginning. A ban restricted to quantum would give Ch the opportunity to reform, and an absence of reform would make it easier to get the ban on all physics. @Chjoaygame: Why don't you start a parallel article on the history of quantum mechanics? All the physicists agree that your edits are making the articles harder for physics students to read.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to User:Guy vandegrift, yes, "most/all" of us, whatever, just being neutral in case someone actually comes along to oppose the ban on the grounds I am being "too harsh", "uncivil", "spiteful", they can take their pick.

I realize the discussion would have to be restarted if the ban extension to all physics articles was required, which is why this happened, followed by this, merely stating a ban on QM+QFT is the minimum which should be done.

Also, please don't encourage Ch to write his own article(s), "parallel" or not, because C could invade/damage other pages in the process for "innocent" reasons like links, cross-references, citations, even if not it will be almost certainly something to delete eventually anyway. It also contradicts your assertion that a QM topic ban is appropriate because Ch is still technically engaged with editing on WP in the subject. It's not only students that Ch befuddles and annoys, but even knowledgeable non-experts and experts. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Some samples:

Here, [144] Chj hijacks a thread. An editor asks a question (about position and momentum representations of a state) and Chj goes ballistic about something else (anti-ovens or whatever), presumably supporting Editor Vaughan Pratt.

Long long ramble cut out...

... I think Editor Vaughan Pratt is concerned about this.

What? VP asks a question, half of which a junior first-timer in a QM course can answer after one week. Chj does not possess this knowledge, instead furiously attacks further after my patient explanation.

In this one, [145] (scroll up to label "concern", link does not work well), Cjoaygame asserts

As I read it, this part of the present article flatly contradicts the consensus of Born, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rosenfeld, Kramers, Messiah, Weinberg, and Dirac.

The referred to parts, listed below for convenience,

• Wave functions corresponding to a state are not unique. This has been exemplified already with momentum and position space wave functions describing the same abstract state.
• The abstract states are "abstract" only in that an arbitrary choice necessary for a particular explicit description of it is not given. This is analogous to a vector space without a specified basis.
• The wave functions of position and momenta, respectively, can be seen as a choice of basis yielding two different, but entirely equivalent, explicit descriptions of the same state.
• Corresponding to the two examples in the first item, to a particular state there corresponds two wave functions, Ψ(x, Sz) and Ψ(p, Sy), both describing the same state.

are highly trivial non-controversial facts. For Chj, they are either new or don't fit into his religion. I don't know which, and I don't really care.

On occasion, Chj starts vetting real scientists, like here (Link works poorly. Scroll up to label "A distinction drawn by Weinberg".).

Weinberg is at fault in logic here. He is conflating...

Wow. Just wow.

I ask of no one to read all of Chj's gibberish. But those who decide on this issue should read at least some. Talk:Wave function/Archive 5 is fairly representative. YohanN7 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we must be thankful to YohanN7 for the sample, since it would be a torture "to read all of Chj's gibberish". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A counter sample, this time of Editor YohanN7 on my talk page:

But I believe that this statement isn't generally true;

Roughly speaking, a vapour-containing oven with a hole in its wall emits a beam of atoms in a mixed state.

If you lower the intensity to one atom at-a-time, these atoms are decidedly in a pure state (wave packages). You might speculate about single atoms in a high-intensity beam being in a mixed state if there is significant interaction between the atoms. Then some of the conditions described in L&L apply, because we would be looking at a subsystem. But it is still not clean cut. The system as a whole can hardly qualify as closed.

I'd also say that nature does not habitually deliver mixed states when you consider small systems, like a definite isolated collection of particles. Mixed states in those cases only appear when you consider a subsystem. This is exactly the way L&L defines it. I'd guess that in the typical setup in accelerator experiments, the intensities of the beams are low enough that particles in the beams do not interact with other particles in the same beam.

