Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284

Eschweiler error message

 Fixed De728631 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

At Eschweiler the following error message appears at the top of the page: [[Category:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". in North Rhine-Westphalia]]. After checking the entire article twice I can't find the source for this error. Could someone please have a look, thanks noclador (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus [1] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 18 September 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.

PROD backlog building up

I haven't had time to go through it in the past few days, but the WP:PROD backlog is about a week past when this stuff should have been killed, so more hands with the admin bit and spare time would be most welcomed. You can work directly from Category:Expired_proposed_deletions, though I usually work from the fabulously useful and helpful WP:PRODSUM - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've taken care of it. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Reminder

The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Last call, deadline is today! (And if you think you've requested or returned a questionnaire but haven't heard from us, please send us an email ASAP!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking

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 have a question for you: Can anyone please explain why I am being harassed by TWO self-called "PhD" editors on this above page? My edit is sourced to WP:RS and the editors have nothing to say about it (just edit warring without any valid explanations). Thanks. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 47.17.18.64: I am one of the editors who reverted an edit you made. However, I am not a "self-called PhD editor," so it's unclear how you're coming up with that verbiage. You made an edit, and I reverted you -- only once. When other editors revert an edit you have made in this way, that is not "harassment." Indeed, you are engaging in a edit war, as you have repeatedly reverted other editors instead of discussing your edit on the talk page for the article. You are the person proposing the addition of the material to the article. Under the rules of Wikipedia, you need to persuade other editors -- not the other way around. Famspear (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP is edit-warring unsourced OR into the article. Semi-protection is needed. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted and warned. The next reinstatement should be followed by a block. For the record, invoking CENSORSHIP really is an automatic no-no, but, as I indicated in my edit summary, even an admin, with or without Ph.D., can see that the sourcing is below par and so is the writing: it begins with a referential pronoun without a clear antecedent, and it ends with weasel words. In between is Investopedia, whose status as an RS is at best unclear. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true at all. I did provide 2 sources linked to RS. If you don't understand then YOU should be the one asking, sir/madam.

I was reverted without ANY explanation or edit summary and yes it looks like harassment by that 2nd editor. The rest is details that do not belong to this discussion. To others watching: do not stand still and show crooks that your are alert, watching and acting. Thanks. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the second editor, and no, my one reversion of your material does not "look like harassment." You have now been reverted by at least three editors.

You would bring more WP:meatpuppets that it would not matter. It is the argument and its validity that matters the most. 47.17.18.64 (talk)

I am not sure what you mean by the use of the word "crooks," but Wikipedia has rules: Assume good faith, WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA. Famspear (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean the international bankers (not you or anyone else as far as I know).

On my talk page, the user at IP47.17.18.64 has now admitted that the source for the material in his edit is actually something he claims to have been taught in school in Switzerland. Famspear (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ÷

Dear Sir/Madam: you should have asked me to add proper citation by simply adding - but you did not need to remove that information altogether (censorship) - unless you believe it is not true on its face...Do you believe it is not as said in that paragraph? If so, in what way? and yes it is quite simple to understand (for me at least - I have an advanced degree in finance from the US and Switzerland and am multi-lingual). 47.17.18.64 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have an advanced degree in finance and the fact that you are multi-lingual are not good enough. You have to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And, no, where other editors remove your Original Research, which you based on a source that did not say what you claimed, is not censorship. Again: You have to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

No, it is not "the argument" and "its validity" that matters the most. What matters the most is following the rules, especially: WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Famspear (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not agree that "following the rules" matters the most. In article space, what matters is a. content be verifiable and b. it be verifiable by way of reliable sources. See WP:RS. Sir/madam, I repeat that the reliability status of Investopedia is as yet undetermined, but you are welcome to test it out at WP:RSN--click on the link and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 22 September 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.

Article splitting protocol

Creepy pasta split content from European Open (snooker) and created a new article at European Masters (snooker). I did not agree with the split and nominated the new article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker). As you see at the discussion opinion was split in regards to the new article, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus", although the closing admin noted that this defaults to a "keep". Following the close Creepy pasta interpreted this as a mandate to remove the content from European Open (snooker). On the other hand, I disagree that the "no consensus" amounts to a sanction of the split per WP:PROSPLIT which states a "contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split". There was never any discussion about splitting and Creepy pasta did not obtain a consensus for the split. I have read the help guidelines several times now and I am still confused as to how the close of the deletion discussion should be interpreted in regards to the original article. Would someone please be kind enough to answer the following questions:

1. Does the "no consensus" result and the automatic "keep" implicitly mandate the removal of the content split from the original article?
2. If it does not, should the content that is being split out remain in the original article until there is an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article?

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't get it. First of all, in your deletion nomination, why didn't you mention what you say here, that the new article was a split? No wonder Kudpung said "default to keep" and to start a merge discussion, since he probably didn't know it was a split. Which brings me to another point: I don't see how it is a split, really. The article is created here, but if anything is taken from the article and placed in here, I can't really see it. The next edit puts meat on those bones, I think--hard to tell since the visual flag porn is so overwhelming I don't even want to look at it. But that content, as far as I can tell, did not come from the "original" article, did it? In which case there is no attribution missing, there was no split, Kudpung was right, and all this should have started not with edit warring and a deletion discussion, but with an invitation to discuss merging. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I admittedly should have made it clearer at the AfD that the new article (European Masters (snooker)) was created by splitting out content from European Open (snooker). As for the 2016 European Masters article, this isn't contested: each annual event has a dedicated article such as 2004 European Open (snooker) and 2005 Malta Cup, and this article should definitely exist. The debate is about the event series article which documents all instances of the event. This is the sequence of events:

• Creepy pasta created European Masters (snooker) by splitting out content from European Open (snooker).
• The argument contended by me and another editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker) was that the new article was not necessary because the snooker project does not create new articles for rebranded tournaments.
• The AfD was closed with "no consensus" defaulting to retaining European Masters (snooker).
• Following the close Creepy Pasta again removed the European Masters content from European Open (snooker).

I dispute that a default "keep" of the new article means we should delete relevant content from the European Open (snooker), because it then means that the main series article would be lacking essential information for readers who want an overview of the history of the tournament. What I don't understand is how AfD close impacts on European Open (snooker). Obviously European Masters (snooker) has won its existence by recycling content from European Open (snooker), but does that mean the content should now be removed from European Open (snooker), or does the editor still require an explicit consensus to delete the content from the older article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Sorry I did that, I really thought it would be ok. My point is, why can't you remove the data from the European Open until it's officially confirmed maybe? It's easier after to do it than to remove all the misinfo (potentially). Creepy pasta (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Btw, I still don't believe it's the former European Open, now potentially rebranded as you say. I can't find enough proves. That's way in the first place I simply created a new event page. Why do you want to link a European Masters event to a European Open? It would be nice to continue the lineage, but I am not sure. Creepy pasta (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not debating what you believe or what I believe; that discussion has been run and resulted in "no consensus". The purpose of this discussion is to ascertian the procedural consequences of that discussion i.e. does the existence of the new article implicitly mandate the removal of the content from the original article or does there have to be an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The AfD was closed as 'no consensus' a) because there was no rough consensus, b) because it was the wrong venue for such a proposal for discussion anyway. The actual closure is not being challenged - if it were, the the discussion should be at WP:DELREV. So we are left with the fact that as there has been no egregious user or admin behaviour requiring admin action, ANI also is the wrong venue and is taking up valuable admin time having to review this thread. WP:DRN might be a possible solution, but again, I don't see the need for 3rd party arbitration. Thus AFAICS, the proper course is a RfC for or against merge and/or split, whatever, on the talk page of one of the affected articles, and notifying all the major contributors to those articles of the discussion. I think that would be the fairest way to approach the issue rather than gum up various noticeboards. But you would need to make a very clear, appropriate, and unambiguous RfC proposal statement, and that's something you can work together nicely to produce. However, I'm not mandating this in any way, and perhaps Drmies or someone else might have a better idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have started a "split/merge" discussion at Talk:European_Open_(snooker)#RFC:_Should_the_European_Masters_entry_be_split_from_this_article_to_a_new_article.3F. Is this unambiguous enough or is there something else I can do to make it clearer? Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Useful contributor

I seem to have, very opposite my intentions, alienated a potentially highly useful contributor. At this point I don't think he is going to listen to me, so would someone please talk User talk:Diveroli off the ledge? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@78.26: if it makes you feel any better I thought your comments were very professional and respectful and that the only issue present is a mistake of policy. I hope everything works out becuase I agree that Diveroli would be a great asset to the project. Alicb (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Drmies was also kind enough to drop a note, so I think the community has done what it can. Again, thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick admin ruling needed at Donald Trump

Bishzilla has eaten this discussion per IAR. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per prior (one user) experienced guidance at Village pump (policy), I am requesting an admin to rule whether the 51.8% vote at Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off voting represents sufficient consensus for change to that article's infobox photo. The photo was installed per the voting results and that edit was disputed due to the close vote. It has already been ruled that pure democratic voting, following some 8 days of discussion, is not inconsistent with consensus-building in this specific case, so that is not an issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC) If its good enough to elect someone president...129.9.75.190 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Well to be fair it would need to be 51.8% of the electoral college, because a candidate COULD get 51.8% of the vote and still lose...RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Hint, Hint; Al Gore. Chase (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC) so we need an RFC to determine if we need an electoral college, then an request for elector process...this photo should be posted slightly before the Heat death of the universe. 129.9.75.190 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Percentage is meaningless, even in situations like this. Wait until someone closes it and see what their conclusion and rationale is. I would suggest letting an admin close it, so WP:adminacct will be in play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I look forward to seeing how an admin weighs those very subjective arguments based on visual perception, perspective including the political kind, aesthetic taste, human psychology, and arbitrary judgments about microphones obscuring neckties. Even my argument, which was about Trump's public image, is subjective and without Wikipedia policy basis. Should be interesting. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Also, come to think of it, your statement seems inconsistent with admin Nyttend's 11 September solicited opinion, at the end of Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off Discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC) WP:BIKESHED may be good reading for anyone involved in this discussion... --Jayron32 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your opinion, Jayron, but I'd say there's a clear local consensus against that view. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC) What, that a minor aesthetic issue is sucking a disproportionate amount of energy from a disproportionate number of people? I think the fact that there's a consensus this matters makes my point very well; if no one cared, it wouldn't be a bikeshed issue. That everyone cares a LOT, in a way that is out of whack with the overall impact of solving the problem, is exactly what makes it a bikeshed issue. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC) I feel that policy WP:CONSENSUS trumps essay WP:BIKESHED. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Wow. It's like your intentionally ignoring my point. The entire discussion is a waste of organizational resources because the overall importance of the issue is small compared to the manhours dedicated to reaching a solution. You can WP:ALPHABETSOUP at me all day, it won't change the fact that the endeavour is trivial compared to the energy taken to solve it. --Jayron32 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC) @Jayron32: - I guess I misunderstood you, sorry. MrX, I, and the rest totally agree that the time being spent in all that discussion was not warranted for an infobox photo. Since it was unlikely we could reach a local consensus that infobox photos aren't worth considering at all, we sought a way to minimize the time required without sacrificing benefit to the article. We reached overwhelming local consensus on that process, with admin support, and that local consensus was overridden here. The jury is still out on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC) I closed a very similar RfC relating to Jeb Bush a while back, if I recall correctly. I'll take a look at this tonight. ~ Rob13Talk 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Given my previous comments, I'd close the discussion in favor of the majority, but first I'd check to ensure that there's no significant evidence of sockpuppetry or other vote-rigging; it's something about which we have to be careful in one of those rare situations where we're going by the numbers. However, BU Rob13, since you're already planning to do it, I won't get involved. I'll just ask that you look over my previous statements, and then please either follow them carefully, or give a careful explanation of why you're doing otherwise — not because I'm claiming some sort of prestige that may be offended, but because the situation's already been a bit tense. If you follow my comments carefully, people will understand the reasoning, but if you do otherwise and don't explain your reasoning, you'll probably find that a lot of the people on the "losing" side are confused as well as being unhappy. For my own sake, I don't particularly care if you explain yourself; I don't plan to return to this discussion unless someone actively asks me to return. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I quite agree with Nyttend. I am assuming the losing side, which I am apart of in this case, some are going to be very apprehensive in taking this as consensus, so an explaination would probably boad well. I can't speak for them, but am very much in agreeance with any outcome. I actually supported Rob to become an admin, so I trust his judgement no matter what he decides to do. The discussion has been very tense however and a lot of uncivil conversations and accusations have been had, so what Nyttend is saying is 100% accurate. Chase (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC) No admin is going to look only at the raw numbers and say "51% like it, so they win", so I would have to see this quote where some admin said something different. WP:CONSENSUS is kind of clear on that. Assuming the votes were all equally swell, that sounds more like a "NO CONSENSUS" situation anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I think that's a good point. "Ties" typically result in "no consensus", which usually leads to status quo. But this was a "run off vote" where each person could "cast" 6 votes as they desired so I'm not sure if it's quite the same here. For the record, I'm on the "losing" side and have switched to the WP:IDGAF party... It's just a picture. Neither are objectively horrible quality-wise. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC) In that situation, I would be inclined to force it to stay open and make them compromise, see who really wants it, until one has at LEAST 60%. Part of consensus is often debate, which is sometimes tedious but necessary if you want a final answer. No way I would close at 51% vote if I MUST choose a winner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Is there some reason to believe that the people who participated in this third of three discussions did not understand that it was a majority prevails weighted vote, with a definite end time? How many times does this same discussion need to happen before people stop Wikilawyering and simply accept that more people like one image over another, while acknowledging that both images are roughly equally valid according to our policies? (These are rhetorical questions, so don't feel obligated to answer them).- MrX 01:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: make them compromise - Gotta say, Dennis, we must be editing in different parts of Wikipedia. I've seen that kind of useful give-and-take a few times in my memory, and that was in groups of 2 to 4 relatively unusual editors. Do something like you suggest at an article like Trump and I think the question would be who has the most endurance or tolerance for frustration. If they were capable of such true collaboration, they wouldn't have spent eight contentious days doing anything but that. You propose to send the jury back to the jury room and tell them not to come out until they have a verdict, and I don't see how that can work here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC) First of all, it's 52% not 51% if you round up. Second, it wasn't even supposed to be this close. The only reason why this got close is because two people changed their votes towards the end, one of them only changed it because he got upset people criticized his suggestion of an entirely new image just hours before voting was supposed to close and he had previously supported picture C for almost the entire 10 day period. Before these changes, the percentage was in the upper 50's. An admin already stated "barring evidence of outright misbehavior, e.g. sockpuppetry or other double voting, the position with the larger number of votes will be deemed to have community consensus for its implementation." Lets just add the winning photo and be done with it already. TL565 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC) @TL565: You are allowed to change your vote and that user was advised to change their vote back, but ignored. Chase (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC) I didn't say they weren't allowed to change their votes, I just said that until the past day or two the winning photo was comfortably ahead for almost the entire voting period. To be more specific, the user struck out his vote because he wanted to introduce a new photo at the last minute, but then voted for other photo when he was criticized for it. TL565 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC) I never saw it above 55. There are larger issues here than one user's perceived disruption. Like whether an opinion like Nyttend's should be set in stone and immune to challenge by a very experienced admin such as Dennis Brown (or any admin). I think not, and I think common practice is in harmony with my view (if not, Nyttend would have made a point of order). I suggest we drop that line of thinking as a dead end. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "I never saw it above 55" - Well, you did (57.2%), but then you erased it.- MrX 03:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Got me. I didn't compute % for that one. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) All I know is that photo C won. I thought it was already agreed that whichever photo got the highest votes gets consensus. That was supposed to end this tiresome discussion, now we need to have one here? It would be ridiculous to suddenly say "Sorry, no consensus because it got too close!" This is exactly like Brexit all over again. TL565 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC) My point is that this isn't just about resolving that one case, but appears to have wider-reaching impact. This is a higher-level discussion and I think we should let it stay at that higher level. You and I are not competent at that level, which is why I've been unusually quiet for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Unless the RFC was set up explicitly with the agreement 'Highest votes win' then standard consensus rules apply. Where arguments are equally weighted (as they are often in subjective 'this looks better' discussions), anything up to a 60-40 split is highly likely to be a no consensus result. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The system is rigged, believe me folks. You've never ever ever seen anything like this before in history. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Many people are saying.- MrX 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC) From up above: my suggestion of "sending them back to the jury room" (I like that analogy) is not as Pollyanna as it seems. If the alternative is the status quo, those that want change may change their vote to change the status quo. BTW, most of the time, it is easier if you set it up so they give 1st choice and 2nd choice in their votes. Then if it is 52% but that photo received 70% of the second choice votes, it is easier to declare as winner. Some will not choose a 2nd choice but most will if it the poll is worded properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC) If you haven't read Talk:Donald_Trump#Run-off_Discussion, please do. It's not too long and I think sums up the issue fairly well. Please pay particular attention to my comments, since I'm clearly the smartest guy in the room. :D But seriously, this appears to be a conflict between lofty Wikipedia principles and the practicalities of just getting shit done so we can move on. If you feel starting over with a new methodology is the right approach, fine, I'm not opposed. But in the short term that is not "getting shit done", and it will not be particularly popular. We could also consider WP:IAR here. It does not improve the encyclopedia to spend tons of time on an infobox photo, when there are more important content issues. The only decent potential argument against that is that most of the people debating the infobox photo lack competence at those more important issues, so they don't work on them. I wouldn't know how to answer that question. But they might have the time to increase their competence at those more important issues if they weren't spending it on interminable debates about infobox photos. If the community feels that infobox photos are in fact important content issues, and I don't reject that completely, that would kill my above argument. But the community has not taken a position on that question. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC) It keeps changing, new photos added at the 11th hour, not a clear vote but instead a group of discussions. And everything here is decided by consensus, not raw vote. Even if you frame it as a raw vote, policy says you can't do that, via WP:CONSENSUS. In situations like this, we can be a bit more flexible (we aren't a bureaucracy), but votes still have to be weighed, not just counted. Personally, I would pass on trying to close that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Meaning no consensus to change. Fine. But we aren't going to stop proposing new photos, and I would dearly love to see something more specific about methodology as to infobox photo selection, as opposed to general statements about policy. We're just not smart enough to figure that out on our own. "Just discuss it until you reach a consensus" creates the illusion of something constructive happening, but the end result is the same as a democratic vote since people do not debate with open minds. Your lofty principles presume and require an element of human nature that is very rare at Wikipedia or anywhere else. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC) OK, a few thoughts on this: Mandruss should not have closed the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off voting. Full stop. He is a participant and should have left closing the request to a neutral party. Frankly, there are no policy considerations in play here. Both photos are clearly fine and meet any applicable WP requirements. Realistically, the discussion is just a series of points about why editors like one photo more than the other. Contributors are pretty much split down the middle, with neither side having the better of the argument. That's classic no consensus and usually would result in the status quo being maintained. However, given that this is basically just about personal preference between images, I see no problem with the dispute being resolved by a straw poll on the basis that a simple majority is required if that option is favoured by those involved. If that is indeed what has happened here, then I can't see a problem with going with the majority view. But let's get real here, what we have here is a (narrow) majority view, not a consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC) In my own defense regarding that "close", I see it not as a close but ending the voting at the agreed time and doing the necessary clerk work to count the votes, said counting later verified by someone else. I felt that removed any reasonable need to be uninvolved, and I still do. Counting is not weighing. In any case, we generally don't have closers to select infobox images anyway, precisely because there is no policy basis to evaluate arguments about photo images. This concept has been articulated enough in multiple places, and I have seen no counter to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Geez, where to even start with this. Quite a few points: Do not set arbitrary "rules" for a discussion, whether or not you are involved in those discussions. That practice has no basis whatsoever in policy and has largely contributed to this mess. It's unclear why people are casting six votes between two options, and it's also unclear why we've set an arbitrary "end deadline" for 10 days after the straw poll started, whether or not consensus has been reached or momentum is moving in one direction. The proper way to solve such subjective questions on highly-visible articles is an RfC that is well-advertised and runs for 30 days to allow the maximum number of editors possible to express their view. No, the vote count still doesn't matter. There's no policy or guideline that strips away our consensus-building process on matters of subjective judgement, although it is worth noting that the arguments are unlikely to be weighted in one direction or the other very much. It is possible, though, and throwing up percentages is highly misleading. This is not a vote. There is no need to actively "clerk" a content discussion (unless there are heavy civility issues, in which case admins should be stepping in). There is especially no need to clerk a discussion you started or a discussion you're involved in. Mandruss, your actions here were not helpful. All closers are expected to read, understand, and abide by WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Describing a close as a maintenance action or something similar does not remove this responsibility. This close clearly violated WP:INVOLVED. Given the fact that momentum in this poll shifted immediately prior to the close and the poll only ran for 10 days, I've relisted it as an actual RfC this time, hoping to draw in outside perspectives and reach a clearer consensus. I'll close the RfC when the time runs out on it (which will be roughly October 10, 30 days from the original start of the discussion). Feel free to ping me if you think the discussion should be closed but I haven't gotten around to it yet. ~ Rob13Talk 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC) @BU Rob13: You changed the discussion from a weighted vote to a "just pick" one" vote in middle of the RfC. Do you think that was wise?- MrX 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC) For a binary choice? Yes it was. Weighted votes work better for 3 or more options. There is zero benefit and plenty of confusion when a simple 'this one or this one' question is weighted like that. It obfuscates the actual choice that has been made. Given the only real outcome of that discussion is 'no consensus' or 'relist', picking 're-list doing it properly and with less confusing voting' is certainly a valid decision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Your comment would be valid for a new RfC, not an ongoing one. Changing the way votes will be tallied is not only improper, but it will create confusion for the closer. Again, the purpose of the runoff was not to find consensus. It was to identify most favored image out of the two chosen in the previous consensus. - MrX 15:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC) There was no 'previous consensus'. There was 'no consensus to change the photo' at which point it was decided to extend the discussion further and eliminate some of the options. There is still no consensus to change the photo. If your argument is that switching from a standard wikipedia consensus discussion to a straight vote is an appropriate way to avoid a 'no consensus' result, well thats not any better. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Ok, in the end Wikipedia rests on a framework of ivory-tower principles that are incomprehensible to 95% of the editing population, meaning even little issues like infobox photos can't be resolved without admin involvement. The local consensus on the process is apparently not sufficient, despite the presence of some, I don't know, ten (10) very experienced and competent editors including MrX. So the local people are not up to the task of proper Wikipedia editing. I feel this is very problematic and a bit alarming. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC) There was no local consensus. The "votes" differed by 1%. Let's be realistic here. @MrX: I'll loop back around and change it back, I suppose. The weighted "vote" isn't very helpful given that it's (a) not a vote, and (b) not particularly indicative of anything when we have only two options. ~ Rob13Talk 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC) There was a clear local consensus as to process. With support from admins NeilN and Nyttend, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, BU Rob13, it was a vote. That is how we decided to handle it, per WP:IAR. There was consensus that both images were acceptable, and the vote was to decide on which one was more favored. Do some of you folks really not understand that Wikipedia does not have firm rules? I asked Mandruss to bring this here so an admin would quickly make a determination on a very simple matter. Instead, we're have inane debates about bike sheds and percentage thresholds.- MrX 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Exactly as predicted. The 10 days were a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. So now lets waste even more time for 30 days over a stupid image. Forget this crap. TL565 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC) There's little over a month until the election. This continual discussion and discrediting of over 40+ editors seems a bit extreme and pointless. Calibrador (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) BU Rob13 has converted the voting to an RfC.[2] Which seems remarkable to my eye, considering the discussion in this thread. I don't see how increasing the number of participants, arguing about it presumably until a couple of weeks before the election, and providing that closer to evaluate the subjective arguments improves anything, but I will watch and learn. So are we done here for the time being, or do we continue to address the larger, more important issues? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Never mind, I can self-answer that question. Wrong venue for those larger, more important issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) In case anybody in this shameful situation is still listening: [3]. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive283#Voting shows that this vote was implemented by a couple editors over the objections of just as many editors. Local consensus is, of course, not sufficient to override broader community consensus. But I don't even see a local consensus there, unless there's another discussion where you believe you've found consensus for a vote. The start of the RfC was intended to draw in outside participants, something that should have been done from the start. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Rob, I was prepared to spend a half hour putting together the very effective counter, but decided not to. I think the events of the upcoming weeks will speak for themselves. You'll see thousands of words spent with few or no changes of mind, followed by a closer stating that they have no way to weigh arguments and are therefore counting !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC) My sock Bishzilla is generally not allowed in Wikipedia space, but should I perhaps make an exception and send her to devour this discussion? What do you think? Can we have an RfC on the matter? (An interminable one.) Please support or decline Bishzilla involvement below. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC). Support Something needs to disassemble and disembowel the utterly frustrating force that this is. So, yes, I obviously support this. Chase (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC) I think Bishonen is kidding. darwinbish BITE ☠ 00:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC). I'm not. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC).

Closure at ANI too soon.

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 is a request to review the close at ANI [4] I don’t question Bishonen’s interpretation of the consensus. The editors at Electronic harassment definitely want me banned from the article and more. However, I made it clear that I had limited time on the internet and wanted to give a reply in two days. [5] That was not to attempt to change the consensus but to counter the false narrative about my behaviour there. This false narrative and all that has led to it is entirely consistent with what is described in the essay ‘POV railroad’: [6] The closure happened 15 hours after my saying I wanted a right of reply. The result is that the record contains grossly inaccurate attacks on my credibility, involving false characterizations of my behavior. There are 8 accusations there that I think I can counter given the opportunity. If I am unable to counter that it will stay on the record there and could, and probably would, be used against me at a later date. All I want is the discussion re-opened and to counter all of that, one point at a time. I will debate it with them if they want. If not it is a part of a character assassination. I have requested Bishonen’s re-consideration of the closure, but he has refused: [7] I am regarding the TBAN as a separate matter at this point.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Point of order: The two are inseparable. Jed Stuart this will sound harsh- sorry- but the very reason for the early closure was the '"editor exhaustion" and time-wasting' you were seen to be responsible for. So unless you are appealing against the TBAN- which you say you're not- you are in effect requesting permission to exhaust editors' patience and waste their time, etc., for another two days. That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Quite a few editors in that discussion mentioned blocks (often, indef. ones): You realise that if the discussion is reopened- consensus could change- and start running along those lines...? FYI. In fact, let me take that a little further; I could see a situation where a block is proposed purely on the principle of you having re-opened the timesink. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support both Bishonen's close on AN/I and the TBAN, and I would also support an indefinite block for Jed Stuart for WP:NOTHERE. There was unanimous support for a TBAN plus several calls for an indefinite block in the AN/I-discussion when it was closed by Bishonen (after having been open for almost two days), so there's absolutely no valid reason for re-opening it. Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories after exhausting the patience of other editors by endless fringe-pushing, edit-warring and forum-shopping, and has refused to drop the stick even after the TBAN, posting several requests to lift the TBAN and/or re-opening the AN/I-discussion on Bishonen's talk page, refusing to take "no" for an answer. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• The right of reply had been exercised in previous ANI threads. And there is no reason for us to wait unreasonably long for you to reply when there is no possible reply that could have changed the outcome of the discussion in your favor. Replying now doesn't make much difference either, since you aren't going to be here much longer. 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support close, Support TBAN AN/ANI does not exist to allow people to "set the record straight". The boards exist to address behavioral problems which come up editing Wikipedia in the best way for the encyclopedia. From what I have seen it is well past time for the OP to drop the matter and move on to other subjects. If they are concerned about the community holding things agaist them/ bringing up stuff later, my impression is that people are much more likely to form a bad impression of continuing to try to "set set the record straight" than from whatever was left "unanswered" in the first place. Jbh^Talk 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Advice for Jed Stuart: Wikipedia does not do justice or fairness. Allowing an opportunity for a reply might be an example of natural justice or procedural fairness, but Wikipedia doesn't do those either. At the present time, the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia's final dispute resolution body) is proposing to close a case with adverse findings against editors who were not parties to the case, were not warned that their conduct was being reviewed, and were given no opportunity to address evidence against them. Some Arbitrators want to criticise the editor who brought the case to them, which they took, for bringing the case. My point is that ArbCom is generally (at least historically) much more inclined towards fairness than is ANI. You are seeking fairness in an environment that at times descends to levels which would never be acceptable in any face-to-face circumstances. If you want to have any chance of moving the view and ultimately having the ban changed, I suggest: (1) accept the ban and move on; (2) edit away from the area for a considerable period of time; (3) when you do appeal, focus on what you have done since the ban and simply note you felt it was unfair but decided the best for the encyclopaedia was to show that you can and do contribute productively. If you feel for your own sake that you must right a refutation of accusations and to describe how you have been mistreated, by all means, do so – OFF WIKI. Write it up, save it, and keep it to show when you appeal if anyone asks and you are willing to trust an editor who asks. Never post it on wiki. Don't base an appeal on fairness / natural justice unless you want to (a) lose; (b) be attacked for wasting time; (c) risk a block / community ban. Fair? No. Fact? Unfortunately, yes. EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 September 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.

Can someone please take care of this...

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.

---

Per WP:POLEMIC, editors may not have on their user page... "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." In light of that, can someone please take care of this here. Thanks... --Jayron32 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldnt describe your insufficiently lubricated jackscrew assembly a flaw... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Although if any admin is willing to start enforcing WP:POLEMIC I have a long list of blatant violations that I can dig up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a trifle risqué isn't it. Would we view that as being an example of- as we advise- commenting on the edits rather than the editor? I mean, calling you crap would violate WP:NPA; but calling your edits crap, not? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Even if it was, those sort of edit-tracking lists are almost always only tolerated when someone is preparing evidence for a noticeboard filing/arbcom case etc. Just listing people's (alleged) inappropriate editing to no fixed purpose is frowned upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'll give StuRat an opportunity to explain why it should stay. I don't see one but I'll listen to an explanation. Tiderolls 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The irony of this makes me think it's retaliatory -- either based on various criticisms or perhaps a reciprocal list? Anything to that? Otherwise, if this isn't deleted, you could always start a reciprocal list, but then, nobody wants it to take that long to load a userpage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• The reason for this list is that Jayron continually accuses me of the exact same behavior he commits, namely giving bad Ref Desk answers, where unreferenced, false, attacking the OP, swearing at a fellow editor, etc. I use this to refute his accusations, as I just did so today: [8].

• Jayron does not like that I can so easily find many examples of his bad behavior, and wants this stricken from the record.

• Jayron's own edits should not be seen as an attack on him.

• Note that Jayron violated that POLEMIC rule in the very section I referenced above, and that I used that section of mine to prove that he was lying.

• If Jayron's behavior continues to spiral out-of-control, I'd also like to use this list as evidence in a request to desysop him. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• So, StuRat, you'll be hatting your talk page post with an apology as well? Tiderolls 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I will hat it, if you like, but I've done nothing that needs an apology. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hatting a list is not removal. It's still there. --Jayron32 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I never said I had removed it, did I ? StuRat (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Without wanting to get involved in the particulars here, I do get wanting to call out someone you see do something they criticize you for doing, but maintaining a public list about that person on your userpage is typically a bad idea (that's what this thread is about -- not the particular disputes which led to it). If you must save examples, it's probably better to do off-wiki. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• (EC)I think you should delete it, StuRat, but I'll settle for collapsing the thread. Others may have a different opinion. I'll choose to disagree with you on the apology; you're the one that has to live with it, though. Make it light on yourself. Tiderolls 15:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• See my comment above. This sort of negative edit-tracking (as it clearly shows in polemic) is only permitted on a temporary basis. As StuRat has indicated he is keeping it for future 'Gotcha' purposes, it needs to be deleted. Nothing preventing him from keeping a .txt file on his desktop if he really needs to keep a record. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• If there is a consensus to delete it, I will do so, but I already have a safe copy, suspecting that Jayron might delete it on his own and hide it too. Note that my !vote is to keep it, and should be counted every bit as much as Jayron's !vote to delete it. I know the tendency on the Admin board is to ignore the !votes of non-Admins, but I don't believe policy allows that. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, I agree with OiD here. Note also that we've literally in the last couple of days had an extremely vocal MFD establishing that we don't tolerate people using Wikipedia to host their personal shit-lists of instances where other people have done something they consider incorrect, and that case was less problematic than this as it wasn't targeting a specific individual. StuRat, please remove this completely; if Jayron decides (s)he wants to play hardball here, people have been indefblocked for a lot less than this. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hey now, I've never said anything about that. Please don't go putting words in my mouth. It isn't helpful. --Jayron32 15:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• They are not putting words into your mouth. Iridescent is advising StuRat of the potential consequences based on precedent if you should choose to make a more 'formal' and less polite request for its removal. Given that policy and convention is on your side in this (not to mention the assumption of bad faith below) I think thats a reasonable warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's not an "assumption" of bad faith, Jayron has proven his bad faith, when he lied with the statement that I "never ever providing a useful reference to anyone ever". A statement easily disproven, which I did at the link provided above, and can in many more examples. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• One other comment, Jayron's dual "apology" on the Ref Desk was virtually concurrent with this request, and quite uncharacteristic for him. I believe the only reason he apologized there is that his demonstratably false claims about me there would have been viewed unfavorably here. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I always own my errors of judgement and poor behavior, and I always apologize for it. I will not rescind my apology to you, I meant it. I acted poorly, and you did not deserve the rudeness I heaped upon you. My behavior there was inexcusable. I do not offer an apology for any reason than it is the right thing to do because I acted badly. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 September 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.

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwork factors for WikiProjects

Hello all, apologies if this is not the correct place to initiate this discussion. Theo's Little Bot, which updated the wikiwork parameters for the assessment of all WikiProjects, has not been doing to since July 2015, resulting in the incorrect Wikiwork numbers for all projects. The bot is running I can see still, so is there any way to make the bot run on the Wikiwork page also? I had emailed the bot owner but did not get any response. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Well, just an FYI, there is WP:BOWN- but it doesn't seem particularly busy! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah so was wondering if anyone has any idea how to proceed with this? I saw that the BOWN no one actively checks or responds like this page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The botop, Theo, is the only person that can restart the task. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, you will need to find someone else to take over the task. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Image in use, author requests deletion under G7

A good number of images have been nominated for deletion under WP:G7 and are unattended for some time now. Those non-free files are being used in different articles. Should these files be deleted under G7? I am a bit confused. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

They are lacking copyright tags and fair use rationales, so they'll need to be deleted anyway. If someone feels like adding proper tagging, they can do so - or reupload them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

They had fair use rationales. The uploader blanked them when requesting deletion. As a matter of general principle, if an image is being used in an article that several people have contributed to, it seems like it should go through WP:FFD rather than be eligible for CSD. That said, these appear to all be mugshots of living people. As they included fair use rationales I presume they're not in the public domain and thus would need to be treated like any other image of a living person -- which is to say, that they don't typically qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to decline and send them all to FfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV & WP:RFPP

FYI – the backlogs for these two noticeboards appear to be very large at the time that I am writing this... Maybe a couple of admins can come help clean up the mess...? There are currently 30+ page protection requests at WP:RFPP now... 73.96.113.71 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion backlog

Hi. There's currently a backlog in the speedy deletion category of approx 150+ items. Be grateful if someone could address this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels

Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.