I think this casts light on the level of physical understanding of my present attacker.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A content dispute, again... but I feel I have to reply. The quote above is a part of discussion where both parties were somewhat in the dark. "It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some fully specified mixed state." (Chjoaygame, in the same discussion.) No, this is not at all hard. There are many ways to do it. For instance, it is very easy to prepare a thermal state (at a given temperature), described by the Hibbs density matrix; ironically, this is just what the oven prepares! In that discussion, both parties seem to understand that "mixed" should be "correlated with something else", but YohanN7 thinks about correlation with another particle of the same beam (rather than the oven and the environment), and Chjoaygame does not clarify, correlated with what. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Editor Tsirel, for this valuable comment. I posted the counter-sample in order to cast light on the level of physical understanding of my attacker, not to start a content debate. But since you have nearly done that, I may say thank you for picking up my one-word slip in my post on my talk page. Of course, as you rightly observe, I slipped by omitting the word 'arbitrary'. The sentence that I wrote in my talk page that you have copied here ought to have read with that word included: It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. Because I was concerned to make the very same point that you rightly make here, I had already cited the systems emerging from the oven as mixed, an obvious example of mixedness. I was concerned that my interlocutor seemed to utterly deny this. The ordinary definition of a mixed state that I intend is one that is observed to be such that when the analysis(=Dirac's "sorting apparatus" 1958, p. 12)  &  detection devices are exhaustively varied and still no way can be found to make the systems pass with probability one. Perhaps I may add that my main attackers here routinely ridicule me for talking of ovens and sorting apparatus.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, really? Still not so problematic. Having sources for several pure states, it is trivial to combine them (via a classical randomizer) into a source of the corresponding mixed state. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote 'arbitrary'. Your example demands restriction to the case where one has sources for several pure states, indeed mixed, but far from arbitrary.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is arbitrary as long as these pure states are. The problem of preparing arbitrary pure state is a separate problem (and in some sense, not solvable, but usually assumed to be solvable in elementary textbooks). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote (as corrected by Editor Tsirel): It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. As he points out, it may be hard in practice to prepare an arbitrary pure state, a point I hsve made in the past. I don't agree that this is a separate problem. I had it in mind when I made my statement. And it would be a restriction that one should deal with several pure states, not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you don't agree that this is a separate problem, then let it be so. But "not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states" shows clearly, what happens when one thinks physically instead of (rather than in addition to) thinking mathematically (and Feynman wrote about this in "Character of physical law"). Every mixed state (no matter how "tricky") can be decomposed into a (finite or) countable mix of pure states (and approximately - finite, of course). And admits a continuum of non-equivalent such decompositions. (Non-unique decomposition is a well-known fact actively debated in the past). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to see your thoughts on this point. I was in doubt on the matter. I hardly need say that I defer to your mathematics. I wrote It would be hard in practice to prepare... I am not sure, but I think it would be hard in practice to prepare a countably infinite set of pure states ready to be mixed. Whether the word 'several' covers a countably infinite set is a question that one might ask.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Each and any valuable treatise on Quantum Mechanic Theory is consistent with itself, since this is a requirement for being valuable. But QMT has largely evolved from its beginning, and is already evolving. So that any patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent. An eigenfunction |w> for variable W related to object X has the meaning "suppose that you interact sufficiently with X, to the point of finding w as the measure of variable W, then X will be described by |w>. Before the measure, object X has to be represented by a linear combination of eigenfunctions, the coefficients being related (at least loosely) with the probability of obtaining w as the measure of W. If you are considering two properties, you can, before any measure, represent the same physical object by two linear combinations of eigenfunctions (relative to W1 and W2). But after any measure, other linear combinations have to be used. Moreover, when the two measuring processes don't commute, measuring more and more precisely W1 results in scrambling more and more W2, to the point of obtaining an linear combination that only expresses our total ignorance about w2.
  Another way to tell the same thing. An abstract function describes an object with associated knowledge. When dealing with a physical object, the main question is: what have we paid for this knowledge, i.e. how much we have modified this object in order to acquire this knowledge ? Remark on the present dispute: the Founding Fathers of QMT are known for having be rogue to each other. But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father. Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the third phrase and the last phrase of Pldx1 (but his other phrases seem not to belong here):

"Аny patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent."

"But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father."

Anyway, I'd say that both YohanN7 and Chjoaygame are not experts, but Chjoaygame is a passionate and ambitious POV pusher, while YohanN7 is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor Tsirel says that I am a passionate and ambitious POV pusher. Yes, I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. My principal interlocutor, I think, is passionate in the opposite direction. He writes for example "Modern ways of presenting physics are better than those of the 1930:s. Mathematics has become the irreversibly final tool and language in expressing physics. You may not like it, but you can't turn the flow of time around." I have to leave it to others to decide if that constitutes Wiki POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My opinion to it is already voiced above: About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning is very different from replacing mathematical formulas with (unique) POV babbling. I am in favor of the former, not even neutral. I am against the latter. YohanN7 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall replacing any mathematical formulas. You are of course free to say I babble and have a (unique) POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

But I can recall. For example, here. Chj replaced two explicit examples (formulas) with essentially the message

A pure quantum state is an abstract object that refers to repeated practical replication of single quantum phenomena.

This is illustrating well what I mean by POV babbling instead of formulas. For another example, where Chj admittedly didn't replace an existing formula, but wrote out a formula in words in a way nobody could understand: section Dirac and Schrödinger formulations , He the raised hell about censoring Dirac on the talk page when I reformulated the section. YohanN7 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Editor YohanN7 raises this now, I suppose I may respond. I wouldn't describe my removal of the formulas as replacing them. I would say, rather, that I removed them in an act of good editorial judgement. They were inappropriately placed. They were formulas in specialized notation, in the lead as formulas for the sake of formulas, and chattering about David Bohm, hardly relevant to the topic, let alone worthy of a place in the lead of the article. I did not remotely replace them with another such irrelevancy.

As for the second admitted non-replacement. The formula that I removed did not, as was claimed, express an adequately defined pure state; it expressed a state pure with respect to a single degree of freedom, quite a distinct concept, in a context in which the distinction was material. My deletion improved the text.

And as for "rais[ing] hell" (Editor YohanN7's words) about censoring Dirac: I posted the following on the talk page:

edit undone without edit summary or talk page comment

I gave the wrong link for the second admitted non-replacement. Should have been Dirac and Schrödinger formulations. Complicated formulas spelled out in words is not "more physics". Never mind. YohanN7 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor YohanN7 has here in effect undone a fair post by me. He made no edit summary and no talk page comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing further was posted there on that. Nothing there about Dirac when Editor YohanN7 reformulated the section. I think Editor YohanN7 must have had some other posts in mind when he wrote just above that I "raised hell on the talk page"!Chjoaygame (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Boris: Plain-language information is a valuable part of physics articles. But plain-language misinformation is not! I personally don't know yet whether Chjoaygame is pushing a coherent POV or is merely confused about many basic aspects of quantum mechanics. But anyway, Chjoaygame is not correct when he suggests that his POV is a desire for plain-language descriptions and that this is what people are complaining about. --Steve (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

With regret, I know already that indeed, he is merely confused about all entangled states. [146] Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot there. I am obviously not expert in quantum mechanics. I was seriously confused for some long time about the relation between state vectors and wave functions. This was a big confusion on a basic aspect, with troublesome ramifications in the way of walls of text on talk pages. I eventually recognized how to see it correctly, and apologized for my confusion. I don't think I have other basic confusions of remotely the same size. People are complaining about my personality: that I write walls of text on talk pages, that I often use out-of-date sources (e.g. Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bohr), that I don't give up on talk pages until I have been persuaded that I ought do so, that I am not primarily interested in mathematics, and that I post edits boldly. I can see that these personality features do not endear me to people; they add up to the broad reason for the present proposal to topic-ban me. I think I am entitled to have a pretty large say in defining my own POV. At least in my mind it is as I stated just above: I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. To elaborate a little, I believe strongly that if one can't give a good account of a topic in ordinary language, then one doesn't understand it well. I think Wikipedia articles on quantum mechanics are defective in that respect. Here is not the place for me to say more about that. I have posted many attempts to help remedy that defect. Many of those have been duly undone, with more or less protest from me. I don't edit war.

On another tack, I do not believe in magic, and therefore I avoid editing on Bell's theorem. That I do not believe in magic makes some editors feel I am nuts, but, as I said, after one essay, made within the rules and not objectionably, I know how passionately they think my non-belief is mistaken and consequently I don't edit or talk on Bell's theorem. So I think my unbelief is not a valid reason to do hard things to me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, it is a well-accepted position, that generally, a theoretical notion need not admit a definition in empirical terms. When possible (and not too boring), such a definition is desirable. But it may be impossible. Theory as whole is corroborated (or refuted) according to its predictions (and empirical facts). But "building blocks" are not necessarily interpretable empirically. We observe that Chjoaygame tries hard to give empirical interpretation to every theoretical notion, even when it is not reasonable to do at all, or at least, is a too advanced matter for our articles.Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment is high powered, perhaps beyond the present purposes, or, as you say, "by the way". I ask that the formulas be related to physical meaning. That is not to say that every definition must have an empirical meaning. If one says 'this formula has no physical meaning' I count that as relating this formula to physical meaning. Physical meaning is not quite the same thing as empirical meaning. To deal more directly with your comment, Chjoaygame tries hard to interpret theoretical notions that he feels deserve empirical interpretations, but not every theoretical notion. Chjoaygame thinks that physicists vary in how hard and how successfully they pursue that. Sometimes some of them give up too easily. I won't go further on that here and now.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not about replacing formulas (that is, statements) by plain text, nor about their translation into plain text. I am rather about mathematical objects (say, state vectors). The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some Hermitian operator, is mathematically trivial. The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some physically feasible observable is far not trivial. Neither the former, nor the latter, is usually discussed in elementary textbooks. And I do not think they should be discussed (prominently) in our articles. But if you define a pure state as corresponding (you know in which sense) to a possible value of an observable, then inevitably you enter such questions. This is why your trend (in spite of its good faith) may be (or even must be) harmful. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these valuable thoughts. I think I would be unwise to pursue them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: For the record, I also do not believe that people can do "magic", and when I learned of Bell's theorem circa 1992, my amazement that elementary particles are experimentally observed to display "Quantum pseudo-telepathy" prompted me to contact the local newspaper (after two sleepless nights pondering what I had just learned). The local newspaper ignored me. Like you, I also get "odd" ideas about how to explain physics, but after one or two rejections I drop the subject and post the material in an obscure location (example). If Wikipedia editors who happen to by physicists say a certain insight has no value, you need to believe them. I recall this statement that perhaps you made about Temperature and the one-dimensional manifold. It is marginally appropriate for Wikipedia, at best. But when I went to delete it, I checked the source and finally understood. Just below the freezing point, density decreases with increasing temperature. The fact that temperature is not a function of volume implies that an ad hoc definition of temperature cannot be based on a water thermometer in this range. This could be a useful insight in instructional material for students. You just need to recognize that there are places where such insights do not belong.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor YohanN7 doesn't like people interleaving in his posts. He has just undone my interleaving above. So I copy from above to here in green his text in which he ridiculed me. Then I copy my indented interleaved reply.