The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention → AIV, again

AIV has a huge backlog again, with some reports going almost 7 hours without action. This is becoming a serious and regular issue...could we get some extra eyes over there, please? Thanks. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 01:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of these entries are either not clearly vandalism, or are supported only by really cryptic messages. Am I supposed to know who the "nazi ref desk troll" is? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: LTA case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soft_skin. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks for that. I did look on WP:LTA, but it looks like that report isn't in the master list there. I think my point stands; if that report had been linked in the AIV report I would have been comfortable acting quickly and blocking right away. If folks want quick action in their AIV reports, it helps to include more information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

Teacher editor

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place however I'm lost as to where to ask this,
I've come across an editor (Mrcurtis) who wants to teach his Year 8/9 pupils on how to edit the article Woodham Ley Primary School, The editor had reverted the school redirect with the edit summary "Set up for our students to edit, please leave",
I've given some advice[16] however I'm utterly clueless when it comes to the whole student editing thing and as I don't want to give any incorrect advice I figured I'd ask here and hopefully an admin could kindly intervene,
Thanks and again my apologies if this is the wrong place, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Started a conversation there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus - It's extremely appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Neo-Nazism

The article (not the author) may need some immediate attention. I have nominated it for deletion (AfD) per WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but WP:BLP may also require immediate deletion. It's basically a political screed with questionable sourcing. Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing? 903 sources for an article that's a few sections long, many of those op-ed pieces it appears. I don't think I've seen an article where the sources took up more data than the article itself. I'll comment on the AfD about this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the page was deleted per G5. I thought that type of hyperbole looked familiar too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It was yet another contribution by serial socker User:Kingshowman and speedied as such. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As a clarification, the "questionable" did not refer to the amount of sources, but the quality thereof (with respect to the subject at hand). Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I agree, just the sheer number threw me for a loop (and most of them op-eds). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Page tagged for Speedy Deletion

I marked Geeksters for speedy deletion for not citing sources. But I think it also spams links to external websites. Thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like it may be an inadvertent case of WP:BITE and tag bombing an article only just created. I have doubts that it meets the criteria for CSD though it's too early to be sure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I think that it's poorly sourced if at all. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. And while I wish it were otherwise a complete lack of citations is not in itself grounds for deletion. That said the article has more issues than Time magazine and I wouldn't care to put money on its long term survival prospects. I have tagged it and removed the improper external links. I will give the editor (who is certainly a COI) a day or two to demonstrate WP:N. If they fail, I will send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you haven't already discovered it, WP:TWINKLE is a fantastic tool. It will instantly format most of the common tags we use around here including CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gary "Roach" Sanderson: Since you are nominating other editors' articles for deletion you may be interested in discussion going on in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Permission error trying to create a redirect

I would like to create a redirect to Affordable_housing_in_Canada#British_Columbia named Affordable housing in British Columbia but get a Permission error: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. and advising me to post here. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

There's an entry on the meta:Title blacklist for .*affordable.*, I guess because of spammers. I've created the redirect. –xeno^talk 20:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on 2016 CUOS candidates!

The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2016 appointment round will run from 26 September to 8 October. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Malformed AFD

Could someone straighten out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Zajac.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Small AIV backlog

Few reports have been sitting for 4 hours now. If anyone has some spare time, could use some attention. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

This noticeboard has quite the backlog as of right now... If an admin or two has some time on their hands, this noticeboard could use some attention... 73.96.112.154 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete contributions made by the user Ottoniel Blanco and sockpuppet.

A mass deletion of revisions made by blocked sockpuppets is not required. Individual edits severely violating WP:BLP or containing gross incivility may sometimes be hidden from the edit history but after checking the two articles I don't see how this is needed for Jeremy Shada or Isabella Acres. The accounts are blocked and revision deletion cannot prevent new sockpuppets from returning to Wikipedia anyway. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I have to write the user Ottoniel Blanco has been blocked by administrators and made a group of sockpuppets as Elblanco123, WhiteCollar125 including Elnecio247 which they were detected by via checkusers and they remind him that he had created, vandalize, upload images to articles after years of further editing. So you have to remove the contributions made by the users not to return to vandalize. See contributions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and those are all delete please. 148.0.117.192 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• No one is going to go back through years of edits to revert some old blocked socks' edits. Unless there are specific BLP or copyright issues at play, it would be a colossal waste of time and is not the intention of WP:BANREVERT.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

But Elblanco123 and Elnecio247 that they were not vandalized to items like Jeremy Shada and Isabella Acres which they changed the content and are not part of a group of sockpuppets but they realized that had several conflicts, which they tried to upload some photos that have faults copyrights these 2 important items and they did not know the reason because they are blocked by violating the rules and also the policy of Wikipedia. 148.0.105.182 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 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.

Closing of unblock request on WP: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.

---

Could we please have an uninvolved admin close this unblock request? It has been open for well over two days, noone has commented in the thread for well over a day, and not a single one of the several people who have commented supports an unblock. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 29 September 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.

Almost a one year backlog

Our backlog at: Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits

Is now a few days short of a year.

I count myself as an editor who has worked on many requests, but find them tedious, and find it difficult to get motivated to work on them.

As a community, we have instruction people with a COI to use this process, them we ignore those who follow the rules.

Any thoughts on how we respond?

(Technically, not an admin only issue, but as admins, we ought to discuss how to solve the problem.)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to work on a months long backlog at OTRS, and ran across a request made in June about a requested edit. I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, that we taken from June until September to respond to their query about why nothing is being done, or my explanation that the backlog is almost a year so they should just wait their turn.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well I've got rid of 3 so I suppose every little helps, I have to agree tho it's bad for everyone (myself wholly included) to tell those to use the edit request option and then no one actually answers them at all... –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree these are not protected, this is not an admin problem; notice we are very good at keeping the protected edit request queues down! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if the advice shouldn't say "if no one objects to your edit after x days, make it yourself". I'm notifying the Teahouse about the requested edit backlog, since some of them will probably want to help. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have worked on this backlog extensively and have probably answered over 200+ requests during the last year. It's good to see that this has finally raised the attention of other editors, because it's very discouraging being one of very few people trawling through these edit requests, and watching the backlog grow higher despite attempts to bring it down. From my experience, I believe the "make it yourself after X days" advice would be a bad idea. A significant portion of the COI editors (usually the professionals hired by firms that are experienced with Wikipedia, such as Beutler Ink) refuse to touch article pages entirely for fear they will be accused of breaching COI guidelines. They won't edit in mainspace even if somebody gives them the go-ahead. Of all the requests, about 60% of them have issues, whether it be blatant promotionalism, close paraphrasing/wholesale copyright infringements, or balance issues. Please spread the word and any additional help in clearing this backlog is greatly appreciated. Altamel (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done these in the past and stopped doing them because what Altamel summarizes is true. It's difficult to stay motivated when so often the necessary response is a decline, followed by some mix of explaining we don't add promotional content, don't add copyright violations, don't add original research, need you to identify what reliable sources verify the content, etc.

But I certainly agree it's very unfortunate that we set them on this path and when they comply it takes forever for a response, yay or nay—and these are the good eggs, at least in comparison to the absolutely huge problem we have with that same mix of problematic edits being made directly, ignoring the fangless suggestions of the COI guidelines to only edit the talk page. (Not the right forum but the fact they are fangless suggestions is the ultimate problem--just a nudge on that topic: the only real teeth we have was created when the Terms of Use were changed to require mandatory disclosure for financially compensated editing, but very few are making use of {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}, which I created in the hope of providing a path to enforce the TOU change.) Anyway, I'll go tackle some now. Thanks for bringing this up Sphilbrick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

While I've not done these before, never hurts to give it a go. I've got a few things to do today but will study how to go about clearing a few a little later in the afternoon. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The instructions for this process neither explained to edit requesters the need for good sourcing in any detail nor how to place citations, nor provided any explanation of the dos and don'ts of copyright to avoid infringement (I do a lot of copyright work and you'd be amazed at the number of infringers who did not have an inkling they were doing anything improper and would not have done so had they known). I have added both to the instructions, in the hope that we will have less copyvios to deal with through this process, and more attempts at placing good sourcing, and thereby lessen the number of necessary declines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd started working on them and cleared a couple, but have come down with a cold which has taken a bit off my edge. Will plug away at a few more when my head isn't full of cobwebs. Blackmane (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A heated debate

Could an admin close this discussion here: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Infobox inclusion, again? It has been the cause of numerous reverting going on at the article which is under WP:1RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that that talk page has been subjected to revisions to old comments (maybe vandalism). I tried to restore my own comments, but others may not reflect what was actually discussed. Also, this has already been reported here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection & ArbCom sanctions

CambridgeBayWeather and I have been discussing the role of extended confirmed protection as it relates to the enforcement of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, and it appears we have different views of what the rule is. I'm honestly not sure which one of us is right, so I'm hoping someone here can help clarify. The way I understood it, all IP editors and editors under 500/30 are banned from editing pages related to the conflict. That means that edits by such users should be reverted on sight, and all pages related to the topic should be given Extended Confirmed Protection (since edits by non-permitted users would be reverted anyway). CambridgeBayWeather understands the general guideline—that extended confirmed protection should only be used if semi-protection doesn't work—to apply to all cases, including ones covered by the ArbCom ruling (feel free to clarify if I've misstated your view). That means that extended confirmed protection would only be added to any page, including pages covered by the ArbCom ruling, if semi-protection wasn't enough.

For some context, this came up in the context of the article B'Tselem, which had a recent revert under the sanctions. There hasn't been much vandalism or edit warring on the page, so under normal circumstances, extended confirmed protection would definitely be inappropriate. What I'm trying to understand is whether we should nonetheless add the additional protection level to the page, as it is covered by the ArbCom ruling. agtx 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#B'Tselem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• The way I read it is the way Agtx reads it: If the editor is not extended confirmed, they may not edit a page related to ARBPIA or GamerGate or the other articles listed here. The guideline enacted by WP:ECP2016 is for uses other than those authorized by ArbCom.

Most of the ARBPIA pages are now bluelocked preemptively. The question we're running into now at RFPP is whether or not a particular page can be reasonably construed to fall under arbitration enforcement. Katie^talk 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also reading it how Agtx is reading it - for pages in the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, non-extendedconfirmed editors are prohibited from editing, and the pages should be bluelocked. There might be a valid IAR argument for leaving it at semi, but it would be thin. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK but I still don't think that pre-emptive protection is a good idea. It seems to me to be a slippery slope. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the slippery slope in this context, and you haven't really explained your position other than to say that you don't think that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 applies (a view nobody else has taken). I'm trying to engage with you here, but I'm having trouble getting you to say more than that you don't think it's a "good idea" (which you've now said twice, without elaboration). I'm starting to feel as though you are not interested in this discussion, which is fine. Do you object to my requesting that another administrator bluelock the page? agtx 16:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea either. I disagree with the policy as I read it, and hope that it will be applied with common sense and ignored when appropriate until it is amended. Whether to ignore the policy in this particular case is an open question which I have no opinion on at the moment. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed protection can be applied on sight to any Arab-Israeli conflict related page regardless of any other forms of protection which may or may not have been applied to that page. The requirement for semi protection to have proven ineffective is only for pages protected by an admin outside the Arab-Israeli conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  There is a difference between "can be applied on sight" and "should be applied on sight". Only a tiny proportion of related pages are ECP'd. Frankly the Arbcom resolution is not coherent. Relevant discussion at WT:RFPP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  My personal opinion lines up with Airplaneman, that it should be applied "liberally (but not automatically)" generally, for me, that means if there's an issue ECP should be applied over other forms of enforcement. However, I don't know how the rest of the Committee feels about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with this and have been following that credo at RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Speaking personally also, I agree with Callanecc and NeilN. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Basically, to misquote King, "not necessarily ECP but ECP if necessary" is the way I see it. "OK" in my reply means that I could be mistaken. "Slippery slope" in that once you start pre-emptively protecting pages then it becomes easier and easier to do. It's not that I'm not interested in the discussion it's just that I don't have a lot to say. And yes anybody can apply ECP to that page. There is no need to ask me. From reading this and the discussion linked by zzuuzz, I had read that before and it may be that is what I was thinking of, it would appear that some editors agree with me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I seem to be out of my league

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 tried to do something that it seems only you can do. So . . .. There was a category, created by me. called Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. It was up for deletion, and then at that discussion in the opposed nominations section here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_, (not sure how to do a link) it was more or less decided to rename the category Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. When I attempted to do a "MOVE" I got a message to come and post here, so here I am. What's next? Carptrash (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Category pages should generally not be moved because that would still leave the articles that were in the old category with outdated links. The proper procedure is to re-categorise the content of the old category into the new one. This is done by replacing the category links at the bottom of each affected article with the new category name. I have now created the page Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers so you can start changing the category links inside the articles that are still in Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. When that is done, we may consider deleting the old category page. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's more or less what I figured. I will go about changing the articles in that soon to be defunct category right now. Carptrash (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, all the changes made, the Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers is now empty and I think my part in this play is done. Exit stage left. Carptrash (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. After consulting the instructions I remembered that category pages can and should in fact be moved by administrators so I'm now going to merge the histories of the two pages. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 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.

Unnecessary "round robin" moves.

• I believe that a "round-robin" move is swopping the places/names of pages of A and B by moving A to C, then B to A, then C to B . OK so far. But today I was called on to make 2 obstructed moves, where of pages A and B, B redirected to A before; and someone had already done the moves, by round-robin instead of by one plain move, thus creating several useless junk redirect edits. (When I must make a "round-robin" move as described hereinabove, I always leave no redirects in the 3 component page-moves.) I feel that there needs to be advice that, to move A to B, where B has no history except a redirect pointing to A, use one plain move leaving a redirect. (Presence of old deleted or undeleted history sitting under A or B or C may change matters, and watch for what happens to their talk pages and any other dependent pages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which moves are you referring to? (I can't immediately find the moves you refer to in the history of WP:RMT.) FYI, if B redirects to A, it's preferable to do 2 moves on B rather than the article A to keep the revision history on the article cleaner. Agreed that editors moving pages should first attempt to perform a direct move if possible. Page movers should be reasonably familiar with unchecking "Leave a redirect behind" at every step of WP:PMVR#rr. I personally think a user talk message about unnecessary round-robin along with a pointer to the procedure would suffice. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Admin advice re moving a page over another one

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.

---

CorporateM is a writer paid to edit Wikipedia content. I am familiar with his work, and he left me a talk page Request regarding a stalled draft he has written to update/replace the BLP Barry O'Callaghan. The current article was written by an IP six years ago, with subsequent edits by a number of editors. According to HELP:MOVE, I should be able to delete a page and move another page to the deleted name, in one step. I've never done this before, so can anyone advise me on the process I need to follow? — Maile (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be iffy. Moving the draft over the current version would lose the edit history for the current version (which might be important for offsite reusers of our text), and WP:PARALLELHISTORIES is a problem for a history merge. Probably better to copy the text over manually and add attribution in the edit summary. Assuming that the draft is better than the current article, something I have no opinion on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. But not having done this before, I thought I should get a second opinion. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen editors do it different ways depending on their preference. I ?believe? @Drmies: has handled this exact question a couple times, though I don't remember his chosen path exactly. CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM Please have a look at the References section of your draft. The first reference is in error, seems to be for something you have since eliminated. — Maile (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Those pesky quotation marks around reference names. It's fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 18:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is taken care of. If I erred, I'm sure someone will let me know. — Maile (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. Glad to have been of service. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of User:Sro23

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 take a look at this user's contributions, especially this. [17]. Most if his actions are on usually on the grounds of suspicion without proving evidence to back up his behaviour. He has been targeted by vandals but seems to target new editors he feels were either blocked under some other name or is attempting to get block via WP:AIV. 24.146.193.59 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 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.

Novak Djokovic

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.

---

Hello, I'm sending you a request to please review a closure on Novak Djokovic article in regards to his early life section, to determine if the closure was justified. The problem here is that it is stated how Djokovic's mother is Croatian in origin while his father is Montenegrin in origin, and there are only 3 links to support such claims, one leading to a Croatian right wing tabloid newspaper article, the second one is a copy-paste of the same article in a Slovenian tabloid, while the link set for a third source, meant to be a "Serbian source" on the subject is not valid,as it leads to an article completely unrelated to Novak Djokovic. The problem here is that Novak Djokovic never said anything about his mother being Croatian and his father Montenegrin anywhere,there are no Serbian or international sources on the subject,just a made up article by the mentioned Croatian tabloid. The discussion on the topic was closed in direct opposition of Wikipedia's rough consensus policy,as it is my belief that the administrator on the page chose to accept unreliable and even nonexistent sources and reject logical arguments. I also believe that there is a violation on Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people as the article about Novak Djokovic mentions a very untrue statement about his family without him ever saying anything about it. Best regards, Azarapat8 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a closure on [his] article"? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The OP is disagreeing with the closure of an RfC on the article regarding the ethnicity of Djokovic's parents (i.e. the usual Balkan nonsense). This isn't the venue for this anyway; the talk page of the article is the place to voice disagreement. No administrator is going to overrule an RfC close unless it's clearly wrong, and this one isn't obviously problematic. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 2 October 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 talk:FractalDesign

Hey, can one of you COI/user name experts have a word with this user and maybe explain what can or needs to be done? It's bedtime for me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:FractalDesign

Hey, can one of you COI/user name experts have a word with this user and maybe explain what can or needs to be done? It's bedtime for me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Again POV pushing by deliberately contradicting the sources in the Ganja, Azerbaijan article under multiple accounts and also cross-wiki

Cavadxangence1992 ‎ who is very likely a sockpuppet of Historicalcity2016 is again POV pushing the population numbers of the city of Ganja, Azerbaijan and is deliberately contradicting the official sources. And he has constantly previously done so under changing IP numbers starting with 217.168. ... as can be seen in the revision history of the Ganja article. As the article has been temporarily protected until 6 October because of my previous request, this user is doing his vandalism under his multiple accounts. And he is doing this POV pushing cross-wiki on the Ganja city articles either through changing IP numbers or through these accounts Azerbaijanhistory2016wiki, Huseyn200021, Abbaszade656.

Artoxx (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Help , Ali Saki is Back

hi , plz chek user for sockpuppets of Ali Saki he is rename user to علی ساکی لرستانی , now is contribs with sockpuppet with user name سوزیانی

Also he is contribs with name Nughese , and have a list in fa.wiki --Florence (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Red link example

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.

---

Red link example (a nonpage used as an example of a nonexistent page) is protected from creation. Could we do the same with Talk:Red link example? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. But done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:26, 3 October 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.

Closing of expired WP:NPP/RfC

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 think it's time to close Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right as the RfC template was removed and it's been 30 days. I would like to leave a message here as it's been about a day now after the time it should be closed and User:Kudpung was not online by now. Regards, NgYShung ^huh? 08:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am online and logged in every day. However, I was just the messenger who launched the RfC. It's not my responsibility to moderate it, call for it to be closed, or anything else. If the 30 days have run their course, then it should be closed, but please, by someone who is really competent, neutral, and who knows how to read a split-objective debate, because it could be that there is a clear majority for one part, opposition for another, and even recommendations for details that require a follow up debate - just like it was for ACTRIAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that you do not have the right to close it (as you are the one who started it). But since that it was "technically closed" and it's been inactive for about 10 days, I think there should be a consensus coming out for this. NgYShung ^huh? 10:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK for someone who has done deletion tagging with Page Curation and Twinkle and some more generic new page patrol in the past to close? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The closing for that RfC may result in documenting consensus on multiple components, if there is a single closer they should not be invovled in any of the components - now this is a broad RfC so a small team (perhaps 3) of admins may be best to close it out. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a team, there are plenty of people capable at closing RfCs. Admins like HJ Mitchel for example, are experts at closing RfCs of this kind - but of course only if he didn't vote in it. I don't believe that NPP and AfC are in his neck of the woods though, so that would rule out any COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't require a team - just if there are some sticky points it might be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I actually closed the RfC, but self-reverted when I noticed the AN section. However, unless there is any objection from any editor, I will reinstate my close in 24 hours. After that, of course, the procedures at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE will apply. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy to join with L235 and close it. I've done a couple of these (naming of Clinton article and Kumioko ban appeal come to mind) so I've got some experience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: Are you fine with joining in simply reinstating my original close, or would you like to discuss a new closing statement? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Your close was/is fine! I've restored your close and added my sig. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 5 October 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.

Legal threat

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 have received a legal threat off-wiki from Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since this explicitly references edits on Wikipedia as its sole basis, I think the user needs to be reblocked with a block log entry noting the legal threat, as he should not be unblocked until the threat is retracted. I won't do it myself for obvious reasons. Any admin wanting to do this can email me for a copy of the letter. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: You may want to pop that over to legal@ as well -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• That email definitely needs to get forwarded to legal@ with full headers. If you want to email me with a copy of that letter, I have time today to look at it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It arrived in dead-tree format (tracking down the physical address of an editor to pursue a content dispute over alleged stalking: nice use of irony), email me and I will send you a scan. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pinging Bbb23 as well, since he did the block. But if it came on paper, you have to contact legal. Not sure I would lose sleep over it, but just as a matter of practice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Since it is no longer "done" and an ongoing issue, I've unblanked his talk page for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having seen the letter, I can verify that it looks legitimate. I have updated Johnathan's talk page accordingly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 September 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.

Addendum

Given that DigitalDisconnect (talk · contribs) and VCHunter (talk · contribs) are rather obvious meat/sockpuppets of Jonathan Bishop, why haven't they also been blocked? --Calton | Talk 08:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

DigitalDisconnect should be blocked IMO, I ssupect this to be MultimediaGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). VCHunter was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive934 § VCHunter. I think a topic ban is in order. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Calton: I suggest raising this at WP:SPI. At a glance the behavioural evidence is strong but it probably needs a good look from the experts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

ANI thread close 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.

---

Could an admin please close the Sockpuppetry by JayJasper thread, the consensus looks to be pretty clear and JayJasper seems happy with the result. It'd be nice to put a close to this regrettable episode sooner rather than later. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Done now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The sub-thread is closed, but the main thread is still open. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely by intent. The consensus as to what to do going forward is clear, but the community may still need to process and discuss what's happened in general terms. I don't intend to put any kind of premature end to that process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:42, 5 October 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.

Does one need a consensus to ADD tags?

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.

---

Reading the article on The New York Review of Books I noticed that it came across as bit of an ad for the subject. I wrote about it at the talk page [18] and added a tag [19]. Jack1956 swiftly deleted the tag and said I had to take it to the talk page [20] (rather irrelevant as I had done that prior to adding the tag). I explained again on the talk page why I perceive the tag to be appropriate and restored the tag, but adding that it should of course go if the talk page consensus results in a decision not to have it. [21] [22]. Jack1956 would have none of this and immediately deleted the tag for a second time, saying that there has to be a consensus before adding a tag. I won't ask WP:AN to comment on the content issue, but I'm interested in the general rule for tags. My impression, after more than seven years, has always been that tags are never permanent; instead, a tag serves to call attention to an issue (lack of sources, not due, original research etc.) so that interested parties can improve the article, and discuss the issue on the talk page, so that the tag can be removed. Jack1956's approach is the polar opposite. Jack1956 is explicitly arguing that one must both start a talk page discussion and reach a consensus before adding any tag. I have a hard time understanding the logic in that argument, but as it is an important question I thought to take it here. Again, the actual article is not the content and I won't add the tag again either way, but I find Jack1956's behavior and interpretation of tag policies unusual. So the two questions to you all are simple:
1. Does one need a talk page consensus before adding a tag?
2. Can a user repeatedly delete tags at will if there is no prior talk page consensus to them?. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Maintenance template removal. As for your questions, (1) Consensus is clearly not needed "before" adding a tag. We would all be waiting for consensus in that case. (2) If there are only 2 users (first one tags and the second one disagrees), in that case it amounts to a dispute and the tag shouldn't be removed by the second editor until a third editor has commented.

The second editor however may remove a tag if they feel that the issues has been previously debated (and there was consensus on the issue) or if the tagging editor doesn't respond to discussions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Maintenance tags are intended to call attention to problems with articles. Why not err on the side of caution and allow the article to be tagged until there's a consensus that the problem has been addressed? The worst-case scenario is that an article is tagged for a problem it doesn't have, and if that's the case it should be reasonably apparent.DonIago (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Lemongirl942 and DonIago, that was my understanding as well. In this case Jack1956's first removal of the tag was before anyone except I had commented on the talk page, and the second when only an IP had supported Jack. He removed the tag twice less than ten hours after it had been added. As I said, I wont revert but it would probably be a good idea for Jack1956 to acquaint himself with Help:Maintenance template removal. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 4 October 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.

Something very odd just happened

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:Don't-give-a-fuckism. There was a notice there says that the article is up for deletion but it seems to have been done by an anonymous editor. I tried "undo"ing the edit and it worked but I'd like someone to take a look at it and see what they make of it. Einar aaka Carptrash (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentioning this Carptrash. IP 2600:1:b11d:3347:14a0:1564:c990:f7ff (talk · contribs) looks to be on a WP:POINTy spree. It also looks like they were here as 2600:1:B047:7E26:ADAE:3694:D5EF:7EB5 (talk · contribs) several days days ago. MarnetteD|Talk 01:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DB. MarnetteD|Talk 01:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And thank you all. Carptrash (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Err all they did was unplug the router. They're back with the CSDing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 02:47, 5 October 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazarian Para PMC

Just a quick notification that I've semi-protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazarian Para PMC, in light of the scale of IP weirdness going on. I know that semiprotecting AFDs is generally frowned on, and that I'm technically WP:INVOLVED as I started the AFD debate (although my input was purely procedural—I have no knowledge of or opinion on the topic, and my name is only there because I deprodded it to start a full AFD debate following a request from yet another IP). Given that my protection is probably technically a breach of some obscure policy or other, take this as express consent for anyone to revert my actions without the need to notify/consult me. ‑ Iridescent 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to say, I think it's by far the sensible thing to do. It's either the same person going from Costa to Starbucks, or all his mates. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There is improper activity at "The Blob (Pacific Ocean)"

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 improper activity at The Blob (Pacific Ocean) by User:203.198.130.178

69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the appropriate response is normal contact on the users' talk page; this is a normal content issue, not an AN issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 5 October 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.

Topic ban over "Persian Gulf" naming dispute?

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 been dealing with a block at User talk:Kamran the Great, for issues relating to the Persian Gulf naming dispute. This user (who is Iranian) has been strongly POV-pushing for several years now to expunge all mention of the term "Arabian Gulf" as used by some Arab states (and also, apparently, by Western armed forces and diplomats when geographically/politically appropriate).

While "Persian Gulf" is indeed the most widely accepted term, User:Kamran the Great appears to consider it the only one that should ever be used and appears to consider alternatives (eg "Arabian Gulf") as simply factually incorrect regardless of context. The latest spate of problems is documented at User talk:Kamran the Great#Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf, in which he went as far as to make changes like this to enforce his insistence that using "Arabian Gulf" even in book titles is simply wrong (he has backed off from that one, but he certainly pushes the limits). You can see the details, including his insistence that "all I have been doing is to undo instances of persistent and disruptive reverts of my edits".

I offered to unblock if he would agree to a voluntary topic ban from the Persian Gulf naming dispute, but he fought against that right to the end, and even now he's still talking about "treading carefully" and "tiptoeing around" the issue after his latest "blame someone else" unblock request was rejected. There are plenty more examples of disruption around this topic on his talk page, reaching back as far as 2010, but just from the User talk:Kamran the Great#Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf section to the end should give you a pretty good flavour of it.

I now think that this user should not be unblocked without a Community Topic Ban, and so I ask for your consideration for a ban from the Persian Gulf naming dispute topic area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban before unblocking. Miniapolis 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I read through the whole thread and, at the risk of sounding pompous, felt you and Huon were very reserved and considered in your responses. Question though, is the proposal that the community ban them from the Persian gulf naming dispute and then they would be unblocked automatically? or would they have to go through another round of unblock requests? Blackmane (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment :-) If there's a consensus for a topic ban, I think I could unblock on the back of that as it's essentially what I offered him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Support that. Wonder if User:Kamran the Great has seen Wedge issue, and if the Gulf should be mentioned there. :-) --Elvey^(t•c) 01:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for clearing that up. My support still stands. Blackmane (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Perhaps someday this dispute will grow up and rival this one or this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I suggest something along: "Kamran the Great is banned from making edits in the main article space concerning the Persian Gulf naming dispute. Particularly he must not change names like 'Arabian Gulf', 'The Gulf', 'Gulf of Iran' or similar phrases anywhere on the English Wikipedia." This would still allow him to discuss the matter on talk pages while enforcing a status quo of the names he may find there. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  I had thought of something like that, but I can see that leading to tendentious talk page arguments similar to what's been happening on his own talk page. I really think we need a standard "broadly construed" topic ban which means a total ban from the topic from all Wikipedia pages. He can always appeal the ban in due course - I'd suggest a minimum of six months, here at AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. "Broadly construed" it should be. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• While I'd certainly support a topic ban, I guess I'd prefer to just keep him blocked (or have a full ban instead). Given the fact that his tendentious editing has not always been restricted to this one issue but that he previously used to make equally stubborn POV edits over a different naming issue (of similar symbolic POV status for certain nationally-minded Iranian circles, that of the language names "Farsi" versus "Persian"), and that he has literally never done anything else on Wikipedia apart from these naming wars, I believe it's likely that in the case of an unblock and topic ban he would just shift his attention to some other favorite POV crusade again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Close?

I've just recovered this from archive, as I'd really prefer a formal close so it doesn't look like I'm making the decision myself - anyone game? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 7 October 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.

Tag removal requested

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 may seem pretty minor, but...would an uninvolved editor please remove the {{under discussion}} tag from the top of WP:PORNBIO? The discussion it links to has since been closed (although no result is listed for some reason, it looks like no consensus was met; and it was also listed at WP:CD but it is no longer there either). I'd remove the tag myself but I was involved in the discussion at the beginning. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 9 October 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 block me for good. Thank you.

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.

---

-- Miebner (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 8 October 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.

Cary Grant

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.

---

Cary Grant article have so serious problems. Article was promoted good but in last couple months some group of users removed his infobox and now wanna to keep that way. I wanna help of administrators so that problems would be solved. ^{Snake bgd} 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what action it is you expect an administrator to take, other than perhaps for an overly trigger-happy one to block you for edit-warring. —Cryptic 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Snake bgd and Cryptic: For 'trigger happy,' I read, 'the just and the good'  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not mandated. Per WP:INFOBOXUSE the inclusion of the infobox is down to the discretion of the editors who work on the article, and any disagreement in that regard should be resolved via discussion. Looking at the general stats for the article its regular editors seem to be making it clear they don't want an infobox so I think it would be wise to accept their decision and move on to an area where your efforts will be more appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lacking structured metadata, the article fails to address one of the main aspects of the topic (see WP:GACR). An infobox is not required by policy, but recognition of an article as high-quality, whether GA (in this case) or FA, needs to be removed when editors intentionally omit such a basic concept, when the editors refuse to provide access to certain readers. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not the metadata straw man again? I agree with the editors of the Cary Grant article that no infobox is helpful there, and that the addition of an infobox would merely add repetitive material, stripped of context and nuance that takes up valuable space at the top of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, everybody, don't turn this AN thread into yet another exchange of the same old content arguments regarding the pros and cons of infoboxes. That's not for this thread to decide; we all know opinions are divided on it, and nothing good will come from re-debating that issue here for the thousandth time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 9 October 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.

Could someone please take a look at recent edits

at Cleveland Public Library .They appear to me to have nothing to do with the library and I am not sure how to undo 3 successive edits. it might also be worth seeing what else they have been up to. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

well, I took a stab at it 'cause I'm going to bed. G'night. Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Only in death cleaned everything up. As for the IP's edits, well, I'm not sure what s/he was trying to do, because not only did all that material indeed have nothing to do with the library, but it appeared to have been copy-pasted from the Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. (I'd leave a warning on the IP's talk page, but I can't really tell if the act was malicious.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Sekulić NAC closure -- admin review requested

This AfD was just NAC closed by User:AKS.9955 as keep. The AfD was highly contentious, there were accusations and some evidence of sock puppetry and canvassing, as well as some WP:PLAGUE related acrimony. The substantive issues regarding sourcing considered in the AfD were also really difficult. (I had considered casting a !vote myself several times but could not make up my mind which way to go). In my opinion the AfD should never have been NACed, and it should have been left for an admin to close. I am requesting that an admin review the close and either formally endorse the close, or to re-close as 'no consensus', or reopen the AfD. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NAC no reason this was not acceptable for a non-admin to close. Back and forth in comments *barely* qualifies as 'slightly narky' let alone 'contentious'. Per WP:Close you are required to discuss this with the closer before asking for a review here or at deletion review. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Even discounting the IPs, the only ways this could have been closed are "keep" or "no consensus", and the net result of both is the same. There's some misunderstanding of the significance of "served in a provincial legislature" (which most certainly does not confer notability, or we'd be up to our eyeballs in English local councillors), but not enough to tilt the result towards deletion; any admin who did close this as "delete" would be hauled over the coals for supervoting. Consequently, although the closure potentially breaches WP:NAC it's a technical breach at most, and not worth the process-for-the-sake-of-process of re-running the AFD; if you really feel the article is seriously problematic, give it a couple of months to gather fresh sources and re-nominate it. ‑ Iridescent 13:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I am personally on the fence regarding this article but I suspect that it will end up at AfD again fairly soon, and that AfD will be acrimonious again as well. That's one of the reasons why I feel that it is important that this AfD be handled procedurally correctly -- one less issue to be contentious about next time around. So if an admin re-closes the current AfD as 'keep' or 'no-consensus', that would be preferable to letting the NAC closure stand. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone care to assess the user's NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bismil Azimabadi (2nd nomination) also? I know there are an overwhelming number of "keep" !votes but I really don't think a non-admin should have closed that one because the underlying policy arguments etc are significant. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nsk92 and Sitush, I hope you two realize that the correct place to discuss closed AfD discussion is DRV and not here. Secondly, Nsk92, whenever you open a discussion on Administrator noticeboard concerning another user, as a courtesy please remember to notify the user on his talkpage. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AKS.9955, FWIW nsk92 did inform you of the discussion (here). --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't go round closing this stuff, we wouldn't need to discuss it at all. You can't even get to grips with WP:OVERLINK and there is no way you should be closing AfDs where there is even the remotest possibility of disagreement. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• regentspark, missed that since it was under an old section and not a new one; I specifically look for new sections Sitush, what do you mean by "If you didn't go round closing this stuff"???? If you have a POV, then not my problem. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Eh? Having a point of view is inherent in the AfD process. That POV should be based on policies. It seems like you're just lashing out now, especially since given your apparent claim on your talk page that I had no discernible POV because I didn't bullet-point a !vote. We've now got a third AfD being discussed on your talk: I haven't looked at the merits but is everyone really piling on here or is there actually a problem? - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have just stumbled upon Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jona_Laks, which looks like a debatable close as well. Correctly relisted as "consensus unclear", it received one more delete and one more keep !vote; at which point AKS.9955 closed it as "keep". There's half a dozen others in that vein in the last couple of weeks. In general, I'm not a fan of the editor's authoritarian manner combined with questionable housekeeping decisions, and would also prefer they "didn't go round closing this stuff" if they are not willing to be more careful.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion This is not a comment on this particular closure, but on NACs in general. I feel it would be helpful if an explanation about the close (maybe a couple of sentences long describing the quality of the !votes and how they satisfy policy) is provided by the closer. This can help to identify the closer's rationale and prevent any misunderstandings. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse closure If he had been an admin, the same call would have been made. No reason to expect that any task is off-limits for non-admins, and we need to stop treating established editors as second-class citizens when they help out where they can. I can find, reading the discussion, no way that any admin would have made the decision to delete the article based on the weight of the arguments, and as usual, the fact that someone was not an admin is seized upon by people wishing for the opposite result to cry about illusory impropriety. No way. This was the right call, and we can NOT let who made the call be a factor in its rightness. Non-admins are not second-class Wikipedians and are NOT to have their proper actions questioned for lack of a few tools. Fully endorse the closure, the manner of the closure, and the person who made it, without reservation, and WP:TROUT to those complaining. --Jayron32 19:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Jayron32, you mention the "manner of the closure" at the end of your comment. Recent comments at User talk:AKS.9955 make me question the manner in which AKS is choosing to close the AFDs. This comment about the nominator being the only person to support deletion is clearly wrong; another user Sirlanz used the word "Support" instead of "Delete" as a bold-font !vote at the Localism camp AFD, but it is crystal clear they supported deletion. It is followed up by this remark, which leads me to firmly believe the closer did nothing else but add up the number of times the words "keep" and "delete" were written in bold. A separate exchange on the same talk page with Sitush concerning the Bismil Azimabadi AFD makes me think the closer ignored Sitush's "long speech" because it didn't start with a magic bold !vote. In fact, Sitush ended one of his comments with a bold-font "Redirect". The closer basically confirms they undertook a vote-counting exercise in a follow-up comment. Granted, in both cases the format of "votes" were not perfect, but the closer seems to think this excuses him from having to read those participants' opinions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• AtHomeIn神戸, it is your assumption that there was a counting and I cannot do anything to help it. I have made my point very clear and there has been un-necessary debate about this issue. The nominators / voters are annoyed / upset that their vote or opinion was not the conclusion of the AfD; not my problem. Whilst people are busy splitting hair here and trying to push POV, did anyone bother reading the articles in discussion and its validity? Out of all the people who are criticizing NAC over here, let me ask how many will take a guarantee that the AfD outcome will be different if I open it again? If someone takes the guarantee, then I will immediately open it; else this all is just a waste of time. AND STOP TREATING ME LIKE A VANDAL - I spend my precious time here not to get bullied by people who easily get upset because their AfD vote does not work out the way they want it to be. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

user:AKS.9955 is a non-admin and acted ultra vires in closing the discussion, being in (1) plain breach of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and (2) obviously not having bothered to read what was written (made his decision having failed to notice I had written in support, despite his transparent protestations ex post facto) and (3) failing to exclude himself from arbitrating a field in which he has no competence (i.e. Chinese language and Hong Kong politics). The matter requires an admin decision as a matter of proper procedure and WP integrity. We might further ask whether a person of his evident short-temper, bombast and shallow logic (this is not about the outcome it's about quality of adjudication) is a suitable person to adjudicate anything at all.sirlanz 13:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bismil Azimabadi (2nd nomination) after noticing it on Sitush's talkpage and have reverted it. Please leave that kind of discussion for admins to close, AKS.9955. Your manner in this discussion and on your talkpage concerning this stuff has been less than collaborative, please rethink it. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC).
  • And I have reclosed given a rationale that AKS *should* have left the first time. Its nothing that requires an admin, I left a far longer explanation than was needed due to it being brought up here. It could be condensed with 'Arguments on both sides have equal weight, the relevant notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE supports keep, even had people formally opposed, it would be no consensus to delete'. Bishonen, there is nothing about that discussion that requires an admin to close and reverting a closure without following DRV is disruptive. Saying that, 'Closed as keep' is not sufficient when discussion has been extensive. 'Keep because X' should be the minimum, and the correct way to enforce that is to firstly ask the closer to amend their closing giving their reasoning, followed by DRV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Baltimore Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

Please put "{{WPDED}}{{WPLE}}" on Talk:List of Baltimore Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, maybe someone ought to add an exception to Mediawiki:Titleblacklist or MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist for "killed in the line of duty"; that seems to be a pattern that is far more likely to lead to good article creations than vandalism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Semi-protection was applied to this article earlier today, I've now upped this to full protection for a month in the light of continued disruptive editing by auto-confirmed users. I don't know what has prompted the recent edits but there are also several OTRS tickets requesting deletion of this article as racist, written by terrorists, promoting terrorism etc. Nthep (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The talk page is becoming more of the same it seems as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what is underneath this is that some of the people who have been editing the article consider that the article breaches Article 157A of the Sri Lankan constitution: "No person shall, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka."[23] and they aren't seeing that the recording of history is not promotion of a cause. That said the article may benefit from a review by knowledgeable editors, there seem to be a lot of old (2008–2010) statements and sections that use the present tense and may well be out of date that perhaps are adding flames to fires in some eyes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs)

The Sri Lanka Constitution applies to people outside of Sri Lanka? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Countries routinely enact laws that apply to their own citizens regardless of location; it's not particularly different from the US Government's practice of laying and collecting income tax on the incomes of US citizens who live in other countries. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

If anyone is bored, head on over to CAT:SPEEDY. (over 200 pages) APK whisper in my ear 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Enormous backlog at WP:OAFD

There have been hundreds of outstanding deletion discussions ready for closure for almost a week now. Some help cleaning up the older ones would be appreciated, although a lot of them are "tricky" cases that will need a bit of untangling and possibly some unpopular decisions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

Arbcom Electoral Commission

Just a heads up for those who are interested in this sort of thing; we are once again selecting an Arbcom Electoral Commission. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:98.167.194.3

98.167.194.3 (talk · contribs) edit summaries (when they do them) sound crazed / belligerent. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the IP's talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments on CheckUser and Oversight candidates: last call!

The Arbitration Committee has invited comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase will end at approximately 23:59, 8 October 2016. Any final comments may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NORN

Could probably use a few more folks watching this board. Looks like the last five threads have so far had no outside input with the earliest posted 19SEP. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since that is a function of editors rather than admin (ie: content) it might be good to paste that one one of the Village Pump boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I will admit that in my decade of editing I had never heard of that noticeboard. I'll watchlist it now, for whatever that may be worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I will keep a lookout as well. I remember posting on it and getting no response a month back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Nancy O'Dell

Extra eyes or protection to Nancy O'Dell, who is being mentioned in connection with the latest over-the-top Donald Trump audio/video by the Daily Fail. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

At some point we'll need an dedicated noticeboard for all the issues surrounding this election. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also Arianne Zucker‎‎. Probably wouldn't hurt to have more sober eyes on Billy Bush. People are lovely. Kuru (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by user 46.238.25.84 on several articles related nomadic people

Hello,

I want to report vandalism by the user 46.238.25.84 on several articles about nomadic people of Euro-Asia as follows:

1. Article "Xionites" - the user has deleted sourced information without any explanation, only a fake excuse "WP:SCOPE" : [24]

2. Article "KIDARITES" - the user 46.238.25.84 deleted several times content supported by accademic sources. No real explanation was given, only some vague stupid, and obviously fake "Back to neutral content" : [25]

3. Article "Sabir people' - source falsification and pushing wrong ideas [26]

4. Article "Bulgar language" - deletion of sourced content, the most famous paper on the subject (published by Harvard University) is shorten to 1 sentence; paper published by Gothenburg University ( and supporting the information from Harvard paper) is also shorten to 1 sentence; the sentence where Pritsak is sited is fake - this is an outrage, Pritsak ( Harvard University) never uses the term Oghur. Once again source falsification. [27]

5. Article "Massagetae" : Source falsification [28]

Thank you --216.75.21.32 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• First, vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, not here. Second, he isn't vandalizing. He's actually engaging with Doug Weller, an Arb, as we speak, and his edits seem to be in good faith. That doesn't mean they are correct, just that he isn't "vandalizing", which means to destroy with ill intent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And what good faith is there to delete 8-10 books from the article Kidarites? What good faith is there to obviously falsify the sources in the article Massagetae? Is there any good faith to delete information from the article Xionites? For me this guy is obviously playing some childish games that are not innocent - I can understand when someone doesn't have good knowledge on a subject to do a mistake, but in this case, for me this is an intentional vandalism. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Why is deleting content necessarily bad? Articles are naturally built by adding and removing information over time. Were the edits made to Massagetae obviously false? If it's obvious, prove it, and then it should be obvious to us as well. It sounds like you simply don't like the edits he has made, and instead of resolving the issue by discussing it with him, you ran here and want someone to simply ban him. That's not going to happen unless you make a much stronger case, though I'd strongly suggest you just try to talk to him first. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ok let's see this edit on Massagetae [29] where he/she has replaced the word Getae with the word Jats( meaning Jat people) at the beggining of the second paragraph. Sources 11-14 clearly states that Massagetae are believed to be related to Getae, not to Jat people. Only on source 13 we have "getae(Jats)" which clearly means that both words have similar prononciation, nothing more. The source 13 doesn't state that Jats are the same people as Massagetae. The connection is much more subtle, Massagetae are believed to be connected to Yuezhi that 7 centuries later dispersed into north India. This is clearly explained on the article, Wario-Man who never editted the article before that has observed it and corrected it with very clear explanation : "Source falsification" - and that is also my opinion. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• And that is why it isn't "vandalism". If he replaced with "YoU R tHe suX!", that would be vandalism. You simply have a difference of opinion on the content, and you might very well be right, I don't know, but admin don't decide content, that is up to the editors. We only deal with obvious vandalism and acts in bad faith. This doesn't look like that. Being wrong isn't bad faith, and I have no idea if he is right or wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ok - I will be honest - I believe that the guy behind this ip(46.238.25.84) is someone else. Of course you don't have idea who is right/wrong because these articles require some knowledge. They are not nuclear physics, but everyone needs at least a couple of hours to study them. I think the guy 46.238.25.84 have very good knowledge on these topics and he intensionally are twisting them. In my opinion he is the same guy as the ip=88.203.200.74 and the ip=212.5.158.21 and the ip=212.5.158.18 This is obvious from his edits on the article Kidarites [30]. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those three IPs obviously belong to the same person. And it looks like he got into a bad edit war a couple weeks ago. But I'm still not seeing anything right now that demands an administrator's attention. You are assuming a lot about this guy's motives, but so far you've shown at most he's mistaken about something. Look, this guy actually responds to people who message him. Try to talk to him about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered him on other Wikipedia. Talking with him is useless, if he is the same guy, and I am almost 100% sure of that. Basically he believes that all nomadic people are of Turkic origin, especially if these nomads are some warriors. That's why he is trying to delete information from the article Kidarites, for the same reason he has deleted the information about cranial deformation among Xionites - this may link them to the western Huns, and he firmly believes that western Huns were Turks. Which is far from proven. Anyway, he spents 24 hours per day on 3 WP's, 7 days per week, which makes me think that he gets money for these edits. Of course, I can't prove this, but clearly I can trace the same edits on 2 other WP's in addition to the English Wikipedia. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a losing battle for the OP; and I'm wondering if you're someone else as well, especially considering that your very first edit just happens to be opening an AN thread. Are we in Australia again? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are in Australia I don't know, I am not there. What I know is that I do not delete content from WP articles without a valid reason. Deletion of 3 books from an article and shrinking the most important paper (Harvard) from 1 paragraph to 1 sentence, as this edit here [31], can significantly change the entire meaning of the article. Which is not going to happen. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you missed that one. But seriously, everyone has already explained to you that the activity from the IP whom you're reporting isn't vandalism, so you're pretty much beating a dead horse here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's true that this IP is someone who's POV was rejected from the Bulgarian Wikipedia, that's something to consider, but I don't see significant contributions to other languages by this user under any of his IP addresses. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

well, I am against suppressing anyone's opinion here on WP, it is against the basic principles of WP as an open project. I don't want him really banned, what irritates me is deletion of content. I don't mind if he/she writes seperate paragraph/s to express his point of view on any of these articles(with proper citations of books of course) but he shouldn't delete/modify contributions of other editors without valid reasons. May be some simle warning from an administrator will suffice for the time being. --216.75.21.32 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Many of these articles actually need attention from professionals.--216.75.21.32 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As is clearly stated on the homepage, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". What about that is hard to understand? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphan images backlog

100+ orphaned images now eligible for deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Backlog of eligible files cleared. This is really a task for an adminbot though, and I remember we already had one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage moves

I came here from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Interlanguage moves. So we have this article at WP:Pages needing translation into English#Dubravko Klarić, which wiki-conventionwise seems ok, except for the language. I was wondering if it is possible to move a page to an other-language wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org in this case) with retention of the page history, which seems possible via export/import, although special rights are needed for that. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For some reason that I don't understand, import into en:wp is restricted to a few major languages, a group that doesn't include Croatian — you can't import from hr to en. I believe that this is locally set (either by local admins or by developers editing local settings), so hr:wp may nevertheless be able to import from en. In this case, we can just skip the page history: aside from the infobox, which depends on local template names being similar to ours (probably not the case), this version of the article is quite similar to the current version, and literally the only edit by anyone other than the creator is the addition of {{Not English}}, which obviously wouldn't be copied to hr:wp. Therefore, we could just copy/paste that version of the article to hr:Dubravko Klarić, and as long as the edit summary has a Croatian version of "written by Tvrtko6", we're in compliance with GFDL and CCBYSA. In fact, while importing would be helpful, this might actually be the better approach, since several of the post-Tvrtko6 edits are technical bits related to our local standards, or language-related bits not relevant to something written in Croatian, and neither one is particularly helpful if we're moving something to another Wikipedia. Coincidentally, I recently interacted with a fluent speaker of English at hr:wp, so I've asked him to help with this discussion and the discussion at WP:PNT. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

HyperGaruda, see this note from the user that I mentioned; to use en:wp terminology, apparently Dubravko Klarić's article would be considered a spammy autobiography about someone who's not notable in the first place. We might as well delete it here. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see that a native speaker has taken a look. Thanks to you both, Nyttend and Srdjan m. Deletion is on its way. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Strange editor

I'm posting here because I have no clue where else to go. There's a user, Savagecoverman, who creates articles on racehorses and rodeo topics. All their subjects are notable, being either Grade 1 winners or Hall of Famers. That's not the issue; the issue is they cannot write. Just take a look at Midnight (horse). This is a very notable saddle bronc that was infamous in the 1930s for throwing cowboys, yet I'm not sure the article should exist in it's current form. It's like it was written by a ten-year-old who is more interested in their own opinion than the facts. I think it would be easier to blow it up and start over than it would to fix it. This editor does not respond to talk page queries, I've tried that route and got nowhere. Can a person be kept from creating pages, but not kept from contributing otherwise? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbie. They've been here for barely 3 months and have racked up just over 80 edits. The language needs a lot of work but that sort of thing comes with experience. If they were actively disruptive with lots of poorly written articles, then that would be another thing, but I don't see anything that warrants action at this point. Blackmane (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd personally say just merge or be bold and revert... Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's really not optional to notify people when they've been brought up here. I've taken care of that, and given the editor some advice. [32] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

E/C I agree with Montanabw. We need to retain editors and working on the article in a collegiate manner will be a much friendlier way of doing that. @WAF, if you discuss an editor here, you must notify that editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor has been notified by Seraphimblade. They are cutting a pretty wide swath here, I can see why there is frustration, their stuff reads like some kid's school project. I have also alerted WikiProject horse racing... I think we just have to trot around after them for a bit and see if they get clue or not... if they do, we have a new editor, if they don't we will be back here for behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there are some issues here. The OP's use of apostrophes would certainly benefit from a little gentle advice! Plank, eye? MPS1992 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this situation is beyond typos. This is a new editor, and needs a LOT of help, and the usual people who help with this stuff are all kind of busy IRL at the moment... but at the rate this editor is working, they can create a mess, so they DO need some mentoring ... see e.g. Chicken on a Chain. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...this problem may be greater than I originally thought. I have been copy-editing Midnight (horse). Perhaps the greatest problem is the lack of in-line referencing. This makes it difficult for other editors to verify and/or clarify content. I have also looked at their contributions and the problem is more widespread than I thought previously. Is there any way we could stop the editor creating more problems until they have shown competence in writing in-line references? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The editor knows talk pages exist however their only edit to one seems to be to alter another editor's comment [33] - not a good sign. I am afraid if they continue as they have without communicating a WP:DE block may be the only way to get their attention. It is not possible to mentor or help someone who does not communicate. Jbh^Talk 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• WP:DEADLINE applies, so any start on a topic never covered is a good start and no reason to delete. This is a pain perhaps, but not disruptive. They aren't overly prolific and the topics they start are notable, so the burden isn't that great. Gnomes (like me) tend to come in on topics like this and fix them up. As far as communications, yes they need to WP:COMMUNICATE but they haven't done anything that would force them too yet. Still, it is worth while to try. I don't see anything worth blocking over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this account is their sock or prior account. [34] Compare the writing and use of words, like "carier" for career. Same lack of talk communication, too. This is what had been bugging me ever since I saw the comment above about how this guy has only been registered since July. I had distinctly remembered interacting with somebody similar back in May, and posting on their talk page explaining what was wrong with their edits. I went through the history of Tizway and bingo. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That previous account isn't blocked or sanctioned, so even if that's so, they're really not doing anything wrong by dropping it and creating a new one. Could be something as simple as forgetting the password and not having a valid email to recover it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest edit at Midnight (horse) by this editor is effectively a reversion to a previous version without discussion and an addition of unsourced material. I really hate to say this, but it might be a competence issue. Whatever, the editor is creating work for other editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I know I'm new to editing in Wikipedia. But I'm technical writer and I have a long history with rodeo, especially bull riding. I came in early this week with the intent to start editing and writing about bull riding. White Arabian Filly points out the topic Chicken on a Chain. Not only does it have a citation problem, it leaves out important information or explains it in an unclear way. For example in talking about the PBR. And it still needs work. Also, I point out the topic Skoals Pacific Bell, which is half the topic the writer rewording what is in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame topic about the bull. The other half is good info, the writer is knowledgeable about bulls, you just don't now where from. The title part Skoals does match the Hall of Fame, which has Skoal Pacific Bell. And it needs lots of cleanup. The topic says it lacks inline citations. There aren't more. Just because the bull is notable does not mean there's enough verified content for a topic. There are more topics...Dawnleelynn (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Block

i try to speeded delete my mother talk page by using orphaned talk page it was last use 2013 And I try to delete fire : that I did not know how to provide the copy write so I can use the same name I was block from both place and administer page

And the person who report this leave the comment ....... If the negative thing not show in google results it would be fine

I created my mom page and have the not want thing in same Google search last name can you delete what I try to delete and unblock me it a process . Am I allowed to delete the thing older than 7 days in my own talk page.? Am I allowed to deleted talk page that not active for three year?

I think I should be unblock ......Can I put {{db-user}} or what .? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamanitkul (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It'd help us greatly if you told us who you are-and I'm guessing English isn't your first language.Some bits of your complaint I'm afraid are just gobbledegook- 'have the not want thing in same Google search last name' means nothing.

If I'm deciphering this correctly,you want to be unblocked(again,we need to know who you are and what you did to be blocked),and delete a talk page that you haven't used since 2013,using the Speedy Deletion tag. If you can identify yourself,we can then see if it's reasonable for you to be unblocked. Lemon martini (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lemon martini: This has to do with Commons. Not anything we can help with. They are blocked there for vandalism. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah many thanks for clearing that up!There were precious few clues in their post Lemon martini (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't the OP's first language, but I have no idea what's going on here. Anyone else? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Erpert: It is a Commons issue. Nothing we can do here. --Majora (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Well, an uninvolved user will close this thread soon enough then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pandamanitkul (talk · contribs) has made several edits to the photo used in the infobox for Thita Manitkul so that is one possibility. If that is a pic of TM then it is one from many years ago. MarnetteD|Talk 22:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why o; missing information may be my ip was block — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamanitkul (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC) I was block from several {{delete}}{{Orphaned talk page}} my own and my mother because I notice it on Google search I want to use the name of the file and l also did not want some mistake to show in public. I didnot know that much about. Wikimedia and got attack. If I did not use my real last name l will not offence. If you can not unblock me can you use{{db-user}} to information in leave in both user talk or move it to in box that will not show the mistake to public. I very concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamanitkul (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is he trying to say that Thita Manitkul is his Mother? And probably he wants to delete or hide something in the article. Can Kudpung speak Thai language? 1.39.36.47 (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell: both his and his mother's account got blocked when he tried to fix "some mistake" on his userpage or elsewhere; which he interpreted as being "attacked". He is asking admins to delete both talk pages (his and his mother's) as he is very concerned about this "mistake" that he doesn't want to be seen by the public. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, their surnames are same. He created the page Thita Manitkul. His username ends with Pandamanitkul. Both are Manitkul. Thita Manitkul is 49 years old. The picture is old. I am sure, she has a son/daughter. His User talk:Pandamanitkul is about the same article. 1.39.38.5 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of advanced permissions – community comments

The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to modify removal of advanced permissions ArbCom procedure

To block this user

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 user name (User:WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING) is against Wikipedia policy. I kindly request admins to block that specified user name. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gopala Krishna A: Already blocked -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thank you. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gopala Krishna A: in the future, please report bad usernames at WP:UAA. Cheers, ansh666 19:44, 10 October 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.

Noticeboard backlogs

Hi all, just to let you know that RfPP and, to a lesser extent UAA, have a backlog dating back a few days. TIA. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure has a backlog going back to July 28. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Assistance Required

at Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions where the backlog dates back to July 4, 2016. Most of these are straightforward, non-contentious closures, and all administrators are invited to spend a few minutes to help reduce the backlog -FASTILY 01:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image in need of deletion

I just uploaded a lower resolution version of this non-free image. It would be helpful if the original version of the file was deleted. As far as I'm aware, that's Wikipedia policy. DarkKnight2149 21:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to report that to this board. A bot automatically identifies those that qualify and dozens qualify every day and get deleted after seven days (for some reason several hundred today but that's an aside)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: If, for some reason, no bot visits the page, you can add {{subst:orfurrev}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep those in mind. DarkKnight2149 23:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Very basic backlogs

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.

---

Lately, we've been running backlogs at very basic administrative processes that are high importance. Things like WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, and WP:AIV are not getting the rapid attention they used to. The latter two backlogs are particularly concerning because we can't expect our counter-vandalism editors to effectively combat vandals without swiftly protecting pages and blocking editors when large amounts of damage are being done. In the short-term, it would be helpful for admins to chip in a few spare minutes whenever they have a chance in those areas. In the long-term, we need more admins. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We need at least one successful RFA every month. And the oppose votes in RFAs that administrators must be content creators (Read FA, GA) is not helpful, if these backlogs must be cleared. Majority of the content creators will continue creating content after experimenting with their newly found administrative tool for one month. There are 300+ active editors who can be a good administrator, but they don't get nominated. Wikipedia needs content creators, but Wikipedia also needs Administrators to protect the content, not just add an userbox on their userpage "This user is an administrator" (who likes using their administrator tool, once in a year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.38.191 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good plan on how to get more admins? Tazerdadog (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We have well over 500 active admins. They just don't seem to be currently interested in clearing out the backlogs. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there are actually 330 administrators who have some interest. Still, we need more administrators. 1.39.38.105 (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It might feel like it, but only CSD is particularly backlogged: User:EsquivalienceBot/Backlog. I suspect CSD is mostly backlogged with non-controversial content that probably needs to be seen to but isn't particularly problematic. It may be that we don't have enough admins, and that all of these should be 0 (and there are other processes undocumented therein--Esquivalience needs a little bugging to see if he will add the others), but I am not so sure. I am sure that there are people who know that we don't need more admins, evidence or no.... --Izno (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The current RFA arrangement is crazy. Adminship is not a priesthood. We should instead be giving out adminships left right and centre to editors in good standing who have (a) a lengthy history of real, positive contributions, and (b) no, or a very low number, of blocks or warnings, relative to their account age, and (c) a history of civil interaction with other users. Adminship should not be a big deal; it can easily be revoked if they misuse the tools. Perhaps we should try this for 50-100 new admins, and see how it goes? -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This. 1000x This. I'd love to give each crat the ability to just promote 5 admins after the minimum community review to make WMF happy. Failing that, I'd love to see experienced admins mentor an experienced editor through early adminship. I'm at the point where I think it could be a net positive for the project if we admined everyone with 15K edits and a clean block log, and then took the bit away from anyone who misused it. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Anome, Tazerdadog; you may already be aware. In the event you're not:Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Automatically_grant_adminship_to_users_with_a_certain_number_of_edits_or_time_editing Tiderolls 17:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware, the above was mostly just wishful thinking. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should try this for 50-100 new admins, and see how it goes?" - Agree. But we all know how it'll pan out on here. There will be a lengthy RfC, with a ton of users being too pig-headed to see the net benefits and shooting it down before it gets going. Everyone will waste their time with that and nothing will change. There's a ton of user who do admin-esque tasks without the full rights, but will never pass an RfA. Give them a go at it. How hard can it be? Sure, there might be one or two who hang themselves, but it can't be any worse than it is now. They'll still all be accountable and subject to desyoping if they go mad with power. But I'm preaching to the converted here. We all know this thread won't a) kickstart this or b) have any impact in reforming the process. Now to go back to finding some pesky redlinks and unredlinking them. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What Wikipedia really needs a substantial influx of new active editors, probably representing some new and largely untapped demographics. Short of radically unbundling admin tools, that is the only way to significantly increase the number of active admins. Nsk92 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you first assume that this 'untapped demographic' would be insane enough to attempt RfA. I wouldn't count on it, to be honest. -FASTILY 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have no interest in being put through the ringer again and getting dinged for "lack of content creation." There are gnomes in the world. I prefer my inputs to be minor but worthwhile (maybe even significant). Primefac (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think that if there were to be a big influx of new regular editors, a definite fraction of them would later try for an RfA, insane or not. It is a natural process and a feature of how large groups work. As for the RfA itself, I feel that the main problems in RfA are caused by bigger issues affecting Wikipedia as a project. The main problem is that over the last 15 years Wikipedia has become logistically very complex, with a highly developed and still developing system of technical rules and tools for dealing with various aspects of the project. The admiship is still configured as an `all or nothing' package, as in the early days of Wikipedia. Only now that the project has become incredibly more complicated, the substantive knowledge of the various aspects of the project needed for demonstrating basic competency has become much harder to attain. That's the main reason why the de facto standards for passing RfA had been creeping higher and higher, at least until recently. At the same time the number of regular users increased only modestly (after the initial explosive growth), and in the last few years the growth has been not far above flat. We can't credibly solve this problem by tinkering with the process and trying to artificially lower the bar for passing RfA. That will just create a lot of resentment from people who feel that they cannot trust the candidates who are being forced through the system, and ultimately there will be an ugly revolt of some kind. The only credible solutions are to either dramatically increase the supply of experienced editors under the current system (while I agree that this is not very likely), or to radically reconfigure adminship itself. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nsk2, every editor can't know all the technical details of Wikipedia. So, any RFA candidate with more than 69% support votes should be made administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.36.202 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not strictly an admin shortage that causes the backlogs at CSD. It is often filled with articles that aren't valid speedy deletion candidates, so they languish for days until an admin comes along that doesn't mind stretching the definition of A7 or G11 to get rid of them. More admins won't change that. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most admins have no problem just declining a speedy that clearly does not meet any criteria. I've been doing CSDs the last few days and I don't see any unusual backlogs anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 12 October 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.

CSD looks pretty normal. Other non admins can also decline speedy deletes that are not applicable, or fix up easy to rectify problems, such as lack of fair use rationales. So it is not just deficiency of admins. Instead it means that people want to different things, such as write articles! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Stupid mistake. Can an admin rectify this?

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.

---

When trying to report TransformersBatman (talk · contribs) for vandalizing the page Kevin Durant, I made a stupid mistake and pasted the wrong name. Hence Kevin Durant (talk · contribs) got blocked undeservedly, while the vandal is still unblocked. Can a friendly admin please rectify the situation and block the correct vandal? Thanks and apologies. Kleuske (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Durant has been blocked since 2007 so it's nothing to do with your report. I'll check out the other user now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Phew... Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

And TransformersBatman (talk · contribs) just blocked by User:Widr — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I posted TransformersBatman to AIV for you, I saw what you were trying and was going to reach out to you about it. The KD accounts like MSGJ said has been indeffed for over 9 years now for impersonation of a public figure, as well as vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 11 October 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.

Move request for Mac OS

Closed by Cúchullain. Samvscat did not need an AN post here, WP:RMCD is well-monitored — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

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

---

Can someone who was not involved in the discussion please close out the discussion Talk:Mac OS#Requested move 1 October 2016 and perform any subsequent actions? Thank you! —Samvscat (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, I would feel better if there was more participation. Seems kind of thin for a move that big. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Intervention, and possible block, for VarunFEB2003

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 have been assuming good faith for a good long while now, but events of the last 36 hours have made me think that VarunFEB2003 might need at best a mentor/handler, and at worst a temporary block from editing Wikipedia.

Varun, like most editors I presume, started off with good intentions, but has been told off for one thing or another seemingly every day/week since the beginning of August. I started to list the worst of the admonishing but honestly it's probably just faster to look through their archives. However, in brief:

• AFC reviews - insufficient experienced, asked twice to leave the project (both requests accepted)
• GOCE - asked to leave the project (accepted)
• Deletion stuff (CSD, PROD, AFD) - questioned several times about their actions
• BITING: at least four discussions about their tone and/or actions.

It seems like every time something comes up, they say "ok I'll fix it" and then they move on to something else. There are a few editors I have seen multiple times commenting on their actions, and I'm sure they're just as tired as I am to be cleaning up after Varun all the time. However, I'm drawing a line in the sand after what's happened on their talk in the last 36 hours, namely performing tasks they have repeatedly said they would stop doing, and uploading copyright material and then blatantly lying about it.

It's becoming clear to me that Varun is very excited about Wikipedia but very incapable of dealing with it, either due to an ESL issue, CIR issues, or a combination of both. I don't know what needs to be done, but something has to be done about it. My first thought was to get them a mentor, someone to watch over what they do any provide assistance, but it's becoming clear (based on the multiple people who are watching their contributions and commenting on their talk) that anything said to them goes in one ear and right out the other. A 3-month block from editing Wikipedia may help them step back and evaluate what it really is they want to be doing here. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I warned him about this roughly 2.5 weeks ago. Looks like he didn't heed the warning, or follow my suggestion and continued to dive in things he's inexperienced in.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 00:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  Two weeks ago, one week ago, a month ago... it's just a carousel of suggestions and no clear improvement. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• The copyright thing is very odd. A topic ban from image uploading and/or deletion could help here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I hate to be so blunt, but this a WP:CIR issue plain and simple. The talk page and their conversations on their talk page paint a fairly vivid picture. Why they have a CIR issue, I don't know nor do I wish to guess and it doesn't matter since the disruption is the same regardless. They have moved into meta and have insisted on staying in meta in spite of promises to do otherwise. Many of their edits are to their own user page, which have also caused problems. They have displayed a distinct lack of clue, moving, AFC, AFD, admin boards, everywhere and it isn't recent, it is for as long as they have edited. Go check their talk page archives for evidence. I'm proposing an indefinite block for disruption due to WP:CIR issues, which may be appealed to the community in one year, and every 6 months after that if needed.

• Support as proposer. It isn't personal, but it is necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has had to intervene on behalf of other editors when VarunFEB2003 failed to have the basic competence required to either read or understand clear instructions – in this case, how to copy edit. I tried to be nice and give helpful advice, as have many, many editors. VarunFEB2003 has repeatedly failed to follow that advice and has caused problems in many areas of the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm also one of the many editors who has been, through necessity, 'keeping half an eye' on Varun, and intervening when he goes too far. I hate situations like this, because I have little doubt that Varun wants to be a positive contributor. The problem is, it's almost as though he has read some imaginary "How to become an admin in 6 months with minimum effort" guide. He attempts to mimic the actions of those he sees as "successful", but due to inexperience and language issues he misses the nuances of complex tasks and ends up making a mess which others need to clean up, and adversely impacting both the experienced editors who clean up and inexperienced ones who may be "bitten" or take his incorrect actions/advice as coming from the 'authority' position he adopts. Because he lacks the skills himself he copies others - his user page text lifted from another page, inappropriately imo since the text describes experience which cannot be the same - he copies and pastes scripts written by others, sticks a tag on them saying he is the author, then tries to promote them as his own work. These things are not, in themselves, direct breaches of policy, but they are not the "done" thing, and demonstrate over eagerness combined with lack of ability. The worst disruption is the repeated incompetence in 'meta' areas, and the inability to restrain himself from this after promising to do so. More than anything the problem is the sheer time involved in "nannying" Varun - he has, in effect, half a dozen "mentors", all of whom he pays lip-service to, but ultimately ignores.

  Varun is, I think, young, and 12 months is an eternity when you are young. I think a shorter appeal period would be in order, provided Varun could put together a plan for how he would address these issues when unblocked, with a very short leash in that case because of the inability he has shown to stick to promises regarding changing his approach. I'd hate for us to lose someone with potential for ever, but I think taking no action now would make that more likely, not less, as he is only likely to alienate more and more editors if unchecked. -- Begoon 03:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Partial support I agree with Begoon's comment that 12mo is probably a bit long (especially for a first block); I was thinking somewhere in the 3-6mo range, but I suppose it all depends on how Varun responds to this discussion. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I agree with the block being indefinite, since all that means is that it will not expire with the issues unaddressed. I think a shorter time period for appeal would be preferable, with unblock on a short leash once Varun can agree a plan for a trouble free restart. -- Begoon 03:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. My above comment is still valid (lack of a preposition... whoops), but I'll amend/clarify here that it's the appeal that is probably too long as proposed. Primefac (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Primefac, Cyberpower678, ThePlatypusofDoom, Dennis Brown, Jonesey95, and Begoon: Hello to all, this is the thing I had feared for a long time. I agree that my history has been disruptive and caused a lot of work for the other community members. I have this proposal - I wish to contribute to the encyclopedia and give to the community whatever I can. I propose that I be blocked for a period of 1 week after which I will start again from a clean slate (with this account only) and not contribute in the following areas till the time the community feels my disruptivity has dies -

1. My userspace
2. NPP, AfC, AfD, GOCE and all other maintenance tasks
3. Uploading images that can be controversial (includes all images that I have not created myself from scratch)
4. Administrative Areas, other areas where my edits are not required and/or are not useful (includes "meta" areas)

My block will teach me to take thing (which I currently didn't more seriously). I will not cause any any disruption to the encyclopedia, and I pledge this in front of the whole Administrators Board. Please I really want to contribute and for my own and community's good I request this self requested block to implemented from today (for a period of a week) and this case be closed as soon as possible. Thank you all. VarunFEB2003 04:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with us here. I would prefer to see VarunFEB2003 state the specific areas in which he will edit, with everything else off-limits, sort of the opposite of a topic ban. That way there is less gray area. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Varun, why do you say "(with this account only)"? Have you been using other accounts? -- Begoon 04:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No Begoon it was a reply to this line of yours - plan for a trouble free restart which I understood as a clean new restart (with a new account).