On occasion, Chj starts vetting real scientists, like here (Link works poorly. Scroll up to label "A distinction drawn by Weinberg".).

Weinberg is at fault in logic here. He is conflating...

Wow. Just wow.

Editor YohanN7 is ridiculing me for making a valid point in an argument.

The link takes one to:

Weinberg writes on page xvi:

"The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these states with the basis states of definite position."

Weinberg is at fault in logic here.

Weinberg's own logic would have seen him write:

The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these vectors with the basis vectors of definite position.

The point is material in a discussion of the distinction between (a) a vector that represents a physical state, and (b) the physical state itself.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongle agree with topic ban. Frankly, adding more verbiage or "specifics" to all this is not likely to convince anyone on anything. An idiosyncratic enthusiast with peculiar off-mainstream views is abusing WP as a rogue forum. I cannot see how the public could benefit from this. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing

Could we please stop this and enforce the topic ban before Chjoaygame contaminates the whole page with their, hmm, non-orthodox views on physics?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Ymblanter. If there are any admins (or whoever makes ban decisions) reading this, please hurry up and be done with it. Everyone should stop fueling the fire (here and elsewhere) by ceasing to respond to Chjoaygame. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Final tally of opinions -- My apologies for getting this off track. As atonement, this list might make it easier for an administrator to sort things out. Feel free to replace my comment (e.g. I think (s)he supports the topic ban) by your own position and signature. But please, if you have even a very brief comment, place a link to it on your talk page, not here!--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Supports the topic ban. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Xxanthippe NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] supports the topic ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
3. Ymblanter NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
4. support the topic ban. [147] Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
5. KGirlTrucker87 NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
6. Guy vandegrift -- Support topic ban. Signed by --Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Steve NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
8. YohanN7 NOT A SIGNATURE! ([[User talk:YohanN7 |talk]]) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban. He supports a topic ban. YohanN7 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Pldx1 is a passerby, and is not convinced by any side. Abstain. Pldx1 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
10. Support topic ban (I've watched this unfold and am finally expressing a view; enough is enough). Johnuniq (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
11. Cuzkatzimhut supports the topic ban. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I wrote the words "I think (s)he supports the topic ban." to reflect the fact that the editor did not personally sign the tally. Some of the editors have affirmed their "vote" by signing, and the support for the ban is clearly stated in the previous section by those who did not "sign". Nine Ten out of ten eleven editors support the ban, with an abstention from the one who does not support--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Commentary on enforcing

A new 'support topic ban' vote (Johnuniq) has been registered here, just following an edit summary alleging that I am a 'singlet state denier'. My response is (1) that I do not post, in edits or open talk-page comment, about Bell stuff and (2) I do not deny entanglement or singlet states. I have posted several edits that assert entanglement, and of course I think entanglement and singlet states are factual. It is true that I am in doubt or confusion about precisely how they are demonstrated experimentally, and that currently I am discussing that on my own talk page, as a result of a conversation that I started there about another topic, that was brought to singlet states by my interlocutor. But that (1) does not find its way into edits or open talk-page comment by me and (2) is evidence that I do not deny them. My crimes are that I write walls of text on talk pages, and that I do not give in till I see good reason to do so, and several other thought-crimes. These are not 'entanglement denier' or 'singlet state denier' crimes.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.