I shall continue to work on translation, encyclopedic content and as a feedbacker (hope that's a word) for the new things coming up (described at Village Pump Technical) VarunFEB2003 04:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon and Jonesey95: Forgot to ping. VarunFEB2003 04:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, then you misunderstood me - I simply meant recommencing editing after an agreed unblock. There was no "clean slate", or fresh account under discussion, merely the way an agreement to unblock you might work. (there's no need to ping me to a discussion I am active in) -- Begoon 05:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay sorry for misunderstanding you. VarunFEB2003 05:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Help Desk#DYK. Given the disruption and the drain on user resources, support an immediate indef block, with an option to appeal anytime. Administrators have always been reluctant to impose CIR blocks in cases like these. What I’d like to see is an unequivocal close showing community support for an administrator to impose escalated blocks the next time there is even a whiff of disruption from this user. - NQ (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC) struck, on second thought. 07:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I appeal for a last warning please. VarunFEB2003 06:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support block: A real shame to do this, but I agree with NQ - a block should be applied now but with the option to be immediately appealed. Varun can propose their self-defined restrictions in an ublock request. A lot of good faith has been expended here, and although I believe Varun has always acted with the project's interests at heart we've asked them many times to put the brakes on to no avail. I think its time to put the brakes on for them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• I confirm my support for an indefinite block at this time. I would like to see the option available for Varun to appeal after the week he has suggested, with unblock strictly conditional on Varun convincing an admin he has a plan to resume editing without disruption. As mentioned, the leash should be short after any unblock, and the block reimposed at the first sign of further disruption. -- Begoon 07:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. (On mobile, let me expand later.) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ffs, Fram has somewhat taken the wind out of my sails ;) but yeah, the DYK thing was taking the piss. What was he actually trying to achieve? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked him. Normally I would let the discussion run its course, but the ongoing disruption during this (the DYK), after he agreed already to a one-week block and staying away from problem areas, show that the problems don't even top while a discussion about an indef block and restrictions is ongoing. Obviously the discussion here can continue and whatever the result of it may be implemented without further consulting me. Fram (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• On a phone so not going to comment in detail, but noting that Varun has already had a final warning from me that he would be blocked in the case of his giving any further incorrect advice or of any more attempts to invent policies on the hoof. If he's still at it then endorse an indefinite block until he gives an explicit undertaking to follow Wikipedia rules on the understanding that the next block will be permanent. – iridescent 2 08:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• It's sad when an enthusiastic young editor has to be prevented from editing like this, but the disruption cannot continue and I support the indefinite block. I'd suggest turning it into a ban with an appeal allowed after 3-6 months. We do appear to have someone young here and a 1-year wait would seem like an eternity. But at the same time, Varun's suggested 1-week is nowhere near long enough - there have been plenty of one weeks of warnings and explanations so far that have taught nothing. I've seen young editors like this numerous times who will just say whatever they think will get them out of immediate trouble - the blatant lying over copyright issues is one example, and the "I'll behave after a week" is surely another. If we want to get a good editor out of this, we need a ban that is long enough to genuinely get them to change their behaviour, but not too long to chase them away altogether - and we shouldn't pussy-foot around with 1-week experiments which would only increase the likelihood that we'll end up dispensing with Varun's services altogether. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC). I just want to add that I'm reminded of another young editor from a few years ago (who I won't name) who was given far too many "one more time" chances and ended up being indef blocked and never came back - I can't help thinking that quicker and firmer action in that case might well have resulted in a better outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #2

As per my comments above, turn the indef block into an indef community ban which can be appealed after 3 months.

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support More nuanced approach; along the lines with what I was considering above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is clearly the better idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support - it's a shame that Varun's behaviour has come to the point where an indef block was in fact, in order, and I'm disappointed that he did not listen to the community's advice prior to his block - even when he was suggesting remedies himself. I believe Boing!'s comments are spot on, and a community ban would be better. It's clear that Varun is young (username suggests he was born in 2003?), and I won't make any comments on that, considering I am only a bit older myself - but maybe three months to reflect on his behaviour is what he needs - maybe he will have matured and be in with a chance of coming back. Patient Zero^talk 11:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Boing and Patient Zero (though I'm not close in age...) Hobit (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support I like the fact he's eager to help and work on the project, but this is a community project, and he needs to listen when there are concerns. 3 months is I hope sufficient enough from Varun to get a better idea of how to work better collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support: It's pretty sad to see this happening to someone who's just trying to help. But the thing is that Varun is young and have a time understanding how collaboration works. I think community ban is a better option. Ayub407^talk 12:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Regrettable, given that there is clearly a lot of enthusiasm here to help out. Unfortunately you cannot build an encyclopædia out of good intentions; it needs quality contributions from people who take the time to understand what they are doing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC).
• Support as per above - It's great he wants to help in every way possible however unfortunately in the 3 months of being here he didn't heed any of the warnings nor the advice, Best course of action IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm a little uncomfortable with this. Everything I said above about the seriousness of his actions, and the need for intervention stands, but... Sure, we've allowed Varun's disruption to escalate, and we should have acted sooner. What we've done is allowed him to sink into a mindset where he thinks, ok, I can do these things, and some people will shout at me, but nothing serious will happen. Who knows what a day, or week block earlier would have achieved? Instead, we now say: hey, that's enough - here's your first real punishment - you're community banned, and can't even appeal for three months. I know how a teenage me would have felt about that. Seems I'm in a minority, though.
  I'm not advocating that we should "go easy" - I firmly believe that we need to make sure that Varun is not unblocked until he has properly re-evaluated his participation, and thoroughly convinced us that he has a plan to return to editing without any disruption. I further believe it needs to be crystal clear that any new disruption after an unblock will result in the block being instantly reinstated, with escalated restrictions on appeals. I just am not convinced, in these circumstances, that we should be saying, on this first occasion where serious action is taken, that none of that can happen for three months. -- Begoon 16:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support - On first glance the length of the ban gives me pause, however the outright attempts at deception regarding copyrights speak volumes, to me. I don't think it's so much a CIR issue as it is either a maturity (in the interests of assuming good faith) issue or a maliciousness issue. If the former, hopefully three months will lead to some personal growth, and if the latter it will either change his ways or dissuade him from using Wikipedia as a source of entertainment. PGWG (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sadly, I think it's time to do this. Iridescent and I had a conversation about him several weeks ago and nothing has improved since then. An appeal after three months gives adequate opportunity for reflection. I hope he matures some in that time, because he's definitely enthusiastic. He just needs to channel that enthusiasm into a productive editing pattern. Katie^talk 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and Patient Zero - This user has a lot of enthusiasm to help contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Varun had a pattern of disruptive behavior and unwillingness to work with others for the last three months that he has been here. Hopefully by the next three months, he will have a better understanding of how to collaborate with others. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm with Begoon on this, and support in principle the sentiment Boing is shooting for. Varun's enthusiasm is commendable, if partly to blame for his problems. As mentioned above, I think the 2003 in his username is indicative. All this said, his major problems are excessive speed over too wide of an area, and not learning from the dozens of messages. I don't think any of it was intentional or vindictive, but rather concomitant with youth. I would prefer not to call this a ban, just for the implications it gives to one unfamiliar with the nuances we have here. I would support (and will suggest) unblock when appropriate subject to 2 conditions: Mainspace edits only, and zero use of the {{ }} characters, either manually or via Twinkle (exception given to adding references only). I think most issues would be curbed by not using those innocuous braces, and a mainspace restriction will let him contribute and learn how things are done here. Crow^Caw 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording of this on technical grounds. Per WP:BMB, banning is the most extreme measure, and is used after extensive, protracted, and intractable problems. There's no point in so-called "banning" someone if they can appeal in 3 months. Even WP:STANDARDOFFER is six months out. So I'm definitely not seeing the point or the logic here, unless we remove the "which can be appealed after 3 months" wording and make it WP:BMB with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Otherwise, an indef block suffices and covers everything. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• If this was a block and not a ban, I could support, but I don't see the need to ban him when there isn't any evidence an indef block is insufficient. Then it would be just a matter of when he can appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur. As a point of note, "indef block" is Proposal #1. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, plus the "appealable in three months" is illogical with a ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hello all! So I have been blocked - I am not too surprised. I preempted this. I would like to appeal this block to be change into an indefinite ban. I am ready to the conditions Crow said in there - only only mainspace contributions (without disruption). I do not want to leave this place and I am therefore appealing this block be changed to a ban. Any administrator can block me again if I cause even one disruption after me being unblocked. Give me as long as a ban appeal time I'll agree but please don't indefinitely block me. Please..... With still some hope left in my heart that someone will help me I write this message hope this isn't a false hope. Thank you so much. VarunFEB2003 06:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC) <comment copied from user's talk>- NQ (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Could an uninvolved admin close the thread? No one has commented in three days, Varun is pinging everyone left and right about this, and we need to bring an end to the discussion. Katie^talk 14:43, 10 October 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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

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

1. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
2. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

3. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
4. George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:

   1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
   2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
   3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.

   He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

5. The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

Help needed with post-CFD cleanup

We have recently closed a CFD discussion with over 2000 categories, which was closed as rename. Please help out checking that all relevant incloming links to these categories (pages categorized in the categories, related page links, drafts which are intended to be placed in the categories) have been forwarded to the new titles, and then delete them and remove them from the list (non-admins can move them to the bottom section). A full list of these categories can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Templates removed or updated – deletion completed but backlinks yet to be resolved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to adminstrators

A prolific sock puppeteer is currently using my signature to leave false warning templates on the Talk Pages of various users ([35]). I suspect that the same user may have been behind this impersonation account. If you receive any reports from someone appearing to be me, I would suggest making sure it actually is before taking it seriously. DarkKnight2149 15:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected User talk:DangerousJXD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Wilfully violating WP:SIGFORGE is, to me, a blockable offence. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: A little while ago, there was an ANI case where the user was thoroughly reported with all of the diffs of their disruptive editing. However, no rangeblocks took place because the admin understandably believed that they could potentially do more harm than good by blocking too many Good Faith users. Right now, we're just reverting the user whenever they show up to vandalise an article or Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Update

This is Darkknight2149. The user is still using my signature to leave false vandalism warnings on other users' pages. As such, I have changed my signature. If you see the above signature during 20 October 2016 or after, then there's a 99% chance it isn't me. As such, I won't be revealing my new signature here (in case the vandal sees it), but will be using it for discussions for now on. As such, it would be wise to check any reports that appear to be from me, and make sure it actually is from me. Thank you.

Oiuettui

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.

---

Could an Admin please block and delete the articles by Oiuettui (talk · contribs) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I posted an alert at WP:AIV about it a bit ago: [36]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Widr blocked the user about an hour ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:03, 13 October 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.

Recent massive deletion of content under the claim that it was unparaphrased copy of copyrighted text

Note: Please move this discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if these categories are more pertinent.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A few hours ago Diannaa deleted large parts of the additions that I made between 28 and 29 september to the article religion in China, on which I have been working for months, arguing that they were unparaphrased copy of copyrighted text from the source author (Didier). All of this without discussing and without leaving me the time to enhance the text as I replied to her that I would have done. Indeed, I think that the indicted text was paraphrased enough to stay.

I ask administrators to restore the content and verify that it is not a copycat of the sourced text.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A mere rewording frequently is not enough to make copied text "not a copyright infringement", see WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the policy I read that "limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text...". In my text, all the indicted parts, closely paraphrased and not excessively long, were appropriately attributed to Didier (2009), in total accordance with the policy.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I had the intention to continue to work on the history sections of the article today, obviously paraphrasing the content of sources as I have always done in these years of contribution to Wikipedia, but after Diannaa's deletions the text's meaning is disrupted and it would require a lot further work to recover.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You are more than free to rework the content in a text editor until it is no longer a copyright violation. No admin is going to give you blessing to keep a copyvio on an article simply because it's a work in progress. But this really is no big deal and you should see that. Work on it offline, and once the content is acceptable, return it to the page. Diannaa's revert doesn't prevent you from doing that. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I opened this discussion precisely because I don't think the additions were copyvio, as I have said above. Anyway, I do not have the text of the article as it was as of 29 September 2016‎, h 23:54.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do have the text of the article as it was, and just by dropping bits of your additions into Google (try "immanent in the universe, that responded positively to humaneness and rightness") can see that this was a cut-and-paste. Diannaa is correct here. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the parts that are close paraphrases (technically, I did not "cut-and-paste") of the original text are properly attributed as per WP:CLOP. If that part is not introduced by "Didier (2009) says" or something like that, it is because I missed it.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You may not, at any point, have copyright violations on any page on Wikipedia. Diannaa is correct here, and it needs to stay deleted. As you were told above, you're welcome to work on it in an offline text editor if you want to start out with the copyrighted material and paraphrase from there, but you may not do it on Wikipedia. However, the paraphrasing can't just be tweaking a few words. The text must either be a properly attributed, short direct quote, or else be written and paraphrased entirely in your own words. Sorry, but this really isn't negotiable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Then send at my email address the text of the entire article as it was at 23:54, 29 September 2016. All of this is quite ironic, as other users have often complained that I reword too much the text of the sources.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like part of the misunderstanding might come from Aethelwolf's quote from WP:CLOP: "with or without quotation marks". As written, it could easily be misunderstood as "quotation marks are optional". Though I may be overlooking something, I went ahead and removed those words from the lead of that essay and opened a discussion on the talk page. That doesn't excuse copyright violations and isn't an argument to restore material, but I can appreciate someone being frustrated by having content removed after reading that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Could you send to my email address the text of the article as it was at 23:54, 29 September 2016? I need it to recover the parts of the history section that have been lost in the deletion and to rewrite them. The history section at the current state is studded with time holes and still lacks later centuries' history that I would have written in the last two days if my work had not been stopped.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aelthelwolf Emsworth: I cannot, but as nobody has commented in the last couple days I will relay that ping to the admins in this thread: @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Diannaa, Seraphimblade, and Iridescent: (sorry for the notification for those of you still watching the thread). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Email has now been sent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is WP:CLOP is only an essay, and is probably wildly over conservative. We could really do with something more robust and nearer reality. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

I believe I am the editor referred to above by @Aelthelwolf Emsworth: -- should I have been pinged? If I was the one referred to, my objection, which I explained did not deserve to be called "ironic," was not to rewording but to introducing interpretive terminology not in the source in order to synthesize a view that is not consensus in the field (though it surely should be solidly represented).

In any case, in regard to another possible copyright vio pointed out by @Moxy: there is a linked reference to your iscussion here at Talk:Religion_in_China#Copyvio.27s that may or may not be accurate.ch (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Strange comment

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.

---

Mickey109 (talk · contribs) just posted this on my talk-page [37], I don't speak Spanish though so I have no idea what it means. In any case would this be a case of WP:COMPETENCE given the language barrier? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Roughly translated it reads "Template vandalism: Knowledgekid87 this user is committing vandalism at a figure published State. Please submit to surveillance." Might be related to edits they have had reverted at Rocky de la Fuente? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It means "This is user is committing vandalism to a public figure of the state. Please impose supervision". I have given the user {{uw-npa2}} and {{contrib-es1}}. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ever edited that page so it is strange to me. @JohnCD: It could be related to Sammythesquirrel123 (talk · contribs) though whom is under suspicion of having a COI with la Fuente. (Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Add Roque Rocky de la Fuente), this is the only possible connection I can think of. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Could be, or maybe just a sympathiser. Not enough evidence to do anything unless there is more trouble. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah true, alright you issued warnings so I don't see the need to press on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 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.

Self-promotion by User:Calibrador

This complaint is about User:Calibrador, formerly User:GageSkidmore, for blatant conflict of interest and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Specifically, he inserts photos he has taken into multiple articles (I would guess hundreds), and the file titles always include his name, as in [[File:John Doe by Gage Skidmore]]. This is a clearly promotional practice since he is a professional photographer. To be clear, he does not make any money from these photos since they are from Commons, but he "gets his name out there," a form of advertising, every time Wikipedia uses one. He has been doing this for years - the Commons category "Photographs by Gage Skidmore" has 11,000 entries [38] - but he has recently become particularly insistent on inserting them into Wikipedia articles.

I first encountered him a few weeks ago, over the question of putting new images into the infobox at the articles Donald Trump and United States presidential election, 2016. On September 1 he offered some new pictures (taken by him, and with his name in the filename) of Trump. Discussion at Talk:Donald Trump was very extensive. It went on for days, and Calibrador became more and more insistent and argumentative. Twice [39] [40] he introduced his own picture into the article, claiming "most people" preferred it, even though the discussion was still ongoing; he was promptly reverted. Meanwhile, he added his pictures of Trump and Mike Pence ("by Gage Skidmore") to other articles. He has also been adding photos of other, lower-profile people to their articles at a great rate; in the first 10 days of September I counted a dozen such.

Some people will say: they are good photos, they are free, what's the problem? That's a valid comment. To me the problem is that he is using Wikipedia to promote himself, and his insistent promotion of his own photos is becoming disruptive. At the Donald Trump talk page, as of September 11 he had made 47 edits since September 2, virtually all of them about the pictures. He repeatedly praises his own photo without mentioning that he is the photographer (most editors would not realize that), and he badgers opposing !voters. Some of his comments at that page:

• Arguing in favor of his own picture (photo C): [41] [42] [43]
• Declaring that his photo C has consensus: [44] [45]
• Arguing with people who prefer a different picture: [46] [47] [48]
• Arguing that some people's !votes (for another picture) should not count: [49] [50] [51]

The same pattern can be seen at the Mike Pence talk page: he proposed a change of photo on the talk page, urging one of his own (photo A, with his name attached). During the ensuing discussion he repeatedly argued with people who favored a different one: [52] [53] [54] [55]

For another example see Anne Holton, where he inserted one of his own pictures to replace an old blurry one, then kept re-inserting it when other people preferred another photo that was also taken by him -- possibly because the one he wanted to use has "by Gage Skidmore" in the filename and the one other people preferred (which is clearly a better picture) does not.

On September 10 I warned him about his apparent conflict of interest.[56] He promptly erased my comment from his talk page (along with a year's worth of previous warnings about non-free content, edit warring, etc., although he kept all of the positive or complimentary messages).

When I looked to see if this was discussed before, I found the same issue came up at ANI in June 2015: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#User: Stemoc. He himself filed a complaint against another user, first changing his username from GageSkidmore to Calibrador - a change that several people thought was bad faith. The discussion quickly turned into a possible boomerang against him for promoting his own photos, with his name in the filename, as a form of self-promotion or advertising. Several proposals were made. The most popular proposal, suggested by User:Nick, was that he should be "either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself, unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images and consensus is in favour of the change; or else there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes." Several people agreed with that proposal; a few proposed an indef block; a few said he should be left alone because his pictures are so good. The thread was never closed and no action was taken.

It appears that the same issues are still at work, except that now he is more insistent, IMO approaching disruption when discussion or controversy ensues. I am not proposing any particular course of action, but I think something should be done to limit or stop this promotional use of Wikipedia by an admittedly COI editor. I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to be thorough. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

P. S. See also this May 2015 discussion at the 3RR noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• His behavior on Anne Holton is not good. He replaces a photo on Sept 7 with a better one (okay) but edit wars all throughout yesterday, claiming consensus is needed to change from his preferred photo without responding on the talk page. WP:GAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Any reason we cant just rename all the files? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The other user involved is stalking my contributions and changed the photo simply to undermine (prior to my edit, they had never contributed to the article). I preferred the other photo for technical reasons, especially sharpness, not because of the title. And the titles of images is a Commons issue not a Wikipedia issue, an issue that is not against any rule at Commons and was used by other photographers such as David Shankbone for years. Calibrador (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was also proposed at the previous ANI. It would have the advantage of retaining his photos (which really are good) while eliminating the advertising aspect. We would still also need to deal with his excessive promotion of them, but a warning might suffice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Have not warnings already failed to suffice? I haven't time to review all the evidence now but if I believe what you write I'm thinking a topic ban from adding or discussing the use of his images is the way to go. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There was in fact a warning issued at the 3RR discussion, by User:EdJohnston: " User:GageSkidmore is warned that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block." He probably did violate it at the Anne Holton article, and possibly others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) 1. Rename all photos. 2. Allow him unlimited contributions to Commons, like anybody else. 3. TBAN from advocating any of his own photos. This would remove his existing vote at Talk:Donald Trump, which has so far been allowed after discussion, unless we grandfathered that case. 4. Handle any disruptive editing like any other disruptive editing.
If any of his photos is in fact superior to the alternatives, other editors will find it and routine consensus-building will choose it. They won't need selling. In the end, his past behavior in this area appears self-defeating; some editors who are aware of it may tend to find reasons to oppose his photos simply because they don't like his history of fuzzy-ethics tactics. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well he is right, if the photos are sourced from commons, naming of photos at commons is a commons issue. So realistically the only recourse here would be to remove them all from the articles they are used in. But doing that merely because they are named after the author is hardly benefiting the encyclopedia. Likewise unless there is actually a quality issue (are his pictures being replaced with higher quality ones?) using a lower quality picture just to avoid using one with his name in it is also not benefiting the encyclopedia. Limiting him to 0 reverts where he adds a photo should probably solve the issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If my edit is reverted legitimately by a user not stalking my contributions, violating WP:Hounding (users like Winkelvi who follows me around from article to article), I don't have any issue with someone reverting my photo. The only time I can think of where I may have reverted was when I thought there was enough consensus, and even then it was not more than once or twice that I reverted within a span of a few days. And I was unaware of any rule of advocating for your own photo. Winkelvi has twice, or probably more, chosen to upload their own photos (not taken by them, but uploaded by them) in an attempt to replace an uncontroversial edit by me. Calibrador (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My warning to User:GageSkidmore/User:Calibrador from May 2015 has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. Technically, he has now engaged in the behavior I warned him against, ("warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others") since he reverted three times at Anne Holton on September 11 to restore his own photo to the article. Unless he makes a suitable assurance about this future behavior, I think a block is called for under my previous warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing my first comment. This is indeed a pattern of edit warring by User:Calibrador, but it's not a simple question of preferring his own picture over ones taken by others. At Anne Holton he was reverting to provide a different picture from his collection, which also had the effect of providing a caption that contains his own name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of the photos involved were my own. And the user reverting has been WP:Hounding my edits across many articles. Calibrador (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others" is irrelevant when he's putting in his own picture in place of his own picture. This doesn't rule out sanctions for "Warring..." or for general disruption, if they're appropriate, but check the page history before assuming that he's promoting his own picture over someone else's work. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, Melanie's point was that the photo he preferred had his name in the file name and the other didn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was the only reason I could think of why he would prefer this picture File:Anne Holton by Gage Skidmore.jpg over this one File:Anne Holton DNC Hdqtrs Phoenix AZ Sept 2016.jpg, which to an amateur eye is a much better picture of her. BTW the final reversion to the second picture was done by an uninvolved third party, purely on quality grounds. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. The editor who posted the second picture has explained their reasons for doing so on the talk page. Calibrador has not commented there, just reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If it were any other user, I would've gladly participated in a talk discussion, but I chose to use their own words from when they reverted an uncontroversial change I'd made to an article that they objected to nearly a week after I'd made the edit, as I saw it as a double standard, and no use in discussing with someone who simply intends to disrupt because I made the edit. Calibrador (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added photos I've taken uploaded by someone else without my name in the title in the past, and I had absolutely no issue in the case of the Holton photo. You'll notice that they reduced the image size to 200px on the Holton article, this was because it was out of focus, and something I do not necessarily worry about on Flickr where it is best to upload as many photos as possible, unless they are completely out of focus and thus unusable. My intention of reverting was because the photo I uploaded was sharp, and the user was intentionally following me around from article to article to undermine contributions, and adding their own uploaded versions. You can see a similar instance at the article Landon Liboiron, which Winkelvi had also never edited until I made an edit. They are tracking my edits to revert me, participate in discussion where I participate, and intentionally making edits in order to create conflict. Calibrador (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just going by the comment from Ed just above mine, "...in the behavior I warned him against...", which didn't say anything about filenames. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think any action taken should be solely based on behavior, not on the fact that the file name has his name in it. I don't see that as a problem, assuming everything else is above board. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion Calibrador- please don't repeatedly (twice now) make accusations of WP:HOUNDING from other editors without providing relevant diffs as evidence- otherwise they will be seen, in all likelihood, as simply slurs. Cool photos, btw. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment about filenames - I'd encourage limiting the discussion here to the behavioral issues specific to Wikipedia (edit warring, COI, etc.). The renaming of images hosted on Commons would certainly need to take place on Commons rather than here. Personally, I think filenames shouldn't be used for promotion/credit, but it does not fit into one of the reasons for renaming listed at Commons:File renaming and the practice has been [somewhat reluctantly] upheld several times. The name I've seen involved in those disputes most frequently is Shankbone, but there are also prominent examples like geograph.org.uk. Regardless, it doesn't seem useful to bother with filenames unless they're uploaded to Wikipedia and not Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Who cares? He's giving a ton of nice photos to Wikipedia for free. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  And that entitles him to engage in edit warring and disruption? BethNaught (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody objects to his uploading his photos to Commons for free. I'll assume "who cares" is sort of idiomatic or rhetorical, since it's clear enough who cares. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just FYI, since Winkelvi has been mentioned multiple times but not pinged, I've left a notification on his/her userpage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point to the edit history of the article Landon Liboiron again as an example of their tracking of my edits and undoing my contribution, whether it was right or not to replace the photo. It's evidence they are looking at my edit history to go to articles where I've contributed to either contribute their own uploaded photo, revert and demand I get consensus, or participating in talk discussions where I've also been an active participant and voicing an opposing opinion. Calibrador (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Just noticed this entry in their block log as well, which seems to be from a similar issue with another user about 4 months ago. Calibrador (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

      1 May 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) blocked Winkelvi (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (long-term feuding with MaverickLittle (and others))

• I've never agreed with the naming and have made it known I disapprove of them, I recall there being a discussion somewhere (may of been AN3) where we were basically told all of these names are a Commons issue ..... I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people .... so having a discussion about it over there would simply end up with me repeatedly smashing my face against a brick wall hence why I've not done anything about it, As I said I disagree whole heartedly with the promotional names however I know Commons won't do jack about it and I know we can't do anything here either .... So unless WMF gets involved (which would be extremely unlikely) there's nothing no one can do except allow it to continue. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't know how to say this without being offensive .... Ummm most people at at Commons aren't the brightest of people. ← redact this nonsense and remove this comment of mine when you do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• While it's only a proposed policy (and has been a proposed policy now for several years), Commons:Commons:File naming summarises well the Commons approach: in most cases, we don't object to filenames if they're descriptive and contain nothing that would be inappropriate in the description page, and these images definitely fit into the "most cases". Blatant advertising isn't permitted, but putting the uploader's username into the filename is nowhere close to blatant advertising. And finally, as Rhododendrites notes, see Commons:Commons:File renaming; removing Calibrador's name from these images wouldn't be in line with any of the permitted reasons for renaming, unless Calbirador asks for removal. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Worth noting that only editors see the name, unlike most spamming - unless the reader clicks thru to the file page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • False. Search engines index the name too, and that's why he does it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Your comment is a bit cryptic, Cryptic. Ok, so it's easy to find all of his photos on Commons using Google, if one sets out to do so. No one sees that unless they ask to see it by doing that search, and in doing so they will discover that Gage Skidmore has donated a lot of his work to Wikimedia Commons. Why is this a problem? And how does it make my comment false? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • If you had to search for "Gage Skidmore", no, that wouldn't be a problem. But if you do an image search for a person whose article has one of these photos in the lede, say, Bruce Willis, the image Wikipedia uses will in most cases be one of the first three hits, and it'll have his name plastered all over it. Also, it'll show up with screenreaders and as alt text. Image file names are absolutely part of our outward-facing interface. —Cryptic 03:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • • So he's found a way to attach his name to each of his photos. How is this different from the note at the end of the caption for the current lead photo at nytimes.com: "Aaron Wynia for The New York Times"? Or the author's name on the cover of a book, for that matter? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
            • We're not nytimes.com and we're not a book. We have redlinks at Richard Nixon by Wehwalt and Jersey Act by Eric Corbett and Ealdgyth and American white ibis by Casliber, and we have clear instructions at WP:CREDITS as to where authorship of an image should be placed. Every other user agrees "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution", right there under the editbox. —Cryptic 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
              • And we're not showing his name at Wikipedia, as I said. It appears via Google Images, as you said. Google Images is not Wikipedia. You cite WP:CREDITS, but it does not address this situation one way or the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• We are absolutely not beholden to Commons' naming policies. If we decide here that the names are inappropriate - and I sure as hell think so, and would have been reverting Calibrador right and left for months on articles popping up on my watchlist if he hadn't deceptively changed his username so I didn't think it was someone else replacing perfectly good images with his promotionally-titled photos - we can effectively delete the files locally by uploading a blank image over them and protecting it. —Cryptic 02:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Commons does not have a 'file naming' policy.... we have a proposed one, that will probably never be adopted as official. Instead, we commons:COM:RENAME, which is on the 'more relevant' subject of renaming files to better names. A major concern with filenames, and the reason why any proposal to bulk-rename the 2,339 files with "by Gage Skidmore" in the name is a dead letter, is filename stability... renaming should be as uncommon as possible, to avoid breaking external links. Like it or not, Commons does not 'exist' to serve merely as an image archive for Wikipedia... we have many external 'customers', and renaming files breaks hotlinking, and possibly even proper attribution. Breaking this is exactly why I removed Gage's right to rename files... as well as a prolonged refusal to discuss the matter.

The files can be renamed, per Commons guidelines, to 'better' filenames that more accurately describe the subject of the image, but we're not going to arbitrarily rename them just because people dislike the existing one. If you are going to start prohibiting the use of files merely because the filename includes that of the author, there are a lot of images of 'old masters' paintings I can point you at. We also have many (many, like hundreds of thousands) of images such as HABS photos that include attribution in the filename, and it's unquestionably appropriate. Revent^talk 04:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Calibrador is also editing under the username User:Gage, both on this wiki and at the Commons and seven other wikis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never contributed to Wikipedia with that username. The only time that there were contributions was when I renamed three files at Commons which made an edit on Wikipedia as part of the automatic file naming system, something that's not manual and thus unavoidable on my part. Calibrador (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good catch @Diannaa:, he basically used that account to "abuse" his "move" rights on commons (its automated, when you change the name of an image on commons, your accounts on other wikis will make the change on every wiki where the image is used on)..he abused his rights there to change the image name of Bryan Fuller and Kiefer Sutherland to carry his byline (name) in the image name and yet he will claim here that he did not abuse his rights ...lol..--Stemoc 10:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not true; User:Gage has not moved any files since July, and had his file mover right removed on August 4. User:Calibrador does not have the file mover right, as far as I can tell. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break

• If someone is looking for more insight into Winkelvi and Calibrador's interactions, I suggest you check out [57]. You can draw your own conclusions. Calidum ¤ 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't in the interaction report, but Winkelvi also took it upon himself to make a series of edits to the Gage Skidmore article in the midst of his dispute with Gage Skidmore [58]. Calidum ¤ 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like he took it upon himself to improve an article. I see nothing remotely improper there, but I tweaked it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Winkelvi does have a habit of following people around. I think this does change the full focus of this discussion. One question that should be addresses is if there's a difference between regular photo reverts and edits and those with Winkelvi. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just added the arbitrary break That interaction link is conclusive, and edits like this are particularly damning; I suppose I can imagine someone watching a bunch of Trump-related articles without previously editing them, but who watches wikiproject templates for talk pages? If you're long-term feuding with various people, and you're willing to be following people around to confronting them on pages you've never edited and not likely to have watched, you're being quite disruptive. Blocking for two months, since the previous one-month block didn't dissuade Winkelvi from treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is really quite sad, Nyttend, you should really try to follow the drama that comes with Calibrador/Gage Skidmore, he uses wikipedia to not only promote himself but he is also in the habit of crying foul when people point out to him that he is using wikipedia to self promote himself and then he would claim those users are "hounding" him and yet he has never really been blocked for a longer term. I'll put that down to the failure of the administration system on enwiki more than anything else..playing victim has always worked for many of our incorrigible trolls on this wiki and its quite sad that they are protected. This isn't the first time this has happened, Calibrador/Gage brought me to this same board last year for the same reason and then he brought another user a few months later, both of us were telling him not to use the wiki to promote himself and not only that, he would intentionally remove another previous image and replace it with one of his own and one with his own byline (xxx by Gage Skidmore). It has been mentioned above by User:MelanieN. I haven't reported him to WP:ANI because I know that the failure of the system means that nothing would be done and it will be just a waste of time but since you have gone ahead and blocked Winkelvi who was just trying to stop Gage/Calibrador from using wikipedia to self-promote himself for 60 days, I hope you give a similar punishment to Calibrador.....It's bad enough a person is punished for trying to stop a 'crime', but to let the perpetrator walk free is even worse. Either you be balanced with your judgement or remove the block on Winkelvi. Yes Harassment is apparently a big issue on enwiki but it usually does go both ways..You cannot just block one person for it..There is something else you should know. Calibrador has another account on commons, Gage. Last month, 2 of his rights were removed due to abuse. Those rights were move rights because he would blatantly change the name of images on commons with the one carrying his byline (name) and his Licence Reviewer right, a right given to trusted Commons users who review images from flickr to ensure that those images fulfill our inclusion criteria and he used that right to 'pass' his images or images that were added by him which are not allowed. Again, i urge you to really go through everything that has been said on this ANI before coming with a decision. I do not agree with the judgement you passed on Winkelvi but its even worse that you only did it to one of the perpetrators..Last year we agreed with @Nick:'s proposal in regards to this but like the many other threads about him that have come on this board, non have ever ended with a final solution, so maybe this time we should..We cannot play this cat and mouse game, we cannot keep allowing wrong people from being blocked because the admins refuse to do whats right and we should definitely not continue to waste time with this. We block users who use the project to self promote themselves (articles/namespace), so why do we have a different rule for images?...Can we end this madness this week? there are much more pressing issues that needs to be discussed instead...--Stemoc 03:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Few people need to look at Winkelvi's block log to know of his long, exasperating, exhausting history of behavior issues. He has to inflate everything into a virtual religious crusade, doing at least as much harm as good. He is very quick to anger, seemingly unable to shake his perpetual battleground mentality despite the years of complaints about it. If I had my way he'd be banned from policing other editor behavior because he simply lacks the temperament for it. To be clear, I'm not siding with GS over WV, they are both culpable. And I doubt Nyttend is either. For some reason that baffles me, these conflicts are always treated as binary, as if only one of the parties is at fault and our job is to decide who it is. But that is almost never the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really defending Winkelvi, I'm aware of his Battleground attitude, I just feel that atleast the blocks should be fair..How many times has WV been brought to this board? or ANI? the difference may be that there was never any solutions/sanctions passed in regards to Calibrador even if there were strong support for it..He has been brought here on or ANI more than 5 times already and the worst (and infact ONLY) block he ever got was a 3RR (which i also got then)..Infact, quite a few people mentioned in that last ANI that if we don't come up with a solution, it will happen again, and we are here now..Its obvious now that even if we tell Calibrador to stop adding images with his name as the byline, he will completely ignore that request, just look at his commons talk page, the last time he actually "replied" to anyone regarding his images was back in July 2013 ..we are way past that as a solution, its either a sufficient block (1 month or more) and a final warning or an indefinite ban, anything else would be just a slap in the face of our own policies...--Stemoc 05:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you laid down a large post including (1) "This is really quite sad, Nyttend", apparently referring to the block of WV, (2) "punished for trying to stop a 'crime'", and so on. How is that "not really defending Winkelvi"? Looks like defending to me. I think the block is fair, per Nyttend's rationale and WV's history, and I don't link that to Calibrador in any way. If you're under the impression that WV's block precludes a sanction against Calibrador, or that it ends this issue, you're mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Did it sound like i was defending Winkelvi or did it it sound like i was asking Nyttend to block Calibrador too? I agree that Winkelvi deserves a block because he took it a bit too far this time, but 60 days and yet at the same time, the problematic user walks away scott-free? I do not see a justice in that, do you? Its about being fair, always two sides of a coin, we know what WV did to get his block, now lets flip the coin around and see why Calibrador should get a similar one too..Please, blocking one editor to warn another is not really a sanction is it?..This thread is about Calibrador and yet somehow for possibly the 4th time (if not more), someone else gets blocked....I see a trend here and its not something that gives you hope of a proper outcome..Personally, for now, WV should be unblocked so he can come make his case here, it was a bit silly to block him before allowing him a chance to explain himself, I think we all would like to know what led to this discussion and blocking one of (if not "THE" main) parties involved beforehand is not really a solution--Stemoc 05:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Who's walking away scot-free? The Calibrador issue remains very open and that's crystal clear. His issue is more complex so it takes longer than half a day to resolve. You seem to be reading Nyttend's action and comment like a close of this discussion. It simply is not. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I completely agree. Winklevi didnt even get a chance to make one reply on this thread. Also, you were not defending Winkelvi, but this thread was started for the behavior of Calibrador not Winklevi. That is a whole other issue, We should be focusing on his edits and behavior, not that of others. Doing a wrong because someone else does a wrong, doesnt make your wrong right. Chase (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that admins can issue blocks without discussion, the discretion is theirs. Winkelvi is free to appeal the block, if he is unable to see that it's more gift than punishment and make effective use of his two months away from this madness. I say we leave that issue to him and the admin corps and drop this line of discussion. At least I've said all I'm going to about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That aside, I believe the block is just and right, unless something is not done about Calibrador as well then it would be severly unfair. Chase (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just would like to quickly note that Davey2010 and Stemoc have also tracked my contributions in the past, in one instance Davey2010 reverted me across a dozen or more articles where I'd contributed a photo including articles that did not have a photo (he then removed them) and was warned and reverted by another user, possibly an admin, but I don't recall specifically. I'm guessing that's how both of them found this discussion was from looking at my contributions to see what they could follow me around and oppose today. Calibrador (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're persistently following someone around without very good reason (long-term, not merely reverting a big group of edits all together), you need to be shown the door, at least for a period of time, if not indefinitely: this is a project for building an encyclopedia, not for tearing down other people, and editors focused on harassing others fundamentally aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Had I somehow discovered Winkelvi's actions independently, without any input from other people, I would have been strongly inclined to block without warning; the biggest thing that would hold me back was a question of "am I seeing this rightly, or have I misunderstood somehow", and the fact that others also came to the same conclusion first, plus the fact that he'd previously been blocked for battleground behavior, removed that doubt. Also, regarding the next subsection: I'm not going to issue any sanctions against Calibrador because (1) I've checked his recent editing at Commons and haven't seen any policy violations (the only instances of people rejecting Commons policies in this discussion are people who are urging violations of the file naming policies in opposition to him), so with my Commons admin hat on, I say that nothing's wrong; and (2) I've not checked his recent editing here, or carefully read through what his opponents have said here at this discussion about his editing here. It's not a blatant case such as childish vandalism or clear POV-pushing, so would be reckless for me to issue a block or support other sanctions without careful checking. I won't support any proposals and won't oppose any proposals. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse you won't take any actions on Calibrador, that is what i was telling Mandruss earlier because if you intended to take actions against him, you would not have blocked his only critic in Winkelvi without giving him a chance to explain himself. You decided to jump the gun instead because of your own personal assumptions of him, "Oh yeah, WV has a habit of Battleground behavior so yeah its his fault, I'll block him now"..May I ask, which account of Calibrador did you look under cause I'm pretty sure he does not use that account on commons and furthermore, @Nyttend:, as a commons admin, I'm sure have you been following the Commons: ANU board and may have noticed this last month and 2, its apparent you have not been following the recent drama on this wiki so I'm sorry to say but you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision since you are misinformed, maybe you should let another admin who is aware of the situation decide then? ..--Stemoc 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from COM:ANU because (unlike the other COM:AN pages) it tends to be populated with drama warriors. If you are familiar with Commons policy, you will see that the big issue there was renaming files that didn't meet the renaming criteria (thus disrupting other projects, and potentially off-wiki uses) and misusing the reviewer right. As far as the issue of blocking Winkelvi: other people alleged, with some links, that he had been engaging in long-term policy violations, and after doing my own investigation, I could see that they were right. Given WP:EQUAL, I don't care who you are: if I see that you're engaging in long-term stalking, doing your best to harass someone else over a long period of time, I'll block you for an extended period of time, regardless of who you are. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: you are probably not the right admin to make such a decision - As I said, WV can appeal. Appeals have to be processed by a different admin, precisely because of the potential for error. As I said, I would enjoy my involuntary wikibreak if I were in WV's place, but he is free to ask a different and uninvolved admin how he feels about it. I suggest you let that process work as it was designed, and cease your attack on an experienced and respected admin for doing a very tough, thankless, and pay-free job to the best of his ability. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse WV can appeal, that isn't really the issue here is it? and what do you mean to 'cease my attack'? All i see is an admin who did not do his homework trying to make a decision which affects many people and not just this project but possibly commonswiki as well, its not an attack, its an observation and again, i'd be happy to stand back and see some form of solution be found but as i said in my other posts, this user has been brought to WP:AN (and WPAN/I) either by himself or by other editors many times and has NEVER faced any consequences of his actions so pardon me if I refuse to wait another 14 months to come back here to discuss the same problems again and again and basically see the same outcome, which is basically 'no action'..remember the old saying "fool me once..."? ...yeah not falling for that again... --Stemoc 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I see things differently. No admin is required to answer to a single over-excited, emotionally-invested editor who shows little grasp of what it is to be an admin, and I think Nyttend has already given you more explanation than you deserved. Continue your ranting all you like, but not with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Can we get back to the main point here, please?

My goal in filing this report was not about blocking Winkelvi. That was a side issue, and I'm sorry it happened. (In the space of 20 minutes from beginning to end, with no time for discussion or evaluation - but what's done is done.) Now can we get back to considering what we are going to do about Calibrador/Skidmore's conflict of interest, promotionalism, and disruptive edits? --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's still ongoing in the parent section, if slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador's attitude towards other users has definitely caused a problem. Every warning that has been given to him has been ignored and something must be done because he continues to cause animosity with others. He continues to promote his pictures as being better, simply because they are his and WP:CANVAS people to agree with him and balance the consensus in his favor, and those who do not agree with him, he engages in WP:BLUD. My personal feeling is the Winkelvi should not have been banned so soon in this discussion, especially since we have not come to some sort of resolution to Calibrador's disruptants of Wikipedia, creating this discussion and several others from his behavior when all of our time could be spent improving Wikipedia. If WInkelvi is going to have a ban, then Calibrador, the one that started the whole issue in the first place should have the same punishment, if not more rash. Chase (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you for correcting me. Someone said "topic-ban" earlier and my dyslexia mixed up my jargen. Chase (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Responding to CCamp2013's accusations, disregarding the fact that they have opposing opinions in many of the discussions they're referring to, the only time I can think of that I've advocated my photos over someone else's in an extensive debate is the Talk:Donald Trump discussion, which is very recent. In this instance, it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added, there's currently a simply majority among at least a dozen or more other users who have agreed, and a little less than that who have taken the opposing view point (just to give context for uninitiated users). In instances where I thought it was appropriate to respond, given that it is a discussion that is meant to come to a consensus among two or more opposing parties, I took the time to respond to points made by a couple of other users. From this, I don't recall any unwarranted conflict being created, but I was not aware at the time that responding to multiple people was against any sort of rule. Same with advocating for a photo you took, I'm still not aware of any rule against that. If that's a COI then I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, or not participating in said discussion in a way that causes disruption. Calibrador (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: I want to point out that arguments like, "it's not as if I'm the only one advocating for my photos to be added" have little relevance to this conversation. This discussion is about your behavior and what should be done about it. If you wish to put the actions of others on here for review then please supply the edits where this is the case, otherwise, you are not helping your case. Plus, the only one that I know of that has done what you are referring to, has already been blocked for 2 months. I also want to point out that people did discuss with you about continually making comments to those who opposed your photo, but you still did it anyway. You clearly had COI and was influencing and guiding the discussion to your favor so you would get your desired outcome. You first introduced your photos here and then discussed here at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, and then only notified certain users here, which interestingly enough all were in favor of your picture that weighed in, those same users proceeded to the Donald Trump page. You have also displayed this type of behavior for the Mike Pence photo. Here and here the editor states he is changing the photo per discussion, but i fail to see where the discussion took place, just a suggection here that it looked good according to you and User:TL565. he also made this edit in which he states "introduce based on talk and most agreeing, this is also more than a year newer, as it is from this week", but in another page states "You must obtain consensus on the talk page to change the photo, recentism does not award you consensus" here. There are countless examples I could recite, but in all of them you can see each photo had his name on the filename. This is how he is promoting his pictures, in favor of others. Chase (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to the statement you quoted, I was referring only to one instance, which taken out of context looks like I'm speaking about all my contributions. I was only referring to the Trump discussion. Calibrador (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Photos named and stored at commons are a non-starter for reasons explained above. You can argue its self-promotion and google index it yadda yadda, but its not prohibited and how google displays its search results is not a concern of wikipedia.
• Unless there is actually a *quality* issue with the photos, removing good quality photos from articles because of how they are named at commons is not improving the encyclopedia. In fact I would argue its actively harming it.
• The only substantial issue I can see is that there have been instances of edit-warring over their own photos (which taking into acocunt the WV issue above have not all been entirely of Calibrador's own making) a simple 1rr restriction limited to images in articles should solve that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall, except maybe in a very, very rare instance edit warring (especially within 24 hours), for an article to include my photo. Most of the edits I make in regards to photos would probably be considered uncontroversial. The Anne Holton instance is an anomaly as Winkelvi was plainly obviously following me around article to article and doing the things that I listed above that I don't want to rehash. I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for contributions by certain users who know that there would be a 1RR and would revert me knowing that I can't revert back (for instance, users like Davey2010 or Stemoc who take issue with the file names despite it being a Commons issue, and there being no rules against it on Commons). Calibrador (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're quite correct that on Commons, we allow files to be uploaded under a wider range of filenames, and with over 33 million media files, appending usernames to filenames is something that eases the search and location of media files. I generally upload images with my username as part of the file name.

English Wikipedia, is free to restrict the use of any media files from Commons, something we do with the 'Bad image list' and if community consensus here is that we will not use media files with usernames or full names as part of the filename, then you would need to respect any consensus which emerges on that basis (not that I see any consensus for that, or that serious discussion has been undertaken to establish if that consensus exists).

I would again re-iterate my original comments which MelanieN linked to in the opening comment of this page - your contributions are valuable but we (both here on English Wikipedia and on Commons) want to give other contributors reason to take photographs specifically for Wikimedia projects, and to upload their existing material to Commons. That means that other contributors must have a fair chance of seeing their images being used.

I would re-iterate my option for resolving this is to allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. Nick (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: A clarification: When you say 1RR restriction, you mean 1 revert period, right? Not one revert per 24 hours, as the term is used at Discretionary Sanctions? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nick: we have already had this option last year (As linked above my MelanieN), nothing has changed since then..Infact I have not reverted any of his changes since last year on enwiki bar one as I have realise that he is "protected" by the admins on this site. He is just using Davey2010 and me as an excuse to continue "vandalising" (Sadly that is the correct term for what he is doing) by shutting out those who criticize his actions...please read the previous discussion we had on that ANI which he filed on me and compare it with his edits since then, nothing has changed, if anything, he has become worse. He is obsessed currently with Donald Trump because he has been able to "forcefully" add his images to other politician pages (from both the democratic and republican sides), all except Donald Trump where users have preferred the image taken by Michael Vadon (another photographer who releases his images freely but doesn't force its use on every article or adds his name to the byline of every image). As i said last year, for Gage its either you use his IMAGES or he will take you to WP:AN/I for "hounding" him...I have never been against him using /adding images to those articles without images but he has the habit of replacing images added by others with those belonging to him and carrying his name in the byline ( not to mention trying to rename images on Commons and add his name to the image title) and that is abuse.. Implementing the 1RR rule will not work, what he deserves is a block and a final warning, enwiki admins have been ignoring his abuse for far too long....Wikipedia is grateful for his contribution but if he is going to use that to blackmail or force users to do his will then by all means, we are better without him, remember, we do not need him, he needs us, he needs One of the top 10 most visited sites to "promote" himself..Yes Commons policies are stupid because they have not been updated in ions, whose fault is that really? not those trying to stop users from abusing the outdated policies we have surely...So if you want things to change, it should start here, we need to toughen our policies on what we deem as self promotion because that is exactly how he has managed to escape getting blocked for the last 7 years...I'm against the 1RR idea put forward by Nick, this would have worked a year ago when it was brought up on WP:AN/I but its far too late for that now, he would just make the changes using his IPs like he has done before..--Stemoc 11:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There's the wall of text of accusations and bias based on non-existent policy! I was waiting for it. Calibrador (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I realised its the only way to get you out of your cave as WV has unknowingly done ..lol..now just waiting for your accusations of HOUNDing and stalking :) ..--Stemoc 11:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and trust you didn't come upon this discussion from my contribution history. Maybe review Wikipedia:Get over it? Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stemoc: Implementing the 1RR rule will not work Why not?
You seem to be emotionally invested in this issue, and I question whether your involvement is helping much. In contrast, I had never heard of Calibrador or Gage Skidmore until a few days ago, but I think I'm adequately up to speed on the history from reading the comments made here. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's their way of saying they just want me blocked. Calibrador (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If Calibrador is a human being, I don't see how he can possibly put Wikipedia's interest first, comparing his photo to another with complete detached objectivity. He necessarily has a completely natural bias favoring his own work, and I'm not certain he understands that. Going forward, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors will be unaware that Calibrador = Gage Skidmore = photographer of the photo. I could live with the suggestion in Nick's closing paragraph with the added requirement of full-disclosure edit summaries. Calibrador stated above, I have no problem with disclosing fully my role, so he shouldn't object.
Adding image of my own work
Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because...
Calibrador, we already have policies in place to address stalking and harassment issues. One two-month block was applied for that yesterday, as you know, and two months is hardly a wrist-slap block. So how about we agree to cross that bridge if we come to it? As for I'd also suggest that you would probably have to look out for ..., I suspect it would be up to you to bring any such behavior to community attention if it happens, as no one will have the time to monitor the situation on your behalf. I would hope that you would distinguish fairly between that kind of behavior and normal content dispute, although that's often not easy when there are repeated normal content disputes with the same editor(s). As I said previously, you will probably receive some opposition resulting from the bad rep that you created for yourself by persistent and long-term disruption, refusing to play by the rules of editing process, and in my opinion that's inevitable until you have changed the rep through years of much-improved behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that someone should monitor the 1RR and those other users on my behalf, I was just forewarning as I thought that could easily be a potential result. Calibrador (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I urge you to read up on the previous discussion linked by MelanieN in the Original Post....long story short, He changed his name from GageSkidmore to Calibrador because he did not want people to figure out he was intentionally forcing his images into articles so he got his name changed to "fool wikipedians" into thinking he has no links to the photographer, yes, i used the term "fool wikipedians", its hurtful but its the truth..anyone that knew that and pointed it out was seen by him as people who were either stalking his edits or wikihounding him (his words)..If you went through his edits and linked the times where he has forced his own images onto articles by replacing previous images that were not taken by him, he called them Hounders..so basically collecting facts about his abuse made you a hounder...If that is his definition of a hounder , then yes, I'm totally a hounder and I will "hound" him until an admin decides that its about time he faced the consequences of his long running abuse of our policies and his consistent and persistent attacks on users who disagreed with his images being "forced" onto articles..Last i checked, We were here to build an encyclopedia, not the Yellow pages--Stemoc 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again assuming bad faith in regards to username, which they were previously warned about. Also, you regularly "force" your own uploads into articles, granted they are not your photos but you uploaded them. One example from just today. Calibrador (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

this seems like Déjà vu... You are deflecting again, its not 'bad faith', its 'facts'..sometimes you notice these things as days before the name change, you were called up on trying to force your own images onto articles, even on the day of your usurpation and after it (you want me to add more links?) and all because @William S. Saturn: caught you and reported you to 3RR and because you did not want your customer to find out hat you were doing, you blanked your talk page not once but twice after another editor whose images we used pointed out to you that u were self promoting your images and you very next edit was to change your name because you knew it would affect your "business" ...Are you gonna claim something else now? oh and btw, this is not hounding, its finding proof and calling you out..oh and regarding Suu Kyi, it was a 3 year old image, I found a good new one, replaced it..there is no issue with that..--Stemoc 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What did you say about forcing your own uploads into articles? I couldn't hear you over the BS. Calibrador (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: Wait, was the point of all those links to try to convince people you are forcing your photos into articles? Because that is what it did for me. In all of the instances you supplied, and ill admit I went through the first like five because i started to see it was wasting my time, Stemoc was either inserting a photo for the first time and never went to the talk page to promote his preferred picture or in one instance, was changing the photo back to the one that had been their after Winkelvi changed it. Stemoc never engaged in the kind of behavior you did, guiding the discussion, after you started the discussion, and challenged all that opposed you. He respected the decision of some one who reverted him as far as I could tell. Chase (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

* Comment: Okay, I went through the last few links and I can indeed say, it was a waste of my time and only got worse. In the last, all but the first five, he changed the photo and all were unopposed! These are completely different situations than what is going on here. Chase (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you. You're grossly blowing things out of proportion, it's one or two discussions, and largely based on perception. I was not aware of this "bludgeon" policy prior to its mentioning, and I haven't done anything to violate it since. I was simply responding as an active talk page participant, and I have an opposing viewpoint to yours so not surprising that you continue to harp on this. If I reverted on the article itself, it was after I thought there was at least a semblance of consensus, and I did not revert more than once or twice. Stemoc is not a nice person. While looking through their edit history, I found this edit summary:

"restore external links , dumbass removed it"

Stemoc was complaining about me inserting photos into articles using "force," most if not all of which were non-controversial and were not reverted, and I responded with instances where they had done the same thing. I was responding to Stemoc's accusation and pointing out their hypocrisy. Calibrador (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: My opposing opinion has nothing to do with it, and every time you bring that up against some one, you are creating WP:Battlelike mentatily. You missed the point of my statement. In the instances you brought up about Stemoc He simply introduced his photo and if it was reverted, he left it alone. You however, introduced your photo, a couple times it was reverted, you introduced it again, then went on to ping users who i think you knew would agree with you. Then challenged all who opposed you, again creating WP:Battlelike mentality. This is complete opposite of what Stemoc did. I proposed here that you, and other users for that matter who have self owned pictures especially with their name in the filename, should only be allowed to insert the photo into an article and if its reverted, only ask the person who reverted it why its rejected and not making the discussion youself that your "superior" photo should be used and pinging other users to comment. If that question starts a discussion about which photo is better, without your involvement and harassing opposers, then wikipedia as a community can decide for themselves without biased opinion, that your photo should be used. So you put words in my mouth when you said "I should discuss any change I make, but don't discuss it too much especially with people that disagree with you." Also, how does an editor that has been on Wikipedia for Seven years, not know about most of their policies including WP:BLUDGEON, especially with almost 30,000 edits? Chase (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're constantly pointing out one instance. I could find many instances where I did not revert if I was reverted. Calibrador (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some of those. Recent, please. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, here, here, here. So one instance? Chase (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Did you see my examples? Chase (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] Calibrador (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It is clear that you don't always restore your photos if they are reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You do realise most of the images he does not change back are actually his own images which were either uploaded via his flick feed or cropped from his own uploads but not carrying his byline? or those added by other sources or established editors and admins and none of those were "reverts" or "undos" of his edits, they were photo replacements, as in the image were updated, not rollbacked to a previous version before his..He is still lying here..checks those links again..I urge you :)--Stemoc 01:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just wanted to mention that I've commenced a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion_via_images on whether the issues raised in this discussion should be addressed in our COI guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You might have just dropped a link to this discussion there. Now we'll have two parallel discussions of the same issues. We should resolve this issue before we think about changes to WP:COI, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you mean the COI Noticeboard. Talk:COI is for discussion of the guideline, and I would think that a discussion of the guideline is independent of however this specific situation is resolved. COI is a behavioral guideline, not policy, and really doesn't impact very much on what is happening here. But if you think discussion there should be put on hold there until this resolves, I have no problem with that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's still a parallel discussion of the same closely-related issues, with the possibility of different discussions reaching different conclusions, which then have to be resolved in a third discussion. Messy messy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • No, I think the underlying issue in the above multiple walls of text is pretty straightforward. But feel free to ask on the WT:COI page for a moritorium on the discussion there, as I see someone has already weighed in. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: arbitrary break 2

Per Wikipedia tradition, we have an enormous and growing wall of text of bitter, often petty bickering between the primary involved parties, with no end in sight. This is never productive in my experience. I propose that Stemoc and CCamp2013/Chase leave the discussion and trust that more detached, dispassionate participants have enough information to resolve this in the project's interest. Calibrador needs to stay to defend his position, but not to directly involved editors with dogs in the fight. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to see if I can summarize what has been said up to now. I don't find much or any support for the following options: some kind of block; topic ban against adding photos; renaming of his photos; removal of his photos. What I do find as a possible proposal, a merger of ideas from User:Nick, User:Mandruss, and myself:

Proposed action: (from Nick) Allow Calibrador to add images to pages which have no images freely without restriction, but where he is replacing other photographers work, he be subject to a 1RR restriction. I would also suggest that Stemoc and Davey2010 be similarly restricted in the frequency they can remove Calibrador's images so nobody has an upper-hand in this dispute. (from Mandruss) Require full-disclosure edit summaries, such as "Adding image of my own work" or "Replacing image with one of my own work, which I feel is superior because…" (from me) Limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with everything. Chase (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I will not leave the discussion and I'm hardly a primary party involved. Discussion is an important part of Wikipedia. I am not overly passionate about or attached to the issue, but seeing what Calibrador is doing is wrong. So yes, I will put input into the conversation. Especially when false accusations are made. I have no biased. I just prefer one pic over another, and if the other pic gets consensus, I will respect that decision (neither picture is the best in my opinion). Chase (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, we have enough information. Although less severe than Stemoc, your comments are generating far more heat than light. I can't force you to leave, but I have made the proposal and you will leave if there is a consensus for you to do so, else be guilty of WP:DE. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

CCamp2013/Chase has agreed on his talk page not to address Calibrador directly, and I have stricken his username from my proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot be arsed to reply above so I'll shove it here instead - I used to revert Gage on quite a few articles however since being told about commons etc etc I haven't bothered reverting and probably won't bother (if he's adding an image to an imageless-article then I wouldn't revert however if he'd replaced for instance a donald trump image with his own without any discussion then of course I'd smack revert, In regards to the above I agree with that idea - If he's reverted by anyone then it should be brought straight to the talkpage and IMHO the 1RR should apply to everyone the project not just me or Stemoc (Me and Stemoc aren't the only people to have reverted Gages images), And last but not least a bit unrelated but I'm simply using Gage as it's the easiest thing I can spell so not trolling them or winding them up, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Self-promotion_via_images. I commented that AN/I seemed to be handling the problem. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. John, do you mean AN? This discussion? I see nothing at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Proposal

I've been watching this image dispute drama for months, and it has recently devolved into edit warring on multiple articles and outright harassment by three editors, the worst of whom was rightfully blocked. Calibrador has been legitimately and repeatedly warned not to edit war over image content, especially where he arguable has a conflict of interest. Whatever solution is settled on should attempt to accomplish the following

1. Reduce disruption, including edit warring and pointless bickering
2. It should not discourage Calibrador from continuing to make valuable contributions of his photographic work to Wikipedia and Commons
3. It should minimize the likelihood of harassment

In my opinion, the best solution that comes close to accomplishing all of these goals, and what I am proposing is, Calibrador, Winkelvi, is indefinitely limited to 1RR for any edits adding, removing, or changing any image in any article.

I also propose: Winkelvi, Davey2010 and Stemoc are indefinitely limited to 1RR for any edit removing any image created by Calibrador.- MrX 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I have been watching this image-dispute saga play out over the past three months. (I personally don't get the passions over images; my own views is that the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse). I would like the image drama to not metastasize, and this 1RR restriction seems like the best way to do it. Neutrality^talk 18:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

the choice of image rarely makes an article much better or worse - You've been around the wikiblock once or twice, so I'm sure you know that literally no issue is too minor to argue endlessly about. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. This one wouldn't even make it to the honorable mentions section of WP:LAME. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I kinda disagree with the 1RR being against me as especially recently I've not reverted any of Gages stuff however my past dealings with this haven't been the best and seeing as I strongly disagree with the names perhaps having 1RR is for the best .... I dunno but either way support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. Something has to be done or the behavior will most likely continue. I am tired of contributing to this topic when we could be deloping the pages itself instead of agreeing to disagree who's photo is the best. I like a lot of Calibrador's photos and as a photographer myself, understand the feeling that an article featuring your photo can bring you, but don't agree with the method of integrating them into the Wikipedia. I also think the name of the file is an issue, not on commons, but here. It is promoting, his business, which is against Wikipedia policy. Which should result in all of them being renamed or removed from being used for violating Wikipedia's policy, not a commons. Seeing as he has TONS of images on Wikipedia, that is unlikely to happen. Nothing will be done about it though, so this is a great solution. (I know I have said this already). Just re-iterating that in my support, I am not also supporting the filenames. I also want to state, Many people, not just four, have been uncivil regarding this topic and had it not been for User:Mandruss and I coming to some sort of system, consensus would have never been able to be reached in regards to the Donald Trump photo. Chase (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Most of what I said I still agree with, but some clarifications were made that I no longer agree with dealing with this proposal. That is why I have amended my support to oppose and now support a proposal by the OP, MelanieN, who seems to understand the problem more than most. Chase (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no problem with most of what you listed, but can you better detail what 1RR means in regards to the users you listed involved with reverting me? If I am limited to 1RR and one of those users that you listed reverts me, what does that mean to me? Calibrador (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it means that if you replace an image in an article with one of your own, and that image has recently been added or replaced (within the past month) then that's your one revert. If the image has been in the article for a long time, then your first edit is a bold edit. If you follow WP:BRD, and if someone reverts your bold edit, you should discuss it on the talk page, although you could technically revert them without violating 1RR.- MrX 21:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That doesn't sound right. So 1RR means he gets to add his picture to the article twice? Is that really how people are understanding this? --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • That is the traditional definition of 1RR (and I would be happy to cite an Arbcom member saying as much). Is there some reason why "his picture" should be treated any differently than "his text" when applying an editing restriction? I see no reason to treat one form of user-contributed content any differently than any other form.- MrX 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support as it originates in an old proposal of mine. I would just clarify that my intention was for the restriction to be 1RR until consensus is determined on how to proceed. The overall idea for the restrictions I discussed is for Calibrador to continue adding their own images to articles and if any addition of an image is reverted, discussion must commence and consensus on how to proceed established. 1RR gives Calibrador a little flexibility to revert images being removed without good reason and it gives Stemoc et al a little extra flexibility to revert the addition of what may be an inappropriate image addition.
I would also add that any tag-teaming should be treated as a collective 1RR for all the named participants. Nick (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as inadequate. This only deals with edit-warring over the insertion of pictures. It does nothing to stop the disruptive behavior at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'd also like to see disclosure in his edit summaries of his COI, but he kinda-sorta said above that he kinda-sorta might start doing that. IMO it be a good idea to confirm it though, or to get an actual commitment from him to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, my proposal was made without prejudice to additional restriction or sanctions. I believe that limiting the main actors to 1RR will calm the disputes and hopefully steer the talk page discussions toward pursuit of consensus, rather than arguments about edit warring and file naming.- MrX 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I doubt it. In fact, the 1RR restriction may make him MORE disruptive in discussions. If he can't simply re-add his photo to the article, he is likely to become even more pushy at the talk page - trying to urge/argue/prod everyone toward consensus in his favor, since consensus will be the only way he can restore his picture, or claiming "consensus" when there isn't one. That kind of activity is a major reason I made this report. We are dealing with a long-term COI pusher here and that needs to be dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The diffs that you presented are evidence of arguing, but they are not evidence of disruption or any other significant conduct issues. If we're going to start punishing people for making faulty or repetitive arguments, then I have a long list of editors for your consideration. Hell, you and I are involved on some of the same pages where there's blatant WP:GAMING and WP:TE that is far more detrimental to the editing environment and NPOV than someone pushing for their own photos in articles. I'm not condoning Calibrador's aggressive editing or obstinance, but I don't see that additional sanctions are going to help.- MrX 22:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • The difference is that Calibrador's "aggressive editing or obstinance" (your words) is not just POV, to promote a viewpoint; it is COI, to promote himself and his career. COI editing is "strongly discourage" by Wikipedia. I really don't think we should be endorsing that kind of behavior here, or treating it as just another person who feels strongly about something. --MelanieN (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• I'd also really prefer to see a formal requirement to disclose in every edit summary. I was fooled by the username change, and still can't think of a good-faith reason for it that's compatible with both leaving his real name in the image filenames and continuing to edit them into articles on enwiki. —Cryptic 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't support requiring such disclosures for a single editor, nor do I think it's a good precedent to set. I believe it's contrary to the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia and the absence of a policy requiring edit summaries.- MrX 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Seems like a decent WP:IAR application to me. Policy can't anticipate everything, and it would be completely unmanageable if it did. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't believe IAR applies. No improvement to the encyclopedia accrues by requiring one user to declare a COI in their edit summaries. It's merely window dressing.- MrX 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Does it benefit the encyclopedia for other editors to be aware that the editor installing any image in an article is the author of the photo? I would think so. The few images I have installed provide that information via their file pages. My Wikipedia username is Mandruss, my Commons username is Mandruss, and the File History for those images shows Mandruss as the uploader and "own work". But the couple of Skidmore's Commons images I've looked at were uploaded by User:Gage, and I'm assuming all 2000+ of them are like that, correct me if I'm wrong. How are editors to know that Wikipedia Calibrador and Commons Gage are one and the same person? Or is this information unimportant for a large-scale contributor of images who is unwilling to just upload and let other editors decide? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't think so and that was kind of my point. I will use the same argument that made in the COI outing mega-debate at WT:Harassment: We should evaluate content based on the quality of the content, not the person who contributed it. - MrX 22:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry but how exactly did i get added to this proposal? I'm not the problem, I was trying to be the solution but instead I'm apparently the part of the problem now? and people wonder i have no respect for people on this wiki, for the umpteenth time the 1RR idea is nonsense, it will not work, all it does is protect him, not those trying to remove his "vandalism"..This was a good idea 2 years ago, but we have moved from that..again i have NO ISSUES with him adding images to articles which previously had no images, my only issue is when he intentionally changes an article which already has an image with one carrying his byline....there was a time he would also add his name to the caption of the image, we stopped him a few years back from doing that..and people who still think he isn't using wikipedia to self promote himself are really living under a rock...--Stemoc 00:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Stemoc, your response perfectly illustrates why you should be restricted to 1RR in cases involving Calibrador. Also, please read WP:NOTVANDALISM.- MrX 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You should read my comments at WT:COI as to what i'm saying and why there is a need to change our policy in regards to what exactly is 'vandalism' when it comes to situations like this..I spent a better part of a decade fighting cross-wiki vandalism which included mainly self promotional stuff including articles and links to websites only to be told that its OK to do so on enwiki...yeah..its quite funny.. --Stemoc 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Support, and yes, this should include Stemoc. Jonathunder (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: per MelanieN this is inadequate. A TBAN on discussions is needed. Skidmore can continue to upload to Commons. If editors want to replace an image with one by him, fine, but please cut out the disruption such as at Trump's article. Also uneasy including other editors in the restrictions. Harassment is already disallowed and can be sanctioned without any further rules being imposed here (such as Winkelvi's block, though I don't like that either). BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BethNaught, if are you opposing this because it's inadequate, then wouldn't it make sense to support it and propose an additional remedy? It might help if you could explain "TBAN on discussions". It's not clear how that would work.- MrX 12:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • BethNaught and @MelanieN: His 'vandalism' in not only limited to this wiki, he randomly uses his commons account (Gage) to overwrite other images because he wants his version to be used, this and as you can see, he used both his accounts...this was last month and then after he was questioned by a commons user, he gave vague reply that he was not socking and then later he blanked that section along with the part where an admin told him his move rights were remove for abuse..He is trying to keep his page clean so that his "customers" don't question him why his rights were removed....I don't understand why people refuse to see that he is using wikipedia to fund his own business, when did we become a repository like Gettyimages? cause if he is allowed to use commons to promote himself financially, we won;t be able to stop anyone else doing the same in the future....oh and you may find this interesting, he even reverted an image today added by the now blocked Winkelvi (on enwiki) whilst this discussion was happening and added his own version because as usual, he wants his own "version" to be used in articles even if it does not carry his byline, its either his images and his versions or none...For those who follow his contributions on commons, he does that regularly and usually without a valid reason..see his edits using the Gage account on commons and you will get a bigger picture as to why he 1RR is a bad idea..--Stemoc 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - and I find it rather disconcerting that COI is even a consideration for a number of reasons, including the terms of licensing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - his clear talk page COI in promoting photos that have his name in the title is clear, and since a mass rename is unlikely, I think this is the best way forward. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Any chance we can get an admin or experienced editor to close this? Apparently the disruption continues.- MrX 12:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Alternative to 1RR proposal

• I !voted "oppose" above. I still oppose that proposal, but my rationale is now different. My concerns about his talk page behavior are satisfied (AGF) by his agreeing to my proposed limitations. My reason for opposing now is that I don't think we should use a "1RR" standard, as defined for Discretionary Sanctions, because that is too complicated and too subject to gaming. (We have all seen the arguments "you reverted me!" "no, you reverted me!") I would rather have a straightforward restriction something like this: "Calibrador may add his image to any article once. If it gets reverted, he may not re-add it without consensus." No gamesmanship, no difference based on the previous status of the article - i.e., previously no picture vs. long-standing picture vs. recently added picture - just that he is free to add it, but if it gets challenged, he can't be the one to re-add it, except per consensus. Of course it could be re-added by his fans, several of whom are present at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification, in case it was unclear: The proposal covers all three types of articles: articles which did not previously have a photo, articles which previously had a longstanding photo, and articles where a new photo has recently been added. These are handled differently under the 1RR standard, because of what kind of action is defined as a "revert". My proposal is much more straightforward because it treats all three types of articles the same. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment @MelanieN: Your proposal mentions articles without photos, which seems counterproductive to me. Calibrador (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Clarifying, biographical articles where there are no free photos of a person. Calibrador (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposal states Calibrador can add photos to any article, even ones with a photo already, but just once. Chase (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • • I thought you agreed to not address me unless I addressed you. Calibrador (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Note the bullet demotion. Calibrador (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment To be clear, I wasn't addressing Calibrador directly, but to clarify everyone who might read the proposal and is confused like I was when first reading it, what the proposal is actually stating. I also didn't mean to add three "***" when making my first comment, so I demoted it. Chase (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • 'Twas clear enough to me, Chase, but maybe Calibrador doesn't know that "addressing" is not the same as "referring to". Calibrador, I was not addressing you in the preceding sentence, but I am in this one. See the diff? I hope we can dispense with any further misunderstanding in that area. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Based on their bulleting at the time of my comment, I thought that was their answer to my statement, despite it not actually answering to what I had stated. Calibrador (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I suggest you let others police that agreement from now on. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Can I get an answer to my actual concern? Calibrador (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Calibrador, what is your concern? I thought you were just asking what is an "article with no photo". Are you asking why I am including this type of article in my restriction? Because it makes sense to me to have the same rule - namely, you can add a photo once but can't add it back if someone removes it - every time you add a picture to an article, whether or not it previously had one. Do you see a problem with that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                • Yes. If an article's subject has no free photo, and someone removes it for some reason unbeknownst to me, but should it present itself, a photo-less article is preferred? Makes no sense. Calibrador (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • As an example. Last year, Davey2010 reverted my addition of photos to a whole host of articles, including ones that previously had no photo. He was warned by an admin for doing that, if I recall correctly. Calibrador (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • I'm certainly open to input on this. Let's see what others say - or if this proposal is even going anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                      • I think your proposal as written looks a lot like BRD, with Calibrador's add or replace being the B. Would it be adequate to simply require strict BRD? If there is a spurious agenda revert, doesn't WP:DR cover that adequately? Anything I'm missing here? Wouldn't it be weird if the product of all this is: Follow Existing Process? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • Calibrador - Not arguing but do you have any diffs of me being warned by any admin?, I honestly don't remember that and I'm intrigued now, I probably did have some sort of vendetta back then however since the AN3 report I don't think I've reverted you since. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This would drastically improve the tension and conflicts that have been created by Calibrador and by default his opposition. I personally think he just needs to be banned all together especially with the evidence that was presented in the below subsection by MelanieN and the indirect answers he has given, but there seems to be little support for that so far. Chase (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I also agree with MelanieN’s proposal. Should a rare exception happen then of course Calibrador should flag it up, however it should be the exception and done before any reverts. NJA (t/c) 09:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Propose TBANs

Proposal withdrawn by author following unanimous opposition

I propose TBAN for Stemoc vis-a-vis Calibrador and images. His comment above clearly demonstrates the Winkelvi-like righteous crusading battleground mentality - and the same inability to accept constructive criticism from the community - and that is anything but part of the solution here. While I'm at it, I'll propose the same for Winkelvi. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 95% of the work i do on enwiki is to find and add free images from flickr and other sites to articles on enwiki, I do not get involved in petty fights related to Gage unless it directly involves an image he has changed on my watchlist..again I'm not an issue here, I do not call my self a wikipedia anymore, I'm more of a wikimedian and a TBAN on me is pretty much forcing me to stop my work on commons. I gain nothing from this, neither monetary nor in fame and yet somehow you assume that Winkelvi and I are the same? I'm sorry but you are wrong, stop trying to be self righteous and try to see the issue before making your own prejudicial assumption...You haven't been the one looking for the solution to this problem for 4 years now, I have so before you try to judge somebody who has been frustrated with the fact that admins on enwiki for the last 4 years have turned their blind eye to the situation even when reported to this board and WP:ANI...You really need to read up on what a battleground approach is, I follow the rules to find justice..My account on enwiki doesn't just have one purpose (unlike Calibrador who uses it only to force his images into articles) so if you refuse to see the issue here, Its not really my fault now is it?..I'm not going to come back here in another 14 months seeking justice, If the project actually stood for what it claims it does, people like him would no longer be allowed to contribute to the project --Stemoc 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC) forcing me to stop my work on commons - To clarify, I'm speaking of situations involving Calibrador and images, not one or the other. Unless all your work on Commons involves Skidmore images, this does not stop your work there. people like him would no longer be allowed to contribute to the project - I rest my case. If you feel that strongly - at an emotional level - that Calibrador should be indeffed, when the community disagrees, you are the last person who should be interacting with him, and your doing so will only add fuel to a fire that the community is trying hard to put out. You need to step away. -―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC) You do realise my work on commons entails adding images of politicians and celebrities too right? Infact I generally deal with those sections cause I feel i'm experienced in that section and Calibrador uploads mainly US politicians and celebrity images so yes, lines will definitely be crossed, intentionally or not even though the last time i spoke to Gage on commons was probably years ago and the last time i was involved in anything related to Gage was when i caught him abusing 2 of his rights on commons and duly reported on one of those abuses last month, you should probably read that section first where 5 commons admins agreed on his rights to be removed for abuse..again, I have no issue with him, he may have one with me because apparently I'm a hindrance in his 'work'..lol... and regarding the 2nd issue, I'm sorry if you do not under stand the self promotion policy on wikipedia, it actually applies to all wikis and not just this one and if we are going to block users who use the project to promote themselves then I do not see how in the future this will not include 'all forms of promotion' ..I don't want him to be indeffed, I never said that, I just want him to face the consequences of his actions as he seems to be in the habit of deflecting and passing the blame onto others which is actually a good trait to have if one wishes to be a politician...If I was from Arizona, I'd vote for him for Governor ;)--Stemoc 02:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Clarification: I believe that nothing we do here at enwiki would apply to Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose: This seems mighty retaliatory. I've dealt with Gage as well and it is so painfully obvious that they are only here to promote themselves and their photography work. This proposal is just deflecting the actual issue onto someone else. The problem here is Gage and his self-promotional behavior regarding his images. --Majora (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Comment - Some feel that opposition to battleground mentality represents support for, or defense of, the target of that battleground mentality. That is a false binary, folks. Calibrador needs to be dealt with, but it does not serve the project to deal with him that way. If you disagree, if you feel that the problem can't be managed without the flamethrower services of Stemoc and Winkelvi, please Oppose. But don't twist my intent. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I haven't said anything thus far but you keep comparing Winkelvi to me, I assume you have an issue with Winkelvi, so you are personalizing this attack on me now? The only person with a battleground mentality in his thread apart from the person in question is you..You are deflecting from the main issue, You also seem to be coming with assumptions pointing out things I did not say and trying to make it seem like I'm the fuel to Calibrador's fire..I'm not mate, I'm the guy with the fireman's uniform trying to put it out..I just noticed your comments on MajoraWP's page, that is a really low move mate..I'm sorry to say this but you are making it personal, I'd give you the same advice I would give others before you to drop the stick. Its bad enough we have one person trying to deflect from the issue, now we have another doing the same. This is why this issue has not been solved for over 4 years now because people who have no idea about the problem try to insert themselves into the situation just so that they can derail it, which mate, is what you are doing right now.....I have provided facts and proof of abuse all throughout this discussion, the only thing you have provided is unrelenting attacks on me and your somewhat battleground mentality..Winkelvi does have a battleground mentality, no doubt, but son, you do too..--Stemoc 06:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC) No point in further arguing, but my proposal stands until defeated. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose: we need to be dealing with the actual problem first. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose Let's quit trying to change the subject here. The subject is WP:COI, i.e., Gage Skidmore using Wikipedia to advance his own career. Last time I looked, this kind of promotionalism was "strongly discouraged" at Wikipedia. Are we going to simply give Skidmore a green light, go ahead, promote yourself all you want? And anyone who tries to protect Wikipedia will get ordered to stop? --MelanieN (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry MelanieN, but I'm really struggling to understand your point of view. Several people in the discussions above, including myself, have rejected the idea that there is a COI problem of a magnitude that would be sanctionable. To claim that someone is using Wikipedia to advance their career requires better evidence than file names and making multiple comments on talk pages. Edit warring can be dealt with by limiting reverts. Calibrador has already agreed to limit talk page comments where his images are the subject of a dispute. I think it would help us if you could explain how applying more sanctions would help Wikipedia, or not applying them would hurt Wikipedia. In practical terms.- MrX 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC) He has voluntarily agreed to my proposed sanctions in the section below. His excessive promotion at talk pages was the area of concern to me since that was clearly COI editing, but with his voluntary agreement I am satisfied on that point. He certainly IS using his Commons pictures to advance his career - if you need evidence, consider this from an off-wiki source: "Creative Commons in my mind is a vehicle for my photos to be easily disseminated, and at first was a way to simply get my name out there."[71] But as long as he does not excessively push for his own photos, it appears that Wikipedia is OK with using them. I still oppose this proposal because I think it is aimed at the wrong people. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for that very clear evidence MelanieN. I now agree that Calibrador has used the project for self-promotion. Based on that, I'm warming up to the idea of a full ban on him being able to add his photos to any article, unless he has a good explanation for why that should not be the case.- MrX 17:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I was referring to "Creative Commons" not Wikimedia Commons to be clear, and was referring to my Flickr, where most people obtain my photos and have over 48,000 photos under the Creative Commons license listed. Calibrador (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in providing high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects. I point you to this interview with David Shankbone conducted by Wikimedia Foundation, (Shankbone also puts his name in the title of images, which are credited at the end of the video.) My involvement with Wikipedia is not promotional, I don't link to my website or anything like that in the file descriptions, my intention is to provide charitable photos of quality to be used freely. Here is the link to the interview with Shankbone by Wikimedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byqcaqVuJgw @Calibrador: I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in providing high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects. - That stretches even my WP:AGF to the breaking point, considering that you could "provide high quality images to freely be used to illustrate article subjects" by uploading and walking away. I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia editors are capable of finding relevant images without your help. Would you care to reconsider that statement? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) In order to respond to MelanieN's request yesterday (which you can find somewhere among these walls of text), I was very hard pressed to find an instance where a photo that I had added had been reverted. And if it had been replaced, I've respected that nearly universally. The instances I'm sure you're thinking of, such as Trump, where I stepped out of line are probably <1% of the contributions I've made, and shouldn't be used to paint my entire contribution history, and was something I did not view as a COI at the time of making those edits. Calibrador (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I wasn't thinking of anything in particular. I just applied a logic test to your statement, and it failed. In my opinion, (1) you're being a bit deceptive about your motives, (2) you're deceiving yourself about your motives, or (3) you misspoke. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I could really just as easily make all my photos All Rights Reserved, but the fact is that from the instance that I began taking photos, my intention was to provide free to use images. And abiding by the attribution requirements of Creative Commons and the CC-BY-SA license, my contributions to Wikimedia, specifically the attribution in the title, was modeled after David Shankbone, who I provided a link to an interview with above as conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which seems like something of an endorsement of his practices. I don't really think anyone has ever challenged Shankbone on his motives. Calibrador (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) AGF slips a bit more. I ask again: If all you want is to provide high quality images to Wikipedia, why don't you upload and walk away? Is that not providing high-quality images to Wikipedia? I'd like to hear a straight answer to that, or I'd like to hear something like "I approach my involvement with Wikipedia as simply wanting to be helpful in getting many of my high quality images into Wikipedia articles." ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I've never seen it as a conflict of interest or against any policy to introduce a photo you took, especially if a very large majority of your contributions are thanked and/or unchallenged. Just as someone might find a photo on Flickr, upload it and add a photo they uploaded to an article. Calibrador (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose: Per MelanieN. I was inclined to think that Stemoc was trying to antogonize Calibrador, but I beleive he is just trying to protect wikipedia. Although his tactics may have been somewhat off-putting, he was doing what he seemed was right. SO i don't think he should be punished, just yet, for that. Chase (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) WITHDRAW - Sorry for the distraction from the "real issue", I sincerely believed we had the capacity to handle two issues simultaneously. Archive if you like, unless someone wants to continue the off-topic above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador: Talk page restrictions

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.

---

When one of Calibrador/Skidmore's pictures is challenged or removed, he sometimes (not always) becomes very aggressive at the talk page trying to restore it. Because of his Conflict of Interest, this behavior is far more problematic than if he was simply arguing about a wording or an inclusion of text; it is an example of the kind of COI editing which is "strongly discouraged" at Wikipedia. Based on his documented activities at multiple articles, I propose the following where one of his own photos is involved: limit his discussion at the talk page to a single !vote, including commentary and disclosure, per discussion section or subsection; a ban on replying to or arguing with other discussants unless they directly addressed him; and a ban on attempting to assess or claim consensus, unless it is unanimous. --MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If he would voluntarily agree to accept these restrictions, I would AGF, take his word, and withdraw this as a formal proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree to those restrictions. Calibrador (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I withdraw this proposal. I do believe that you were unaware of essays like WP:BLUDGEON and did not realize that this kind of behavior could be seen as offensive. --MelanieN (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: My question is how does this affect the situation over at Talk:Donald Trump? Since Calibrador was directly involved? Chase (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This agreement is not retroactive. Whatever he said there still stands. I assume he will abide by these restrictions from now on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Chase (talk) 20:26, 14 September 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.

Weird sandboxes

The following recently created pages seem like candidates for speedy deletion, but I'm unsure whether/how to tag them. They were all created by the following IPs which come from the Philippines:

• 180.191.146.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 180.190.103.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 180.191.150.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Group 1. Note that User:BBCTV is not a registered account.
  • User talk:BBCTV/sandbox is a direct copy of the lede of BBC One.
  • User talk:BBCTV2/sandbox ditto BBC Two
  • User talk:BBCTV3/sandbox ditto BBC Three
• Group 2. Note that there is a registered user by this name FBTV (talk · contribs) but they are highly unlikely to have anything to do with this page. FBTV's sole edit was in 2011 and was to List of South African musicians
  • User talk:FBTV/sandbox ditto CBBC (TV channel).

Meanwhile those IPS are also editing other User talk "sandboxes" of older provenance:

• User talk:DSL12/sandbox. It's about another alleged Filipino broadcasting company called Franziled Media Network, Inc and doesn't appear to be the copy of an existing article. Note that User:DSL12 is not a registered account.

• User:DVBS10/sandbox. It's about an alleged Filipino company called Consolidated Broadcasting Companies, Inc. It doesn't appear to be the copy of an existing article. DVBS10 (talk · contribs) is a registered account and seems to have got into some kerfuffle back in January for creating sandboxes under other users' names, including non registered ones [72].

And now I'm wondering if all this is socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlandEllie 991/Archive/ CarlandEllie 991 had a history of creating, editing articles related to Philippine TV and radio stations (some of it hoax/vandalism for which they were originally blocked). Should I just file a new SPI? If so, then maybe it's best to keep these weird user talk pages as "evidence" until the SPI ends? Unfortunately, the previous sock accounts are stale. Pinging User:Blakegripling ph and User:GB fan who brought the previous CarlandEllie 991 SPIs. Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It does read like a CarlandEllie handiwork to me, as he has had a proprensity for coming up with bizarre edits relating to children's television programmes, juxtaposing it with Philippine media as in the case of that so-called DWMU-FM, the MU part referring to The Muppets of all things. His MO is similar to Bertrand101, a problem user who also had quite an imagination so to speak. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Blake Gripling. I note that from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101 that Bertrand101 also liked to edit the now deleted FBS Radio Network Inc. which User talk:DSL12/sandbox claims is the antecedent of "Franziled Media Network". Is it possible that CarlandEllie 991 are also socks of Bertrand101? If I do file an SPI, which is the best one use? CarlandEllie 991 or Bertrand101? Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

They appear to be related, but as far as I've observed Carl focuses more on children's programming while Bert's even more into radio stations in general, though yeah their interests do overlap somewhat. Basically any attempted juxtaposition of foreign media aimed for preschoolers with an unrelated Filipino station is certainly a CarlandEllie hallmark. Blake Gripling (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR

Hi, I'm reopening an old discussion that never came to a closure. The user MehrdadFR seems to hav a conflict of interest with articles related with Iran. He's constantly warring and adding unreliable sources and deleting sourced content. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Rupert Loup, didn't you see I left you message on talk page? Please stop with adding irrelevant content and deleting relevant material, and engage in discussion if you have any objections. MehrdadFR (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest anyone looking at this should first look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SednaXV Meters (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how that investigation is related with the behavior of MehrdadFR. Meters what is your opinion on this matter? Rupert Loup (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI suggesting that you are the same editor as the two accounts already blocked in that SPI, and who canvassed multiple editors about MehrdadFR, just as you are now canvassing multiple editors about MehrdadFR. Meters (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

So it has nothing to do with the behavior of MehrdadFR and that doesn't answer my question Meters. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no comment on MehrdadFR's behaviour or yours in the edit war. I'm commenting on the possibility that you are a sock of a currently blocked editor who was blocked after an SPI started by MehrdadFR. I've opened the SPI on you. It's pertinent to all the editors you have canvassed on this matter, and any admins who see this thread. Meters (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Meters, thanks for take the time to answer me. But I didn't canvassed on this or any matter. So please take it back. 02:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Rupert Loup (talk)

Rupert Loup, as someone peripherally involved in the past, can I advise that this thread is going to go nowhere without diffs showing recent and/or longterm problems. Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete I'm semi retired. This is too much work for me. I don't care for what happens in Wikipedia like before. It seems if nobody is interested we will be having Iranian propaganda in al the related articles. I don't care enough for doing something about it. It depends of other editors now. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Craig Silverstein

Resolved

Please will someone restore the version of Craig Silverstein which was deleted in February (not the more recent version which was apparently a copyvio). It was prodded in February, when I was travelling, so didn't see the nomination, or have chance to object. The deleting admin was User:Liz, whose user page says she is currently busy. A Google search for "Craig Silverstein Google" finds plenty of sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored that and talk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution for deleted content

Infogalactic is a new Wikipedia fork set up by Breitbart as "an alternative to biased Wikipedia". I have been asked to supply a copy of the page deleted at this MfD. Since Infogalactic's standards for notability and for COI are intended to be more relaxed than ours, it is likely to want to keep many articles that we delete, and we can expect more requests for copies.

My concern is, how should attribution be handled? Under CC-BY-SA we promise contributors that their contributions will be attributed, and any copies carry the same obligation. It does not seem right to accept contributions to a page, delete it, and then provide copies without attribution. Forked articles in Infogalactica are correctly linked to the original here, but where our page has been deleted there is nothing to link to.

Where an existing article is copied by Infogalactica and later deleted here, attribution will be lost anyway, and of course there are sites such as Deletionpedia which specialise in deleted content; but the fact that those sites are breaking the terms of CC-BY-SA doesn't make me happy to do it.

The best I can think of is to supply a list of contributors extracted from the history and require that the link at the bottom of the Infogalactica page which reads "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source)" is modified to say "See list of contributors" with a link to the list in a subpage. Any ideas? JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My reaction would be "no thanks". I see no reason to provide anything to unbiased Breitbart. If they want an article on Cultural Marxism, they can write one. If they can't even do that, then how are they planning to make an alternative to Wikipedia in the first place? Fram (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Fram. I see no need to supply alternative encyclopaedias with content that isn't in our own encyclopaedia! -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fram also. Despite the hype, this is a tiny fork (every registered editor there), and while I appreciate that they're making an effort to do things the right way rather than just copy-pasting, there's no reason for us to be spending time assisting on a project which will almost certainly no longer exist in a few months when the half-a-dozen people responsible for every edit lose interest and drift away. If Breitbart can't write an article on one of their own pet themes, I don't see how they can consider themselves a credible rival to Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 11:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me echo what has been said above. Wikipedia's license allows mirror sites to take content from Wikipedia at any time. It in now way obligates Wikipedia editors or admins to do any work to give them content, however. No one should be obligated to undelete anything or to find old revisions or anything like that. If they want to take it, let them come get it. If they can't find it, or it has been deleted, that's not your, mine, or anyone else here's problem. --Jayron32 11:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are the deleted versions in the datadump? then they would have access anyway. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If deleted versions are in the datadump, then that needs an urgent fix. I don't believe they are, however. Otherwise the WMF would be providng countless BLP attacks and copyright violations this way. Fram (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Agathoclea and Fram: Nope, they're not, and never have been. Graham87 11:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Unilaterally doing this would be a misuse of the admin tools since it was deleted out of Draft space by a community decision after the main space was SALTed. To me, this isn't an administrative decision but a community one, which means WP:DRV is the right venue. I doubt it would fare better there, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Send him to DRV and let him take his chances. I've got other things to do than run around fetching deleted articles for a POV fork. Katie^talk 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• As I understand it, administrators are under no obligation to provide a copy of deleted content. However, administrators can voluntarily choose to do so. If an admin did choose to provide a copy, as I'm sure this issue will come up again, what would the protocol be when we know they want to post it to an external wiki? The fact that Breitbart is running this particular example is irrelevant, I'm curious about the CC-BY-SA issues. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That is correct, but it is assumed that an admin would userfy/undelete the article for the sole purpose of improving it for mainspace only, not for some other reason that policy doesn't cover. If it was a CSD, it wouldn't be a problem, but when it's an XfD, we are (and should be) limited in unilaterally undeleting for these purposes. WP:AIR would rarely apply, and certainly not here, as the core of AIR is "to improve Wikipedia". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's separate out two things:

• Nobody is obliged to provide a copy of the deleted page, but admins can do so voluntarily. From the Deletion policy page: Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. I don't see any legal grounds, so it is left to "no good reason is given for the request", which can mean anything, including that somebody does not like Breitbart, apparently.
• The CC-BY-SA issue applies to all deleted content, so there's nothing special here. It is perhaps better to decide it on a policy basis (I don't know if there have been past discussions about this), rather than making ad hoc justifications. My impression from reading this page is that the mirror/fork should acknowledge the contributors to comply with the license, which is typically done with a link to the Wikipedia article. Since there is no Wikipedia article, a list of contributor names is probably a good way to go, as listed in the OP. I don't know how workable this is, or if it is even required to mention all contributors to comply with the license.

The concern seems a bit overblown to me. Unless there is some kind of bulk or regular request for deleted pages by Infogalactic, I don't see what the harm is in making the page available to them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between providing a copy of a deleted page for private information or research, and providing it for re-publication. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What difference does it make to you (or anyone else on Wikipedia) whatever the person wants to do with the content? Wikipedia does not want it, because it's not apparently up to Wikipedia's standards. The rights of the contributors (I don't know how many are pseudonymous "RandomGuy1234 on Wikipedia") are so important that the content should be kept in the dustbin? That doesn't make sense to me. If a pseudonymous editor like me, say, asks for some page to be userfied will people monitor me (how?) to see what I did with the content?

Just have a uniform policy for how to handle CC-BY-SA for deleted pages and apply it. Don't apply standards to motivations which don't make sense and aren't workable practically.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser and oversighter.
• MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a checkuser.

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Very basic backlogs #2

I just noticed the post above by @BU Rob13: when I came here to post about WP:ANEW. I have cleared the backlog for now, but in the last few days I have noticed several instances where reports at ANEW have not received a response for 24 hours or longer. This strikes me as a double failing on part of the administrator corps. First, we tell users to report edit-warring rather than respond with more edit-warring: but if we do not respond to the reports until they are stale, that is not terribly fair to the reporter, who is after all only following instructions: and it also opens us to being gamed. Secondly, it is not fair to those few admins who do patrol ANEW (or other fora) regularly, because it begins to place an undue burden on them.

Now obviously a long-term solution is "more admins", and equally obviously this is not the time and place to rehash that discussion. What I am hoping for is a) more eyes, and b) some wise words/magic bullet solution from experienced mop-wielders (I am, after all, at the time of this post, en.wikipedia's youngest admin :) ) Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Functionary reappointments

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily resigned his checkuser and oversight permissions in May 2015 prior to a planned wikibreak, is reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
• Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was appointed as an oversighter in August 2013 and whose oversight permissions were removed for inactivity in August 2015, is reappointed as an oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of the permission.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for the record, it was May 2016. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

ECP on Kurdish cinema

I'm thinking of giving Kurdish cinema an extended confirmed protection. Long story short, there's a persistent sockmaster that has been trying to add their film to Wikipedia and Kurdish cinema has been one of their favorite topics. (This same sockmaster has also made some pretty explicit death threats on the userpage of Majora.) It's all relatively recent but the user has been especially persistent.

Now the reason for ECP is that the user has discovered how to get around the regular protection (put in by Bbb23) and become autoconfirmed so they can edit the page. Any ECP I give would only be for the original protection time that Bbb23 gave, November 7. I kind of thing that a longer protection will likely become necessary, but I'm hoping that the ECP will deter them. I'd suggest a title blacklist except that the film's title (I Want to Live) is common enough that it would likely be detrimental to blacklist it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines for imposing ECP are not very clear, but I don't think the amount and persistence of socking at the article are sufficient to justify it. In my view, given the revision history, semi-protection is barely justifiable. This isn't the only sock case where the master has learned what he has to do to become auto-confirmed. I've seen a lot worse. That said, I understand why the filer and Tokyogirl want to use ECP. It's frustrating to see this kind of pattern even if by objective measures it's sporadic. I've noticed that some editors who become "experts" on a particular master tend to get invested and blow things a bit out of proportion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I take offense to your statement that I am blowing things out of proportion by asking if ECP could be applied to a page that has an autoconfirmed sock problem. I'm not an expert on anyone and I'm not invested by any means. I see a duck, I revert, and I report. I can stop doing that if you want. I really don't need the hassle of dealing with a master that leaves me death threats anyway. --Majora (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I don't believe it was Bbb23's intention to belittle your position. Your request was a valid one and they stated they understood where you're coming from. Likewise, I also understand Bbb23's position. In the context of a single actor causing the disruption it's very extreme to restrict an article from being edited by everyone. That being said, the edit history is a mine field. This article prior to September was rarely edited. The 50 edits prior to September take us as far back as 2009. In the very least, this trial will have limited impact unlike if this had been on a more popular topic. If we can all agree to at least try ECP for one month then we'll use this trial to determine how best to proceed? Lastly, if you have been issued death threats, those are taken extremely seriously. You should notify ArbCom immediately if this has been the case. Mkdw^talk 21:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: The threats were already suppressed and the WMF was contacted. Emailing ArbCom such things will just result in the email being forwarded to the emergency address anyways per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#What happens to incoming ArbCom email?. Better not to disturb them in situations like that as it just delays potential action. Thank you for the trial run. It is appreciated. --Majora (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is probably a non issue now. User:Mkdw has already levied ECP on the article till 7 November. Blackmane (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Blackmane. As an administrator who had not been previously involved in the case, I reviewed the extensive history of the sock master, as well as read through the concerns Bbb23 expressed during the 2 October 2016 SPI case. I personally do not favour semi-protection or ECP, but considering we were back at SPI so quickly after the semi-protection was implemented, I also concurred with the other commentators on the case for ECP. Sock puppetry is one of the ECP criteria and the lock was for a very limited duration. I think we should see how it goes and we can better determine whether or not its required in the future and if its an effective short term deterrent. Mkdw^talk 21:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Interview Request for an Admin

Hi my name is Edward and I've been editing for a few years on Wikipedia. For my Graduation Research Project I require an interview or a couple interviews with some Wikipedia editors, preferably administrators but anyone is welcome if they wish. I do need at least one administrator to do this for me. If anyone is willing to participate, the questions are located at User:EoRdE6/Graduation Project/Interview. Thanks! If you have any questions feel free to reply or leave me a message. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Swear I signed that... But please anyone who is willing feel free! Need this soon and it would be highly appreciated, understand if you're busy with onwiki or offwiki work though EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats

Hapimarissa user making legal threats - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not legal threat- Please advise me what to do to have that page taken downsince I have been bullied one too many. Thank youHapimarissa (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been in pain and suffering already.. I want this page removed because I cannot watch it everyday. Advise me what to do please Hapimarissa (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, short of a legal threat but very close to the line and maybe worth a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hapimarissa: The page is not going to be deleted, Final time. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AGAIN, Please advise me how to have it removed since your wiki can be edited by just anyone including my haters and stalkers. Can you promise then to keep an eye on it, instead of me...? cheers.Hapimarissa (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hapimarissa: Please be aware that if you do make a post that appears to be a legal threat. Our internal rules are to immediately block you and let you pursue a legal alternative. I recommend against that is that will just waste time.

You have stated at least threefour times that you want the page removed. You are free to propose it for deletion but that would also be a waste of time. Wikipedia does not remove an article simply because some person doesn't like it. You'll have to provide a policy-based reason for its removal. If there are errors in the article you can identify them and we will address them. If there is vandalism from a small number of identifiable editors we will warn them and if they continue we will block them. If there is vandalism from a large number of editors we can place temporary protection on the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

SIR, as long as that page stays like that I have no problem..that is perfect. The issue is future vandalism again and again. and no one can watch that page everyday. May I request for a protection then..Thank you Hapimarissa (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins, AS long as that page stays like that forever and will not be vandalized again and again..then that would be awesome. May I request for a permanent protection please. Kind regards Hapimarissa (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hapimarissa: You may request it, but there's no guarantee it will be approved. WP:Requests for page protection is where to file that request. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hapimarissa, let me be as clear as I possibly can: NO. I'm seriously starting to believe you need a competency block because you clearly do not understand. No, we will not delete the page. No, we will not permanently protect it. No, we will not babysit it for you. Grow some thicker skin. --Tarage (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually we will babysit the article, at least according to WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

For anyone curious, this discussion seems to relate to the article Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's editing restrictions - review

There is rough consensus that it wouldn't be in the community's benefit to renew the DYK participation restrictions on LavaBaron in case of his return to the English Wikipedia. Some editors opined that LavaBaron's contributions were problematic even up till his retirement, but reasons to let the restrictions expire include the inherent difficulties posed by these restrictions and the fact that LavaBaron had obeyed the restrictions "with some dignity". The restrictions are therefore considered expired. Deryck C. 12:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Introduction

On 8 July, the following DYK participation restrictions were given to LavaBaron as a result of a previous AN thread:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (rescinded on 16 August)
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

It has been 3 months so I'm starting this discussion to review the editing restrictions. The options would be rescind restrictions, continue existing restrictions (for another specified duration), or enact alternative restrictions. Since I'm not a regular DYK participant, I'm neutral on this matter.

This thread is cross-posted to both WP:AN and WT:DYK by transclusion. Deryck C. 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

LavaBaron has retired, so I think this discussion is moot. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess we still have the question of "what do we want to do if he comes back". Deryck C. 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Deryck, indeed Wikipedia has a long history of editors who "retire" and then return. One thing I would suggest is to not return to the well-intentioned retriction that any review done by him needs to be checked again by another editor. Let's not go down that road again for any individual. It punishes good-faith nominators who had nothing to do with the situation. Our system is clogged enough now. What happens if he chooses to go the route of Clean start? — Maile (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• While he was still editing, LavaBaron obeyed the restrictions with some dignity. I would suggest that the restrictions are lifted entirely in the hope that he may return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Let bygones be bygones. We have had too much anger on this talk page already. Let's just focus more on collaborative editing with whoever willing and ready to work. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Hardly moot. In past times, when people have left while restrictions were still in force, they remained in force on their return, which prevented some problems. There were about five weeks remaining in the three-month restriction when LavaBaron retired; I think the remaining five weeks should run if/when he returns. There were some problems with his reviews while he was still under restriction, and I'd like to see that problems have become a thing of the past before they are ended. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I must agree with BlueMoonset. The remaining five weeks of restrictions will act as a test of whether LB understands the problems that led to their being put in place. EEng 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Since the time is up and LavaBaron has caused no more problems, I suggest lifting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 11 October 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.

Page user:Michgrig/common.js

Sorry if this is a wrong page, I have not been able to determine another one where to leave my request. Please delete the page because it is not needed any more; I've added this script to global.js on meta.--Michgrig (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. If you had put a U1 speedy tag on the page, it wouldn't have shown up on the page, but the page would have appeared in the proper CSD category and would have been deleted. Deor (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Action required at open category discussion of 8 June

The above CfD has been running for several months - as I have contributed I cannot close it. Would an uninvolved editor please assess and administer where appropriate? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Range block admin needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA

Help wanted: If you know anything about range blocks, I'd appreciate a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA. I believe that the IPs reported in the 156.12.248.* 156.12.250.* and 156.12.251.* areas are related to this sockmaster. I wouldn't mind a second opinion on it, but the recently reported IPs geolocate to an educational facility in Pennsylvania, and some of the other IPs that were reported months ago resolve to the same institution. A range block was performed several months ago and I'm guessing that another one might be necessary now if this guy doesn't quit the block evasion. I know nothing about range blocks, so your help is requested. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

156.12.248.0/22 covers the range. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Previous rangeblock was for the /16. I don't see anything outside the /22 for now, though, and since we're talking about 1024 addresses vs. 65K addresses, I've blocked 156.12.248.0/22 for six months. If he edits outside that range, let me know and I'll block the wider /16. And if someone feels the length is excessive (I don't), feel free to reduce. Katie^talk 12:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A belated thank you, KK! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Action required at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory

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 above AfD has been running for a month - as I have contributed I cannot close it. Would an uninvolved editor please assess and administer where appropriate? Thanks Nordic Nightfury 15:06, 18 October 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.

Edit suppression needed

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 an edit removed from history as it contains personal info (i.e. phone number) from a user. The offending edit is this [73]. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 19:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: Please, never post requests for suppression or revdel on a public noticeboard like this because it draws unwanted attention. The edit notice for this page tells you how to make such requests, but please see WP:REVDEL and WP:Oversight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 18 October 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.

Unable to Edit 'Everyone Is Gay' Page

The 'Everyone Is Gay' page has been restricted to administrators, in order to prevent vandalism. It has a name that could potentially be flagged as unusual or inappropriate. I believe the name is misunderstood. Everyone Is Gay (everyoneisgay.com) is an advice website and community for LGBTQ people. I believe it is not inappropriate. It includes many verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace30132016 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The page is not restricted because it is considered inappropriate - that's not how we generally do things here. It's protected to prevent vandalism (as you said). ansh666 05:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Try writing a draft at User:Grace30132016/sandbox; once you think it;s ready, please come here and ask us to move it to its proper location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:43, 18 October 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.

---

There's a backlog at WP:AIV. Some reports are over 5 hours old. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 18 October 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.

Range block request at an old SPI case

Can someone who knows about range blocks look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open for over two weeks now without any admin comment. There's one IP address that's stable and used often, another that's used much more rarely, and an admittedly wide IPv6 range that I've asked to be range blocked. JShanley98 was blocked for copyright infringement, but he's mostly making gnomish edits. It's not a huge deal, but his continued disruption has annoyed several WikiProject Film members. If I need to provide more evidence or something, it would be nice to get a message to that effect.

If someone said they were going to patrol WP:SPI cases, I'd support their RFA. Just saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The IPv6 range is too stale, plus it's big (a /41 range from Verizon Wireless). I did block the most recent IP for three months. Hope that helps, and I'll dig in to some of the SPI backlog as soon as I feel like I'm not going to blow the place up. ;-) Katie^talk 02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. The most frustrating thing here is that they want to contribute, but never acknowledged that their copyvio additions were a problem. Thankfully their editing style is easy to spot when they pop up from time to time. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Marchoctober

Editor Marchoctober appears dissatisfied with the adminning service he is receiving from SpacemanSpiff and is restoring to name calling and baiting and soapboxing. Would anyone care to provide further edification?

This most recent behavioral flare up is the result of some problematic edits he made at Kabali (film) as documented here. His response to the correction was to revert and call me biased. I had to post a ridiculously detailed explanation just so he could understand what the problems were. After SS intervened, the user took a defensive stance and I think we're now dealing with his perceived persecution. Marchoctober is currently blocked for personal attacks and is lashing out. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

He should have been topic banned from the area last year under WP:ARBIPA but I gave him a last warning then after the ANI. This nonsense has gone on long enough, he's wasting the time of many other productive editors. I was in two minds as to whether a topic ban or a block this time but went with a block as I wasn't sure a topic ban would work right now in stopping the disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 06:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See also: these thoughts where he is adamant that his talk page can be used as a soapbox. It might be time to revoke talk page access. (User has been notified of AN post, BTW.) Spiff, are Indian films covered under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions? I've always wondered. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, anything under India is covered. IN this particular thing, it's not just films but he's trying to play ethnicities in BLPs and film articles and attacking others on that basis. I don't care what he calls me as that has nothing to do with the content area, but that's just what he does in the content area where he gets in disputes. There's a real case of a lack of competence here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the competence assessment, for the headache that his two edits and subsequent reversion at Kabali caused me. He didn't understand the International Business Times source material, didn't write a proper summary of it, didn't notice that the content he was trying to summarize appeared in the paragraph immediately below his addition, didn't seem to understand my admonishment when I told him that he couldn't refactor a quotation and that he'd misinterpreted IBT. And then he got pissy about it, somehow confusing a "you read the source material wrong" message into some kind of a message that implied bias on my part. This isn't the only instance that has caused competence concerns either. In September he flagged two Baahubali film articles[74][75] with {{dubious}} tags, apparently expressing doubt that the film was shot both in Telugu and Tamil, even though he was part of the conversation that led to the consensus that we include both languages in various articles. I suspect he didn't like the taste of Tamil being included in a film from the Telugu film industry, which would be demonstrative of ethnic warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block as Marchoctober is only using it to post personal attacks - I think it's in their own interest to help them put the spade down and stop digging. (I haven't looked closely enough to opine on any possible ARBIPA sanctions.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BsZ. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(Random musing) You know, occasionally I wonder why such people are not indef blocked by default. That kind of belligerent attitude and bad edits seems like something one would not risk having back on the project without an explicit appeal or an administrator explicitly deciding that the issue is resolved, rather than hoping that within N seconds the issue is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, you know, good faith and all. When I find myself in positions like this, I often get really concerned about being "involved". I would have blocked him initially had it not been for the previous discussions I was involved with him at Kabali. And when he reverted my edit, where I removed his quote refactoring, plagiarism, and misinterpreted content, I was sure I was justified, but I'm paranoid about being considered involved simply because I've expressed an opinion about something. Any edification that experienced admins have about this issue for me, I'd appreciate hearing. If an editor starts calling you biased and lobbing insults at you, can you still administrate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I tend to think the same as you - if it's me being accused or attacked, I prefer someone else to deal with it. As for content involvement, I think reversion of clear policy violations (with no editorial opinion on the actual content) should be fine, but it can be borderline and some would see it as involvement - I think judgment on misinterpretation of sources, for example, can cross the line. Again, ideally, if it's not simply a clear cut policy violation then I think admin action is best left to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Category created by mistake

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.

---

Hello, I erroneously created Category:Towers in Atlanta on en.wiki, unaware that I wasn't on Commons. Could you please delete it? I apologize for the mistake and the disturb. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just put {{db-error}} on the page and an admin will take care of it eventually. In the future see Wikipedia:Deletion process for what to do when you want a page deleted. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll read it! -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:14, 20 October 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.

Outside opinion requested at SPI

Seeking outside review of the case filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa. This case involves a small set of accounts who have been investigated for sockpuppetry multiple times without a conclusive finding. I and some other users have posted new analysis which I think points strongly to a conclusion, but I've been looking at this too long. I invite fresh eyes to review the clerk notes section and determine if a conclusion is supported by the analysis given. Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature change

This is Darkknight2149. Since my signature is being forged by a vandal, I had to change it. If you see anyone using my previous signature ( DarkKnight2149 ) on 20 October 2016 or later, then it is NOT me. As such, I won't be revealing my new signature here in case the vandal sees this. You can use the edit history to verify that this is me. 18:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

From looking at your edit history I can see it's been an IP doing this, if it starts happening again report it to AIV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

Sudden change of editing font

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Sudden change of editing font

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 I was editing a file just now, I caught a key (A?) accidentally, and the font used in the edit displayed in the edit window changed from the usual proportionate-width font to a typescript font with every letter the same width. Please how can I change it back? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Anthony Appleyard, the font in my edit form is always monospaced. I use the default skin (vector) and as far as I remember I have no special configuration to force the monospace font (I could, because I prefer it, but I think I don't and just checked whatever I remembered could influence it). So... maybe you have some configuration that changed it, either using a different skin, or some browser configuration? - Nabla (talk) 09:48, 22 October 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.

Abuse filter going nuts

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 "your mom" abuse filter seems to be triggering all and any IPs and new users. Xuzsagon (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit) Zzuuzz disabled it. Xuzsagon (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's quite a useful filter, so any input please here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:55, 19 October 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.

Requested edits backlog

There is a backlog on conflict-of-interest edits that dates back over a year: Category:Requested edits. Zbergermww (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a very bad thing. Perhaps it would be beneficial to ask of future requesters for adminship whether they are aware of the impact of such backlogs on the very serious problems of COI editing that Wikipedia faces, and, if they are aware, what steps they have taken in their editing career prior to their RfA to deal with such backlogs. MPS1992 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested edits backlog

There is a backlog on conflict-of-interest edits that dates back over a year: Category:Requested edits. Zbergermww (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested edits backlog

There is a backlog on conflict-of-interest edits that dates back over a year. See here: Category:Requested edits. Zbergermww (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.22.250 (talk)

Cannot create User talk:ᶠᶡ while unregistered, blocked by blacklist

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 wanted to insert {{subst:Uw-nor1|List of TCP and UDP port numbers}} on this person's talk page, but the local title blocklist or global title blacklist didn't allow me to create a new talk page for this user. Could you please create the page, maybe with {{Welcome}} or the previously mentioned user warning? 80.221.159.67 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The page has been created, you should be able to edit now. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:58, 23 October 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.

Arbcom remedies needed at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

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.

---

Q: Is it consistent with Wikipedia's policies and principles to include highly visible content about allegations that a current U.S. presidential candidate repeatedly raped a 13-year-girl in 1994, while that content is under RfC? If so, please say so and ignore the rest of this thread.

I mistakenly added the U.S. politics Arbcom remedies template to Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. I did this not only because I thought it was a simple oversight to omit the template, but also because that was my only justification for removing the child-rape allegations pending the RfC consensus to include them. I attempted to expedite the RfC to 4 days per WP:IAR, and that was rejected. I don't see why forking content from Donald Trump should mean that the content is removed from the cover of the remedies.

I know that the allegations are mentioned in Donald Trump, but that is a larger battle than I care to take on at this point. I wouldn't see much merit in an argument that that's the higher visibility article and it's pointless to fix the problem only in one less visible article. If no editors at Donald Trump wish to dispute that content and remove it pending talk page consensus, that's their prerogative.

I'm requesting that an admin add the template back. Thank you for your attention to this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether the article should be restricted, but if it is, it also has to be logged and an edit notice should be added to the page. See WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions.- MrX 01:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Strongjam beat me to it. I logged it. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• MrX or some other kind soul, can you please stick an editnotice in? It's bath time here. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Some confusion here I think. I'm not an admin, but I have added the {{Ds/talk notice}} to the page. That is pretty non-controversial I think. The template Mandruss is talking about is {{2016 US Election AE}} which includes the 1RR restriction. The question here is if that template applies, or if that requires an uninvolved admin to log it and apply it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright. Yes on the confusion. I stuck that one back in; it seems pretty relevant to me. Can I just start blocking whoever I want to now? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Merci! Go ahead an start blocking, and enjoy the bath. Pretty sure it's whomever. Please don't block me. — Strongjam (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I wish you would! As long as it's not me or any of my friends, of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I would be happy to oblige, but it requires Template Editor or Admin permissions. If an admin would like to help, here is a link Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and the template can be copied from here.- MrX 02:01, 24 October 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.

Lowercase sigmabot III not working properly at all

Lowercase sigmabot III isn't working properly at all. The archiving at WP:ANI has been set to 72-hours-old for years now, but there are currently threads on the page that have gone 5, 6, and 7 days without responses or archiving. I've seen countless other pages over the past several months with threads well past that page's "expiration" that Lowercase sigmabot III has failed to archive. It appears we need a replacement for this bot as it is failing. ANI in particular needs a working bot that archives stale threads promptly.

The bot's creator, Σ, hasn't edited in 6 weeks. Someone may need to email him.

PS: I'm posting this in a couple of places so that it is seen by those who can help. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I replied to this question over at WT:ANI. The bot is working, but it's always possible that some malformed threads may not archive and need to be removed manually. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary (&c) by Til Eulenspiegel

Resolved

 – User:Til Eulenspiegel is banned by the community. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Could some mop-wielder remove this edit summary and possibly remove the comment itself? Thanx! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the comment and rev-deleted the summary, and I've blocked the IP - it's a wireless one, so someone might want to consider a rangeblock if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see your response here until after I saw what you did and responded on your talk page. Bishonen knows this shit best, I think, but I messaged her earlier today and pinged her on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Til apparently doesn't understand that the US constitution's freedom of speech doesn't guarantee one the right to use privately operated platforms like Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And if one of you nice admins could block the IP and RevDel their comments here, that would be much appreciated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I don't think revdeling is necessary. Keeping this stuff on the public record is good because there are a lot of users who aren't as bad as Til but aren't all that pleasant wither who don't have admin access and who try to deny the stuff folks like me have to put up with. Actually what I meant above by "remove the comment itself" was simply delete it rather than remove it from the public records. I would have done it myself, but I'm on a 1RR restriction that includes an exception for unambiguous vandalism but I don't think technically includes an exception for block evasion and personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Til under an indef block? Or community ban? Because if the former, I think its time to get it formalised under the latter given the serious nature of the personal attacks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I asked that exact question, but more discretely, on WT:ADMIN earlier today. I think it's a "de facto community ban", and I think any admin who would dare to unilaterally unblock their main account should be a candidate for desysop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly indef block is not a de facto ban. I could provide examples including one where I genuinely thought no admin would ever *dream* of unblocking without running it by a noticeboard first.

• Due to personal attacks (including but not limited to sexuality-based insults) while socking, I am proposing Til Eulenspigel's block is converted to a community ban. I cannot see any length of time mitigating my opinion someone who calls other editors 'fairies' is not welcome here.

Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support I don't see a reason to allow the user to return to editing at this time. Continued socking and the vulgar comments left here and in the example above show that the community should not tolerate this behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. I should correct OID on one point, though. The recent insults toward me were not sexuality-based (I'm not gay nor does Til have any reason to think I am, except apparently that I am a westerner who likes Japanese poetry). The words used were just arbitrary epithets, and the thing really offensive was that the "F" word is jut offensive in and of itself, in a similar manner to the "N" word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• To digress, that you may/may not be gay is irrelevant really. The insult was based on sexuality - using gay etc as a perjorative makes it a sexuality-based insult. Regardless of the recipient's sexuality - in that it is likely to offend. Likewise if I call you 'nigger' its still a racist insult, regardless of your actual colour. (After years of xbox live, I have little tolerance for 'gay' insults) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• What a sad case. We're talking about someone with great potential. They claim, BTW, that a lot of socks are misidentified as theirs; I have not known Til to say the kind of stuff that Hijiri88 signaled above, but I don't know them or their socks that well. I think (Doug Weller, is this correct?) that they said some really terrible things from sock accounts, more so than from the Til account, as if socking were a license. Esp. Doug, but me too, were called racists at various times. Anyway, I don't know what to say here. Again, I think Til has/had great potential if they could only stop edit warring, insulting, and socking--but those are hardly minor points. I am not going to support banning them, though. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Not for the personal attacks on me, but for the stated intent to continue socking and the persistent fringe pushing as well as the personal attacks on others.- @Drmies: you may not be aware how fringe Til is. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Doug, that is entirely possible. You know them much better than I do. I looked at a few random edits earlier today and they didn't seem so bad--but some of the stuff you and I dealt with last year or so certainly was fringey. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. The support is unanimous, the ban was already de facto in place, and no one has commented here in a week. Can an admin please close this? I'd NAC it, but as I recall that's forbidden on successful ban proposals. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:45, 24 October 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.

@EdJohnston: Are you supposed to notify him of the ban? Or does that only apply to blocks? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I already notified him on his talk page, but he removed the message. A more permanent notice is now on his user page, using the {{banned}} template. That template puts him in the Category:Banned Wikipedia users. There are ways in which he could come back, but he doesn't seem to want to. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rise in racism/fascism/antisemitism on Wikipedia?

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 been a little more active on ANI lately, but has anyone else noticed this? Zaostao (talk · contribs) was active for months before anyone noticed his user page, so I am not sure if it's just a coincidence that so many similar cases are coming forward in rapid succession, or if this has always been the case and I'm just noticing it now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

From my point of view it's about the same as always. The traditional Holocaust denial has ticked downwards, if anything, but frankly bigoted editors are perhaps a little more numerous, and there has been a general increase in overt misogyny over the past three or four years. There has been a consistent attempt by POV pushers across a broad range of related topics to push the notion that national socialism in particular and fascism in general were products of the left (apparently because "socialism"). More eyes on those subjects would be welcome. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. "It was the Democrats who lynched blacks" and "Hitler was a leftist who killed more Christians than Jews". I guess if you've been seeing it for a long time it might just be me, but I've come across like four such on incidents (almost all on ANI) in like two or three weeks. I guess the distaste most good Wikipedians have for any kind of interaction with such problems makes it worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Betteridge's law of headlines. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The joys of increased internet coverage. The wrong sort of people get to have it too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've been here 10 years, I don't see a rise. The example page was subtle, easy for most people to miss the connection. I missed it, had to go look up 88 and 14. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I spend quite a lot of time on modern German history etc., so I have seen quite a bit of what looks like right-wing POV pushing in the past. In my experience there has been quite a decrease in this sort of thing over the last few years, though there may have been a slight up-tick recently, for instance (as Acroterion mentioned) related to the notion that Nazis were left-wing. Other articles that need scrutiny are those that relate to the Aftermath of World War I in Germany and Aftermath of World War II in Germany. --Boson (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I see a lot of this as a result of pushback and other actions that are a result of WP's trends towards favoring topics that lean left and/or eschewing those that lean right due to many factors beyond our control (the general left-leaning tendencies of Western media, the current election cycle, the culture war going on, etc.) and some factors within our control (our RS policy that tends to disallow right-leaning sources while allowing left-leaning sources without considering broad changes in the behavior of the media, and how some policies like NPOV are interpreted in far too literal a manner to incorporate consideration of the larger picture). And this unfortunately is a self-fulfilling cycle as it stands while the external factors spin farther out of control. We appear to propagate the left-leaning views to this point, hence why we see more people trying to promote (for better or worse) right-leaning topics to try to combat this apparent bias. I agree most of these attempts are half-hearted and non-constructive, but we also tend to group constructive attempts to address this problem with the bad faith ones, which we have to be careful not to do. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I have been on here for 7 + years and also do not believe it is on the rise. If anything, it has decreased to some degree; and frankly, I have never seen this editor's (Zaostao) posts or user page; some edits do slip through onto Wikipedia for a time as one cannot watch everything all the time. However, they are usually dealt with once discovered. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: It would be helpful to have a dedicated noticeboard, perhaps as “Far-right” or “Political spectrum”, similar to RSN or Fringe Theories noticeboard. It was lucky that enough people were watching the Jared Taylor page so that Zaostao could be contained, but I’m sure there are many pages that nobody is watching. I’ve recently been exposed to some areas of the project which made me wonder—is this Wikipedia or is this Stormfront? Here’s a sample.

I’ve also been recently harassed for my supposed anti-fascist and anti-Nazi views:

• Attempted doxing

• Personal attacks for “antifascist reputation”

Like any online project, you are going to get a variety of opinions, but some are more problematic than others. Thus a noticeboard may be a good idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that might be a good idea, but it would overlap with NPOVN. On a related note, just this morning I found a trinity of articles that used the word "Negroes" unironically, and two of them don't have it marked as a quotation. The book is 200 years old, so there's no copyright concern, but I wonder about the kind of editor who would rake a sentence like that and not think twice before re-producing it in Wikipedia's voice... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe an additional noticeboard is needed; just use the ones available which apply to the editor or subject matter at hand. And keep a watchful eye out, as best as one can given this massive project and limited time we all or most here have. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• This kind of untelligent nonsense seems to be pretty prevalent these days. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it was always like this. Certainly I have been reverting that sort of nonsense for as long as I care to remember. In some cases you get people who are genuinely ignorant or confused about what left and right mean, while others are fully aware and just seek to muddy the waters for their own ideological reasons. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and stuff... --DanielRigal (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• We have always had editors editing from a far right perspective, but I do agree that there has been an increase over the past year or two concurrent with the resurgence of far right politics in broader society (Alt-right etc.) Unfortunately I think this is natural and unavoidable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that there does seems to have been an increase of "selective blanking" of text in articles. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 24 October 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.

Human nose ‎

There is some kind of dispute going on at the article called Human nose. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over this noticeboard, please. What is the problem? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is some kind of dispute over Human nose and the parties are starting to use vulgar language. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the parties keeps deleting my report. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this dispute is occurring and where is incivility is at? It's obviously not on Talk:Human nose, since there hasn't been an edit made there since December 2015. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.70.33.161&diff=prev&oldid=746057742 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 and 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445: You're not involved in this dispute and you continue to ignore my messages when I say I will solve this with the other disputant, you're not involved in this so why are you getting involved in it? You don't even know why this whole thing started. (121.214.169.171 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

That is why I want the administrators to handle it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, it appears that the back-and-fourth warring has occurred not only here, but on User talk:24.70.33.161. 24.70.33.161 is allowed to remove or change what is on his/her talk page if desired. Neither one of you have taken this dispute to the article's talk page and discussed anything at all. Any dispute or disagreement needs to be discussed there, or the stick needs to be dropped and you need to move on. Both of you are to stop this back-and-fourth reverting. Failure to stop the back-and-fourth disruption, and failure to take this issue on the article's talk page, will result in blocking. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• You folks are lucky a nicer admin than me saw this first, I was all ready to start blocking away for the out-of-control edit warring both here and at the article itself. I have protected the page for now, you need to discuss the disputed material on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I said I didn't want that, so you should have respected my decision and replied to my messages. You're making things up, saying we're using "vulgar" language, no we're not, where is this "vulgar" language you speak of? (121.214.169.171 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

Ok Oshwah and Beebletrox, I do apologize for edit warring. I should have told an administrator about the blanking as opposed to edit warring. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's okay. Let's both calm down, stop warring like this, and take the dispute to the article's talk page, okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The IP address here is not involved in the dispute so I'm not sure why they started butting in for no reason, they don't even know what the problem is. (121.214.169.171 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

I do not know what exactly the problem is, but I could sense the tension on Human nose was getting high so that is why I brought it here. I will step out of this discussion now. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize too, for starting an edit war @Oshwah: but 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 is not part of the dispute, so I can't take it to the talk page. (121.214.169.171 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

I acknowledge your apology as well. It doesn't matter whose "involved" or not - anyone is allowed to report a problem or engage in a discussion if they feel that something needs to be. Deleting his/her reports (such as here) is not the way to resolve the matter, nor positively collaborate. Now, the article's talk page is here. Go there, and discuss your issues. This is how to properly resolve disputes. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to acknowledge Beeblebrox's response - the level of edit warring you both engaged in typically results in immediate blocking to those involved. Now, I don't want to keep poking about this; you both apologized and it's not right of me to keep going on about it after you both took extremely good measures to do so. That shows a lot... :-). Thank you, Beeblebrox, for protecting the article. Now... off to the article's talk page you both go!!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Oshwah: it's just that they ignored the message I sent to them telling them I wanted to solve it with the disputant only but they ignored it and brought it here. Anyway it doesn't matter I'll follow what you told me to say. (121.214.169.171 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

I understand. It's behind us now... Follow my advice, and you'll be fine. And no more edit warring like this!!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize and yes I have followed your advice, I left a message on the talk page, thank you. (121.214.169.171 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

No worries, and thank you for doing so :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) (121.214.169.171 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

Could use some admin attention

at Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions, which has a 380+ item backlog dating back to July 10. Most of these are very easy closures, and any admin is welcome to help out. -FASTILY 06:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

Hey admins--this article has seen a couple of editors trying to insert some decidedly unencyclopedic content to the article--in short, POV accusations naming living people with YouTube videos and other unacceptable sourcing. For example, "The extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in this “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer"--sourced to Breitbart. As far as I'm concerned anyone who sticks that kind of partisan nonsense with that kind of sourcing in any article should be blocked on the spot, but I would rather have some more eyes on it. I handed out some templated AC/DS warnings. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the presidential election. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that this is just more of the usual anti-Clinton conspiracy theory silliness of the same sort as the accusations that the DNC was secretly backing Hillary during the primary season. Oh wait... Eh. In any event better sources are required. I wouldn't trust Breitbart as a reliable source for the current weather. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well there are better sources out there. Arguably the 'sting' is relevant to the protest article given the conversations recorded. With one sacking and one resignation of two of the parties recorded, its certainly had an impact. Breitbart and Hannity obviously put a different slant on it to CNN or the Post which make it clear O'Keefe has form for video manipulation in the area. But when as an organisation you complain that you have been the recipient of a 'well organised spy operation' without substantially addressing what they were actually spying on.... well thats a crap defense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can "well" all you like, but those sources weren't cited, and that sentence I quoted isn't verified anyway. I don't care about the organization or the defense; I care about what kinds of statements are verified by what kinds of sources. It's pretty obvious that that particular statement makes a fact out of an accusation, and we should be very, very wary of that. Otherwise Wikipedia will be a disaster, and many people are saying that this is the worst POV statement in the history of statements. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And let me just thank MPS1992 and all other conscientious Wikipedia editors who make edits like this one--removing text which is clearly not verified by the source and spins our article completely. If you read the source, it turns out that "The crowd immediately cheered, chanted "We dumped Trump!" and assaulted and tore signs from Trump supporters" is not verified; in fact, the source states the opposite, that some anti-Trump demonstrators were assaulted. As far as I'm concerned, this article should go--it's a minor event and exists only because a. it's election season, as one commenter here said, and b. we are in fact the NEWS. And the moment you become the news, POV is just around the corner. But if we're going to do this, we better do it right. Thanks MPS. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That article ought to be deleted. Will anyone care about the event ten years from now as more than a footnote? No. Of course it won't be right now because all the political POV warriors and "every word written about the U.S. presidential election must be documented somewhere on Wikipedia" types will show up. Try AfDing it a month after the election when they'll be too busy edit warring at the Hillary Clinton presidency articles. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, and I wish you good luck. Some of y'all may remember the explosion of Occupy XXXX articles a few years ago. Or the Celebrity X on Twitter shit storm. No, no, this is much more important! Look at how many papers reported this news! (Yeah, it's their job--it's the news.) In the meantime I'm creating [[Category:Controversies of the 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest]], just in case. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm. It's interesting to me that you mention Celebrity X on Twitter, given how much Trump's use of Twitter has played a role in this campaign. Admittedly, I thought a few of those articles were precisely useful for the understanding the early rise of that communication technology and the role of unfiltered thoughts directly to the mass of people from the source, but I also think this campaign event can find some home not as a stand-alone article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Related issues have been going on at Robert Creamer (political consultant) for the past week or so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron

Hello AN crowd. According to discussion, there is a rough consensus that it wouldn't be in the community's benefit to renew the DYK participation restrictions on LavaBaron in case of his return to the English Wikipedia. The restrictions are therefore considered expired. Deryck C. 12:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when has a discussion at a particular wikiproject over-ruled a community imposed sanction from AN? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OID, ordinarily I'd agree but as I understand it this was specifically in response to causing disruption within the project in question, so if none of the members of that project feel the sanctions are serving a useful purpose it seems reasonable for them to be lifted. (At some point, someone is going to have to do something about the cesspit that is DYK, but thankfully that person won't be me.) ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well apart from the dubious nature of an easing of restrictions discussion being held on a page most people are unlikely to look at, the opener also closed it with 'rough consensus' citing one of the supporters comments that "LavaBaron obeyed the restrictions with some dignity" - which is blatantly and obviously less than truthful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so much commenting on this particular case—I can see it's already being complained about on WT:DYK as well—as on the general principle that if a sanction only affects a particular project, that project should be listened to if they say that a sanction isn't working. ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was transcluded here, it shows in the most recent archive, so there was some visibility here. Ravensfire (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Surprise they straight away 'un-retire'. Fortuitous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Only in death:, you may want to look to your own dignity. It doesn't come off well in this thread. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC).
    • Compared to an editor who just happens to unretire when his already quite mild sanctions are lifted, then goes on to give one of his typical unhelpful replies in the thread about his sanctions[76], and then claims that "no issue has ever been observed" with his editing, meaning that the sanctions and everyone supporting them were wrong in the first place[77][78]? If I wasn't involved, I would simply have reinstated the sanctions (or something stronger) indefinitely at that point. He clearly is incapable of recognizing the problems with the edits that lead to the sanctions, so there is no point in removing those sanctions and letting his continue as before. Fram (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Please go here to address my concerns on a user that keeps undoing an RfC closure. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Appeal of Arbitration Enforcement decision regarding Donald Trump BLP

I have recently been topic-banned by a decision at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, regarding three edits that I made to the lead at the Donald Trump article. All three of these edits ([79] [80] [81]) cited WP:BLP, and did so very correctly in my view. I am now allowed to file an appeal here at WP:AN. For such an appeal to succeed, there must be a "clear and substantial consensus" of "uninvolved editors", and therefore non-administrators can decide this appeal just as much as administrators can.

All three of my edits reverted the term "sexual assault" from the lead of this BLP, and instead specified "forcibly kissing and groping" so that readers would not mistakenly infer rape or attempted rape. WP:BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The vast majority of sources that discuss "sexual assault" allegations against Trump specify what kind of sexual assault, but that specification was omitted from the lead of this BLP, and that’s why I reverted. Omitting the type of sexual assault is a BLP violation because otherwise many readers will assume that "sexual assault" means rape or attempted rape ("rape" has already been forbidden in this BLP lead[82]).

"'Sexual assault'—an incredibly loaded term—can mean a lot of different things in different contexts."[83] "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...."[84] The leading law dictionary in the United States (Black's) says the primary sense of "sexual assault" is "Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent" whereas the secondary sense is "Offense of sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." It is not good enough to say that readers can scrutinize the rest of this BLP to hunt for the type of sexual assault, because WP:Lead says: "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." I have never objected to use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead of this BLP as long as the type of sexual assault is also described, e.g. here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• The purpose of an appeal is not to "retry" the case, it can only be to see if the administrators in that case acted outside of policy or egregiously in any way. I think you are framing this incorrectly. If you want to appeal on the merits of the case, I think you would have to go to Arb. Retrying the merits here would make AE obsolete, after all. Here, you can only look at admin conduct. While I didn't agree with the outcome, I have to say that the process seemed fair. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think they acted egregiously and even if they didn't they acted outside of policy. I don't think any procedures were violated, but rather the pertinent policies were misconstrued and misapplied. Surely the latter can be addressed here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That is your claim to make, as long as it isn't a retrying of the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Begging your pardon Dennis Brown, but where are you getting this from? WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications puts no such limitations on how a sanctioned editor may request an appeal. - MrX 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
        • AN can fix technical or procedural issues with an AE case, but AE isn't a community or even admin board, it is directly an Arb board. It is enforcement of an Arb ruling, not so much policy. Overruling Arb isn't a function of WP:AN. You don't retry the whole case at AN or even AE. You can always go to Arb. Look, I clearly voted against sanctions and managed to find a compromise, but the boards are what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't think that's the case, policy and application of policy is in the purview of the community. There has to be a mechanism in which the community can oversee policy application, and overturn it if they deem it incorrect. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, that was kind of my point. While Dennis' comments are reasonable in the abstract, the fact is that community consensus can overturn an AE sanction for any reason grounded in policy.- MrX 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Is that how it is, or how it should be? I genuinely don't know, and I would like to. I would be very surprised to learn that ArbCom's "charter" or whatever fails to clearly answer a fundamental question like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
              • And it can be for policy reasons (closing admin misinterpreted policy, etc), but if it just "we voted here and disagree with the admin" then no, that isn't supposed to be done here. In this case, he clearly reverted more than once, so it is a matter of interpretation of BLP, and unless you can show the reasoning is seriously invalid, you shouldn't be able to overturn. That is subjective, not policy based. Again, I didn't want to see the tban either, but I have to speak up for the process being fair. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• <ec>There is some discussion of this at [85]. Read that discussion, I think the problem people had with your changes are that A) RSes apparently do use the term sexual assault and B) you changed a bunch of other things at the same time. Issues of bragging etc. were also changed and discussed. Should this have resulted in a topic ban? A bit unclear. I think both sides were being somewhat unreasonable/inflexible but consensus was that you were wrong and the BLP claims didn't apply but you kept changing it on that basis against consensus. I'd have suggested giving you a bit more rope first, but all-in-all if you'd kept at it, you needed to be topic-banned or blocked. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear. I don't think this was "egregiously outside of policy" even if it was a bit more aggressive quicker of an action than I'd have preferred. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is a consensus driven site and your ban is for refusing to acknowledge that there is consensus against your preferred content. Continuing to insist you're right doesn't seem to be the right way to go about getting it lifted. Though I agree with Hobit that the topic ban is a bit harsh, your rehashing the content issue does seem to make it look like a prescient decision. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse AE Action nothing outside of policy happened. Defense on the merits should be directed to ARBCOM. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the foregoing. Were I dictator of Wikipedia, I might have handled things differently. But I am not, and all the actions I see strike me as well within policy and reasonability bounds. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question to AE admins for clarity purposes, but can you give a succinct statement as to what the sanction was for? That particular AE filing was rather messy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the AE result. I don't think we should ever punish editors for good faith efforts to uphold BLP. You are unlikely to gain a consensus here, as the editors on the other side of your POV are unlikely to vote to rescind your topic ban. See here for some disgusting taunting. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course you don't, Mr Ernie. But that "taunt"--I saw that a few days ago, and it seemed to me that Anything took that in the spirit in which it was intended. Rather than cherrypick one half of a conversation between two longtime adversaries and totally missing the point, you should appreciate the fact that two such editors can still get along the moment they're outside of the ring. I think Anything's quote in the WP testifies to that spirit as well. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that and sorry to have missed the point. I think the fact that Anything took it in good spirit is a good sign indeed. But I know when that user dropped an unwelcome template on my user page I didn't quite enjoy it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Insert "like this" Facebooky thumbs-up here. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarification, that's the other WP, The Washington Post, aka WaPo. See "In the news", below. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• I see no grounds for overturning the action at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Having read the discussion, I see no abuse of discretion for the topic ban so no basis to overturn, the lightest analysis appeared to be disregarding consensus (which is bad enough in editing in very fraught political subjects) but the consensus analysis was more serious regarding battlegrounding - it will soon be over, and it's not that you have to agree with everything those admins did and said but they were still within reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• In the news not really relevant to the topic per se, but [86], currently the lead article on the Washington Post, concludes with a quote from Anythingyouwant about editing Wikipedia and the Trump article in particular. Just thought it was fun to see the article and quote after commenting here. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked at the four edits in question, I believe the AE decision is unjustified. As EdJohnston reminded me in an unrelated matter, the notice on these pol-talk pages (and, here, on Donald Trump) says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." No consensus on the BLP issue for inclusion had or has been reached on the talk page. This means that Anythingyouwant's initial revert of the language on BLP grounds should never have been reinstated in the first place. I believe the arguments of James J. Lambden, Dervorguilla, JfG, the Wordsmith should have carried the day. snark for complete disclosure: my POV on the WaPos POV: Who's betting they'll follow this story up with another lead now that Anythingyouwant is banned? I'm not. And because of Nuclear Warfare I can't tell you why. SashiRolls (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think I counted nine admins who responded and opted for a topic ban, denying the claim that there was a BLP exemption. One Dennis did not support a topic ban. It seems to me that this is a pretty good consensus, and it seems to me that the sheer number of supporters for a topic ban is relevant too. I see no reason to revisit the discussion, and I'm somewhat puzzled by the idea that today we are relitigating something decided on yesterday. Is every single one of the admins who supported a topic ban supposed to confirm what they said on ARE only days ago? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's always one stubborn dentist who refuses to conform. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And while I didn't support the topic ban, but I do endorse the AE since it was a fair process. I don't support the idea of retrying the whole case or holding the merits to a vote here, which I think is out of process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Its a grey area. Technically there is no prohibition in policy against it. However in practice AN does not (as you point out) re-litigate where there has been no process failing elsewhere. Especially when its an enforcement of an arbitration sanction. (As a matter of written policy, should AN throw up a discussion with a suitable amount of contributors, it could over-rule almost anything it wanted to.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • • • • I agree that WP:AN should be able to overrule Arb cases in theory, but only as an application of WP:IAR when the system has truly failed. This isn't that case, it isn't a nuclear situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • That much divergence between policy and practice is a very bad idea in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Since written policy is only a reflection of accepted practice, then the written words should be modified to reflect consensus, I agree with you there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
          • AC/DS is referring to sanctions rather than specifically AE applied sanctions, So to amend the relevant policy to reflect practice should be less difficult than amending something that already exists. Two options really - explicitly state where AE sanctions can be appealed (AE and Arbcom and AN to be consistant). AE is really a limited selection of Admins on a good day so having AN if someone wants to roll the dice is always a good idea. Add a few lines about not re-arguing the case but just a 'was process followed correctly' and bobs your uncle. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Dennis Brown, we spent an email or two on this on the Arb list, and it's an interesting matter. I think we may get back to it, but yeah, this is what it is--AE or AN. Personally, and let me make sure to make it clear that I don't speak for the committee here, within this byzantine network of rules and regulations, it seems to me that a. yes AE is ArbCom enforcement but b. its result is a kind of community discussion, out in the open, not a secret and thus authoritative (it's a joke, I hope y'all get it) kind of decision, and so c. since ArbCom serves the community and the rules allow discussion at AN, ArbCom will just have to suck it up if there's some serious AE case that's seriously overturned by a serious majority at AN. Please note that I'm sticking in all these intensifiers so no one can ever turn it into policy--if someone tries, I'll replace with f-bombs. Now, this is not a serious case, it's just a little topic ban for a little while, and administratively it's bothersome to be here at AN again--but in principle, if some crazy decision is reached at AE, hell yes it should be able to be a. discussed and b. possibly overturned at AN. But, Dennis, all these things will look so much different to you, maybe, when you take your seat in Courcelle's ArbCom Hot Tub next year. Hint, hint. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Drmies, two things come to mind: The expression "Misery loves company", and if it is a hot tub, why are people putting sliced carrots and potatoes into the water? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• No abuse of process that I can see. Discussion was ongoing and given the previous discussion the *extended* examination of Anything's edits was far from hurried or rush. So Endorse here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• I participated in the discussion as an uninvolved admin, so I endorse obviously. My main concern wasn't so much the edits themselves, as the entrenched battleground mentality that has developed on that article. It'll cool down after the election hopefully, but temporarily removing some of the more invested participants from the article will also give everyone room to breathe and work collaboratively rather than competitively. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC).
  • +1, however, the methodology has generally been to tban one side and not the other. In my own case, I offered to go weeks before I was brought to AE if the POV-pushers from the Clinton coterie were also tbanned. That didn't happen there or here, so the problem continues. For more evidence of edit-warring from the person who brought the charge against Anythingyouwant... see Cheryl Mills, Clinton Foundation, etc. SashiRolls (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd encourage you to bring egregious examples of breaking the terms of the discretionary sanctions to AE's attention, regardless of who is involved. We can't act on reports that aren't made. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC).
• Endorse result (Non-administrator comment) - there was a consensus among editors who gave statements that Anythingyouwant's reverts overreached the conventional exemption for contentious information that must be removed, and as such admins had to enforce the 1RR restriction on that article. I agree with Dennis Brown three ways: that an appeal here is on the ruling and not on rearguing the case, that the process and ruling were ultimately fair, and also that a warning probably would have sufficed, but there was a clear consensus for this tban among the commenting administrators. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• I confess that I too was rather taken aback by the framing of this request: I was under the impression that AE rulings should not be relitigated here, but I cannot find policy to support that view, so let's roll with this, I guess. As the administrator who closed the request, I obviously endorse stand by the close. I will add that in my view, the ban was not for a simple 1RR violation, but for willful misuse of the BLP exception to justify a 1RR violation. The language at WP:3RR explicitly asks people to be circumspect about the use of the BLP exception. Additionally, there was a more general battleground mentality visible, and a refusal to drop the stick. If further evidence is needed of these two issues, just take a look at the posts to my talk page following my enactment of the sanction. Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• There should be a better place to appeal AE decisions than AN/I. But I endorse this one, which is firmly grounded in consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Lost content in archive 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.

---

Can an Admin have a look here, and determine what content/page histories are lost or changed if any. Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Handled by Graham87. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 29 October 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.

Closure review requested: Kaine

Respected Admins, I am requesting a review of the close by Prcc27 at "Talk:Kaine#Request for comment". I believe that the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, and not reflective of the consensus among editors who commented in the RfC. I have already requested that Prcc27 revert the close on their Talk page; they have declined. Editor Bkonrad, has also raised concerns there. See also a subsequent RM at "Talk:Kaine#Requested move 13 October 2016" and discussion at User_talk:Red_Slash#Talk:Kaine. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the closure. Any other admin who wants to close the discussion is quite welcome to do so. Deor (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Looking briefly, that does look like a classic "supervote" close. An honest mistake perhaps, but a mistake, so I support the reverting of the close as it was invalid. It doesn't require an admin to close, just another experienced editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it would be great if we could get someone to close it, but I would actually like it if we held off on that. Since I am no longer the uninvolved closure for the RfC and I feel that policy is being misapplied due to a bunch of people citing an WP:essay rather than a Wikipedia policy, I would like to join the discussion. Is it already if I do that?Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I just went ahead and closed it. I think you were looking too hard at the letter of policy and not the intent, and it came off as a supervote. Policy is very flexible here, so you have to go with consensus when it is this obvious. If you have a strong opinion of the move, as you seem to indicate you now do, you probably shouldn't be closing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: Hey, I didn't have a strong opinion of the move at the time I closed the discussion but now that my closure rationale has been completely erased from the RfC I am more interested in this issue then I was before. I was definitely 100% neutral at the time of closure for the record (and I certainly hope you don't think otherwise). I do feel like many people !voted the way they did because they honestly thought WP:RECENTISM was a policy and I would like to refute this argument, but now that the RfC is closed I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to continue discussion. At the very least I would like my closure rationale to be restored (although maybe crossed out) so then users are aware that WP:RECENTISM is not a Wikipedia policy and if along the road another discussion was started people would be able to make arguments either for or against redirecting to Tim Kaine without citing an essay as if it were policy. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• WP:RECENTISM is certainly an essay. So is WP:BRD. Technically, so is WP:5 Pillars. That doesn't mean they are without value. Some essays (BRD in particular) are enforced as policy. Others simply reflect a genuine consensus of their own, consensus that is more nebulous than individual policies but better encompases larger concepts. WP:Tendentious editing is another essay that does this well. Some essays summarize several policies into one cohesive page. To outright dismiss an argument because someone mentions an essay is folly. To look only at the letter of policy is folly. The intent of naming pages is to provide a consistent experience for the reader. This month, it might look like the political candidate's name is why it should be redirected, but it might not look like that 6 months from now, and it didn't look like that 6 months ago, so sometimes you have to step back and view the bigger picture. In this case, the community did, which is why I closed it the way I did. They know it is easy to misjudge the recent events and put too much emphasis on the political candidates name and current popularity, and they collectively said "no, not yet." My close was just reflecting that, and policy doesn't disallow it, so I have no choice but to close it that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on essays. This is very helpful and I will definitely keep this in mind in the future. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a side comment: I find it very odd that BRD is not policy, since. from what I have seen in 11 years here, it is accepted by the majority of the community and is often cited by admins in their actions and comments. It's high time that it was elevated to policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There has been a proposal to raise it to guideline status that was rejected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When was that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

At VPP. Quite recently (considering the history of WP) too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think many admin would agree that the individual elements that make up BRD are solidly based in policy, so it is enforced like policy due to those elements. Not as the only way, but as the preferred way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

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.

---

2601:603:500:A1CE:65D9:B22A:9CC7:8DC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a bunch of talk pages for non-existent articles. Can an admin delete all of them. Feinoha ^Talk 00:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Zzuuzz: for handling this request. Feinoha ^Talk 01:42, 30 October 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 pages and soapboxing

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. Recently Dennis Brown blanked MarkBernstein's user page as an adminstrator action, citing WP:SOAPBOX. This policy states "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." I do not believe the content blanked here was disruptive, nor is all of it removable under WP:SOAPBOX (some of it is, for example, contact information for the editor.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, in any case. The question must be, how did that page help build the encyclopaedia? That's right; it didn't. Re. 'all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that providing contact information can be helpful to the cause of building an encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: but I don't really think it was the contact details that Dennis Brown considered polemical... _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it was soapboxing and should be removed. MB has done everything possible to defeat his aims. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Looked like soap-boxing with a side of self-promotion to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Editors are normally allowed some latitude on their own userpage, and it's not at all obvious to me why the most urgent administrative task at that moment was policing that particular piece of userspace. If there's a good explanation then I'm curious to know what it is; but if the matter rests there without further explanation from the sysop, then I'd tend to suggest the correct outcome might be to overturn that particular decision.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Simply accusing the project of promoting racism and anti-Semitism is certainly not a non-disruptive statement of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And we can certainly infer his motives from his actions on Twitter, harassing a WikiProject WP:WOMRED with accusations. With "clear evidence to the contrary," there's no justification to continue to assume good faith on this editor's actions, so invective that is disruptive on its face ought to be removed. Probably should have been removed long ago, but better late than never. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think the page leaned a bit too much toward self-promotion, but I don't see anything in the deleted text "accusing the project of promoting racism and anti-Semitism." I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could point out what I am missing. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to "A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive. A project which promotes and fosters racism and anti-Semitism is a menace to society." which Dennis removed from Bernstein's talk page and was restored twice, first by the ubiquitous PetertheFourth, then by Bernstein himself. The self-promotion isn't my complaint, but the constant demonization of people on Wikipedia who Bernstein disagrees with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs, I'm sorry, I feel like I'm losing it a bit, but it's too early in the week for that. I don't see the second sentence you quote in either of the most recent two blankings by Mr. Brown. Are we talking about different edits? Could it be that sentence was hidden? Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:MarkBernstein. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So I guess self-promotion was the bigger problem? The remaining talk page seems to me more egregious than the similar statements which were blanked. Ah well. Just my own curiosity. Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the confusing part is that there were two nearly identical mini edit wars, on *both* Bernstein's talk page *and* user page. Dennis cleared both of them, PeterTheFourth reverted both of them, Dennis repeated the action, and Bernstein restored one (and PeterTheFourth filed at WP:AN). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This was a helpful action by Dennis, offering progress towards Mark's potential return to editing within the bounds of the restriction placed upon him. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I felt the talk page also needed to be blanked, but I'm less likely to revert the user who "owns" the page than a passerby, out of respect. I will leave that to someone else now. To answer S Marshall, I stumbled across the page by accident, it isn't uncommon for admin to do that. He and I do not edit in the same places, so I might have been following an article history and noticed he was still blocked, went to look, etc. Normal admin duty stuff. I don't follow him, if that is your concern. Our overlap is probably zero articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Do you still feel your blanking of his user page was an admin action, and that I do not have sufficient privileges to restore the editors user page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, if you restore, it isn't about my opinion or any privileges, it is about community consensus, and there is clearly no consensus against my actions. The smart thing is to leave it open and see how the community feels about it after a few more days. It is not like this has moved up the page. In either case, you would leave it to the closer to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@PtF: We onlookers who never have to deal with gamergate are indebted to you for your work, thank you. However, please read all the comments above, take the hint, and leave MB and his pages alone. My recommendation would be that Dennis blank both user pages and block anyone who restores them per this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I hope I am not giving off the impression of asking for special consideration here. I don't mind being wrong on this occasion. In any case- I will take your advice and stop worrying about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you had any ill will in reverting me, I didn't take it personal. This is why I said to bring it here and let the community decide. While I was confident in my decisions, ultimately, I answer to the greater community and my actions are supposed to be based on what they would do if we did "vote" on each issue. That is also why I stayed out until the end, as I wasn't trying to pursued, just observe. And I don't have any vendetta against Mark. I've been at a couple of AE cases with him, but if memory serves me, I wasn't the one suggesting swinging the ban hammer. It was a matter of soapboxing, polemic and a little bit of promotional as well. I didn't RevDel or delete the page, just blanked it. Had the community decided it was no big deal, I would let it go and learned something. Another reason it is good to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I confess I still feel a twinge about this; the user page definitely strayed into the self-promotional by my lights, and I think the talk page comment was a bit too inflammatory. And, of course, there is a long history and much context here. That being said, I hope we would all agree that criticism of Wikipedia, even when sharp-elbowed, is a legitimate way of trying to make the encyclopedia better. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I wouldn't have blanked the pages (tho I don't feel strongly enough about it to do more than comment here). It wasn't targeted at any specific editor, I'm not convinced it actually violated policy as written (tho parsing the specific wording of policies written by passers-by over the years is usually not productive), and even if it did cross over the line slightly, we should err on the side of not deleting general criticism of Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. I saw what was reverted and I've seen far worse soapboxing. And I agree and echo 100% the last point, we should be extra careful with deleting criticism of Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• The point is that it's not criticism in the sense of pointing out a perceived problem with a brief explanation of what should be different and why. People watching WP:AE have seen the downward spiral over an extended period, and the text is a two-fingered whine that he is right and the rest of us promote and foster racism and anti-Semitism. That's more of a soapbox rant than criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• In general I think the page was fine and shouldn't have been blanked. People seem to be looking at two issues: self promotion and disruption/soapboxing. The parts that describe him seem actually useful to other editors (understanding his abilities, areas of expertise and the like) and are a net positive to the encyclopedia IMO. The soapboxing is also perfectly reasonable as it touches on how Wikipedia works and that's an important discussion to have. If he'd blamed certain people or otherwise attacked editors that would be quite different. But he didn't. I've not looked deeply, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with his issues, but I think it important that he be able to clearly state them. Certainly other editors have similar statement about BLPs on their page. So overturn action if the claim is that this is an admin action of some sort. I can see why one might take that action, but I don't think it's justified. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support the administrative action. The quote that is still on the talk page isn't really criticism. It's largely irrelevant and mainly just odd. That type of criticism is better suited on a blog, which coincidentally the user in question is quite familiar with. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Were I an admin (which I am not), I probably would not have taken the action Dennis did, but I don't see that it was outside of the normal range of acceptable admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see the "admin" action. Dennis Brown appears to have used only normal editor's privilege.

The message blanked is a bit of a rant, and a bit beyond normal leeway in pointing so prominently to messages on external sites. The external links are not footnotes, but are central to the message. This sort of thing is usually tolerated for a departing disgruntled Wikipedian, which may be the case here. If MarkBernstein is not departed, I would urge him to write something more coherent. He appears upset, and for a reader not familiar with the history, is doesn't make much sense.

I see an underlying problem as a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In general blanking someone's user page isn't something that is generally done. Further, if it's _not_ an admin action (which is really unclear) he should be welcome to restore it. I don't get the sense that's the case. We tend to give a lot of leeway in userspace. While I agree it wasn't well-written, I found it clear enough. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored

I've gone ahead and restored the page. While my feelings haven't changed and I'm not persuaded by the discussion (although I appreciate that everyone participated in a civil fashion), I do feel that my blanking was a quasi-administrative task and as such, it is only authorized with the (real or assumed) consensus of the community. In this case, were I to close this discussion as an outsider, I would close as "no consensus", which begs the question "then do we leave it blank or revert?", which we would then argue about. By simply taking the action myself, we can just move on. I do think there are valid points of view on both side of the argument, but at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision, so I did. If the community wants to blank the page, they can do so in a separate discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. Good call.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What he said. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 28 October 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.

Appealing my topic ban

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.

---

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

I would like to appeal the indefinite topic ban that was imposed on me from Japan-related topics in this thread on July 19, 2016.[87]

The topic ban proposal itself did not include specific diffs, so I was uncertain at first the reason for the ban, but the administrator who imposed the ban, KrakatoaKatie, informed me recently by e-mail that the ban was imposed due to pro-Korean POV pushing.

Therefore, I would like to appeal this topic ban with assurance that I will no longer edit from a pro-Korean/anti-Japanese perspective. I will make sure to only use high-quality, neutral sources and will not put any pro-Korean spin on any edits to article content.

In the past, I contributed many "good articles" that had nothing to do with Korea, and if my ban is removed, I would like to make further constructive edits to some of these articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, you should probably have pinged @KrakatoaKatie: as you are discussing them. I have pinged them for you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to support this request. Interested in the views of others who have been involved. MPS1992 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Question: is TH1980 still under a topic-ban with regard to Japan? A lot of the concern voiced in July was that TH1980 and CurtisNaito tag-teamed to push their shared viewpoint. If TH1980 is out of the picture, then CurtisNaito would be operating solo. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose For the record, I had no involvement or even knowledge of these issues before this thread was opened. After only a brief review, I'm afraid I must oppose this proposal at this time. The opening of this thread is the appellant's first and only edit since the tban was imposed. There is therefore no intervening record showing an ability to contribute positively and not exhibit the behavior that necessitated topic banning. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the ping, DrChrissy. I did indeed correspond a couple of times with CurtisNaito about the topic ban. He asked me about appealing, and while I was happy to discuss it with him, I stand by my closure of that ANI section. I have no interest in or involvement with Korean or Japanese articles, and I closed the discussion purely in an administrative capacity. @Binksternet: To my knowledge, TH1980 is still under the topic ban, and they have not contacted me about it. Katie^talk 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is that the issues are very difficult for ordinary editors to grasp because the really reliable sources are thick history books, while there is a large supply of boosterism sources that make claims about how Korean culture has influenced Japan. The OP shows no understanding of why a topic ban occurred, and that is a very poor basis for lifting it. The editors who seem most familiar with the topic (Curly Turkey + Hijiri88 + Nishidani) should be invited to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  Note: Hijiri won't be able to comment. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK. If I missed anyone (pro or con) who was significantly involved in previous discussions, they might be notified. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. The problems with CurtisNaito and TH1980 were not one-time things. They were persistent behavioural issues across a large number of articles that went on for at least three years (that I'm aware of). RE: tagteaming—while tagteaming certainly happened, both CurtisNaito and TH1980 were enormously disruptive even when they weren't tagteaming. They were not TBANned for tagteaming, but for their overall disruptive behaviour, of which the tagteaming was only a small part, even when it played a rôle at all. RE: "I contributed many 'good articles'"—these "Good Articles" are at the heart of the disputes, and the History of Japan article (which CurtisNaito still lists as one of his "good articles") was de-listed as being one of the most fantastically inadequate GAs that has ever passed. All of CurtisNaito's GAs are suspect, and if properly reviewed would probably all be de-listed. "Properly" is the keyword, as CurtisNaito's edits tend to be extremely selective WRT sources, and his edits distort what the sources say in extreme-yet-subtle ways. Good faith cannot be assumed with these editors. RE: "I will no longer edit from a pro-Korean/anti-Japanese perspective"—CurtisNaito's actually accused of the opposite bias, which makes this appeal all the more obviously bad faith. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. CurtisNaito has proved himself unreliable, disruptive, manipulative, and in a state of near-perpetual gamesmanship on these articles. His topic ban was long overdue and should definitely not be repealed. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The first edit by CurtisNaito (see contribs) since the topic ban on 19 July 2016 was to post the above appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the fact that this editor hasn't made any edits since the topic ban was imposed should disqualify this. Just asserting that someone won't continue the problematic behaviour isn't sufficient, we do typically require some evidence of this, such as constructive editing in other topic areas or on another project. Rehabilitating editors who have proven to be disruptive in the past is in general a rather unproductive use of time. Disclaimer: it looks like properly appreciating the issues here requires a solid grasp of east Asian history, which I don't have. Hut 8.5 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox and Hut 8.5. A bit procedural, but lifting t-bans on editors who haven't changed but have merely stayed away from Wikipedia hasn't worked in the past. There is no indication that the editor has changed their methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Question @CurtisNaito:, you say that In the past, I contributed many "good articles" that had nothing to do with Korea, and if my ban is removed, I would like to make further constructive edits to some of these articles. Since you're not topic banned from such articles, why would you need to have your topic ban lifted as it does not hinder your ability to edit on non-Korea related articles? Blackmane (talk) 21:25, 31 October 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.

Template:Infobox person

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.

---

Template:Infobox person: Can someone with rights to edit locked pages change the language at Template:Infobox person. Remove the requirement that parents be "independently notable" (blue-linked) or "particularly relevant" written at the "parents=" field per consensus at Template talk:Infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This request is ridiculous, out-of-process, and a form of forum-shopping. There is policy-based consensus in the current RfC on that talk-page to retain that restriction, for obvious policy-based reasons. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 31 October 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.

Ban proposal

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.

---

SUPERJOO (talk · contribs) obviously should be banned. Seemingly a "parody" of "SuperJew", another user. Single edit was racist/obviously inappropriate. Macosal (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

User is now blocked indef. It's an obvious enough case, I don't think it needs further discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Someguy1221. SBANs are not necessary in cases like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 1 November 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.

Oliver Mitchell

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.

---

Hey all, I don't have time to take care of this at present b/c of some IRL stuff, but Oliver Mitchell appears to be a hoax article. The guy in the photo is Milo Ventimiglia from Heroes (TV_series) and there's some nonsensical stuff written in there (see this. If anyone can look at it, I'd be appreciative, otherwise, I'll deal with it when I can. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I put a {{db-hoax}} tag on the page. He's PewDiePie AND was in Fight Club AND has an extensive recording career from the age of 9? I'm impressed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 3 November 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.

Editing Template Creation

Hello admins, could someone take a look at this request - Talk:United_States_military_seniority#Permanent_notice. Its been several years since I've worked on creating one of this permanent article notices, I think it must be done by an administrator. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 16:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If I undersstand correctly, you mean an edit notice. There are instructions at WP:Editnotices#How to request an editnotice if you are not an administrator or template editor for instructions on the right way to make these requests.(Of course, any admin or template editor whom sees thids specific request may handle it without an official request there.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Template created and posted. Thank you very much for the above information as well. -O.R.^Comms 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice: Proposal that may increase the workload an ANI

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Time to close DRN? that has the potential to increase the workload at WP:ANI. Feel free to comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here, User:Guy Macon. Guy and I have both opposed the proposal of closing DRN. I won't argue at length here in favor of keeping it, but, as he and I agree, if it were (for reasons that, in my view, are good-faith but misguided) shut down, some disputes would come here more quickly, both those that really are content disputes and should not come here, and those that are conduct disputes but could benefit from cooling down. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made a posting to the RFC. I can't oppose the proposal hard enough. Unlike other boards that have closed over the years, DRN is critical in ensuring a separation between content disputes and behavioural problems. ANI (and to a lesser extent AN) already has its hands full dealing with things that really should belong on other boards (edit warriors, vandals, long term abuse, BLP violations, copyright violations, etc etc) Blackmane (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion

WP:FFD has a backlog that stretches until July 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Range block for Blank testing IPs

List of related IPs: Adding and removing break rows:

• 201.92.113.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 152.250.203.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 177.94.19.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Adding break rows:

• 179.228.12.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.68.85.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please add more related IPs if you find them

In these last several weeks, an editor has been adding white space & then removing that white space from articles. He's been getting his IPs blocked for these useless tests along the way. Perhaps, it's time for a range block. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Mind providing a list of IPs or even just articles so we know what/who we are dealing with here? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest IP is 201.92.113.60 GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And the older ones? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Each of the previous IPs, were blocked for the exact same behaviour. I don't have a list of them. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Could you give a few examples of the IPs? A range block only works if he's on the same subnet, and depends on the risk of collateral damage vs. risk of damage from allowing him to continue. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

177.94.19.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another one, but the range is entirely different. Seems difficult to block. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible that there's more then one individual & they're working together? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's possible, though I find that unlikely. It seems a very pointless thing to do, and I think it'd be hard to convince someone else to do it.

Possibly related 179.228.12.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), only adding break rows. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs seem to be primarily Brazilian. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure is an annoying fellow, whoever it is. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewers (patroller)

Hi Admins, just FYI - following community RfC's a change for (patrol) access is pending deployment. The ability to use the page curation hoverbar and the "mark this page patrolled" functions are being removed from the (auto)confirmed group and will be issued to editors as appropriate via a new access group. For information please see WP:NPR and the new permissions request page at WP:PERM/NPR. This will have no impact on the ability to edit any page, or use Twinkle. For discussion on the rollout, please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#New_Page_Reviewer_.28patroller.29_is_coming. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Update - the new usergroup has been added to the config and processing backlog at WP:PERM has been completed. There are several open requests at PERM still to be reviewed. There is NO IMPACT yet as the (patrol) permission being removed from the legacy groups is to follow in second patch. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)`

Repeated Sockpuppetry?

First i have to confess seem i violated 3RR rule, but seem Autovision007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same guy Creative2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Creative2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Alfaweiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Mikenew1953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Formal Sockpuppet investigated may required for banning him for sockpuppet, but his action on keep on moving AEL FC (official English name of the Greek club) to self-made controversial composite name (the Greek club common name is disputed, but "Larissa F.C." is used by UEFA.com, google trend doesn't help on concluding the common name in English nor in Greek, and at least it is safe to call it in full name), or fail to response in talk page for edits in Fininvest (mix up profit, total assets with EBIT and total financial assets, remove contents) at least have some point to bring it to admin notice board. Matthew_hk tc 01:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I have a few more eyes

Can I request a few more eyes on the SPA fiesta currently underway at Tracey Curtis-Taylor and its related AFD? I've put the article under PC protection for the duration of the AFD but because it's now been ongoing for over four days the SPAs are becoming autopatrolled in their own right, and per my comments here I'm very reluctant to protect an article in the middle of an AFD since that will prevent genuine good-faith attempts to rescue it. IMO it's reached the point of needing someone who hasn't previously either protected the article or commented in the AFD (and thus can't be accused of bias) to start dishing out warnings, and at the very least could do with being on some more watchlists. ‑ Iridescent 10:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Also note: The AfD is a hotbed of SPAs and apparently canvassed IPs. I have spent an hour of my precious time tagging them all, pro and con. Also, at least three of the IPs geolocate to the exact same place, the same small Eastern European town as one of the SPA registered accounts (who accidentally edited logged out once and then changed the siggy to the registered account), which is evidence that they may all be the same person. Two of the IPs differ only in the final digit, which differs by one. I'm not going to name the registered account unless asked, because connecting the IP and account might be construed as outing. But it worries me that one person might be therefore !voting or commenting for Deletion four or more times. Should this be noted on the AfD, and if so, how? Should I alert a CU? Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have submitted my evidence via email to ArbCom to prevent outing. If any other CUs want the evidence, let me know and I'll email you as well. I've left a note to the closing admin not to close the AfD before the results come back. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New adminbot proposal - blocking spambot IPs

Administrators are currently manually blocking IPs that hit certain URLs on the spam blacklist. It has been requested that a bot perform these blocks to allow for faster response time. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3. Anomie⚔ 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

G13 eligible AfC submissions backlog - needing attention

Could we get some people to go through the backlog at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions backlog? It currently has 6,000+ submissions in it. Thanks. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 04:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Desi - Reverting of edits

Hello, I'm having trouble telling this user, DesiKindInMahMind, to stop disrupting the entire Desi article. They have failed to read the sources based on their edits and continue to remove sources and information despite having been reverted by two users multiple times, including myself. I have warned them but they don't listen. I asked for semi-protection of the article because of what was happening a few weeks ago and that was granted but it didn't stop them from coming back and making changes. They also opened up a discussion about the matter but have never replied to any of the messages I left on the talk page. I was also told by another user after reporting them that their account appears to be a "single-purpose account" and in some cases can be against the rules on Wikipedia. Could I please have some help in solving this? Thanks. (110.148.130.249 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

The reason they weren't stopped by semi-protection is because, based on how long they've had an account and how many edits they've made, they have been autoconfirmed for at least two years. Most of their edits are to the Desi article, so they may be a single-purpose account. — Gestrid (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I left them a notice on their talk page so hopefully they come here to solve the issue. (121.214.177.17 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I have issued an edit warring notice since this user has repeatedly reverted any edits contrary to theirs. I also reverted edits on another article they did that did not accurately represent what was in the source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gestrid:, they removed the notification I left about this discussion on their talk page and have continued to remove the information. They have also made it personal and started calling me "pathetic". (121.219.56.150 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm no admin, but, in my opinion, that's a valid reason for a No Personal Attacks block. — Gestrid (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of the article (since the editor is autoconfirmed) and put a link to this discussion in the request. See Special:PermaLink/747540038. — Gestrid (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much for doing that and for the information you gave me too. (121.219.56.150 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I saw the request for full protection at WP:RFPP but have declined it. Instead, I have warned the user they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting talk page consensus. We wouldn't normally protect a page if just one user is the source of the problem. We would deal with that user directly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid:, @Dane2007: and @EdJohnston: A new user has begun making very similar edits as the current editor has done albeit not as extreme (they haven't removed any sources). They seem to have failed to read the sources provided though. The account was also created today. (121.219.56.150 (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC))

@121.219.56.150: I have opened a sockpuppet investigation here as the edits are virtually identical to some of the earlier contested edits by DesiKindInMahMind. -- Dane2007 ^talk 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Confirmed that this was sockpuppetry and blocked indefinitely per CheckUser/Admin. -- Dane2007 ^talk 13:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding A1

Just a quick request for comment on the application of the A1 tag on a generic example. Any views would be welcome at the particular Rfc. Lourdes 14:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Revdel this edit summary?

I'm not a (very good) Puritan, but this edit summary may well be worth of revdeletion--if only because an edit summary in the history of a highly-viewed article is quite prominent. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears to breach WP:ESDOS, I don't think a WP:RD2 for the summary only would be a problem, along with notice to the editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not a fan of censorship but that is an edit summary that is certain to offend some people. It needs to go away and if not already done, someone should drop a polite caution on their talk page about that kind of thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks y'all, thanks Beebs. Yes, I also think it's likely to offend a fair number of readers--"JFC" is pretty powerful. Note that I'm not here to ask for sanctions against the editor--it was a few days ago already, and I had already left a note for the editor. My question was really about the general point, the applicability of RD(2); this isn't always an easy thing to judge so Beebs, I appreciate the judgment call. Perhaps we'll hear more admins' opinions before this gets archived.

  For the non-admins: we get requests fairly regularly to revdelete this or that, and I think I can speak for all admins when I say that we take such requests seriously but cannot always do what you may like us to do. In this case, a quick consensus is yes, this can be removed, but even after having the tool for a couple of years I'm not always sure. RickinBaltimore, you might find that you're asking these questions too in a couple of days. Good luck with it! Anyway, that's why we like our admins to have proven that they have judgment, and that's why I like having the AN sounding board; it takes a village. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive vandalism

This page is under continuous and repetitive vandalism. Plz be aware.Wikijavad (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wikijavad, I'm perfectly willing to take measures, but the most recent edits were not vandalism; I had to go back a couple of days to find this one, which I presume is what you're talking about. Also, to request protection, please see WP:RFPP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Does aligning oneself with other editors result in sanctions

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 another user's Talk page, @JzG:/@Guy:, an admin, wrote "Sage, it would be extremely unwise to take up this offer. Robert is promoting a fake disease, and if you go down that route you will be aligning yourself with the pseudoscientists and woo-mongers, and that will get you a full site ban much more quickly than what you're doing now."[88]. It concerns me that an admin might take into account who one aligns oneself with in dealing out a full site ban (or indeed sanctions of any kind). I would have thought sanctions were about disruption to the project brought about by yourself, not who your friends are. Please note, I am not asking for any action here whatsoever, simply to gauge admin's opinions on whether it is a widespread view among admins that aligning oneself with certain people can lead to a site ban? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely silly. A new editor aligning themselves with problematic editors: acting as their lackey, or performing edits that they can't do themselves (following earlier sanctions) is very much likely to be sanctioned. If aligning oneself causes one to act in ways that are counter to the project—sanctions are appropriate, and this course is very clear in the linked discussion. The warning seems apt and I suggest an admin WP:SNOW-close this before we lose ourselves in debate over false interpretations. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my question. I did not mention acting as a lackey or meatpuppet which of course is sanctionable. I am asking whether simply aligning oneself with certain editor/s may attract sanctions. While you are, of course, free to edit here, I have specifically asked for the opinions of admins. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"That will get you siteban" not as a direct threat, but meaning "that is likely to lead you on the path to a siteban", which is a perfectly valid opinion and warning. Of course, you're free to disregard it and head down this path if you think there's nothing wrong with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the comment was not aimed at me but at another user. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closer @Euryalus:. I did not immediately bring this to the noticeboard. I asked for clarification from JzG here.[89] He replied in that thread "I refer the hon. gentleman to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram." here[90] and on my Talk page with "See Arkell v. Pressdram. That is all." I am not entirely sure of the relevance of this link, but it appears JzG is telling me to "Fuck off". Could you please edit your closure to reflect that I attempted to clarify the statement before bringing it to this noticeboard.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Rather than amending the close, am happy to note here that you raised this directly before coming here. Will leave it in the close as a general piece of advice only and not relevant to you specifically. Btw for some reason the ping still didn't work, but thanks for trying it. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:28, 4 November 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.

UAA backlog

WP:UAA is backlogged two days if not more. —teb728 t c 10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's really at five days now for user-reported. That's actually not too bad, if recent backlogs are any measure. Back in July, it got to a point where it was backlogged two weeks [91]. Sad, really. Wikipedia's golden era is gone, and now such accounts get to run rampant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Well, if I may, HEY ADMINS WHEN YOU DELETE SOME SPAM ARTICLE OR REMOVE SOME VANDAL EDIT DON'T JUST LEAVE AN OBVIOUS USERNAME VIOLATION FOR THE NEXT SCHMUCK especially if that schmuck is me. I just went through a few dozen names and at least two three could easily have been blocked by a previous admin who deleted a spam article or a spam user page or a bunch of vandal edits. Help us out, the poor bums who check in on UAA every now and then. Hammersoft, anytime you want to propose--wait, what could you propose? These accounts aren't running rampant--there's just a lot of them registering. Most of them make zero or few edits, since if they do and they vandalize, the "regular" AIV process takes care of them. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hrm, I'm not sure I'm understanding how you feel. Could you please explain? ;) Kidding aside, I'm intimately aware of the problems generated by corporate/organization accounts and the wreckage they leave on the project. You're quite correct; most make just a few edits. Others can be quite prolific. It's frustrating when some of them do so and UAA is badly backlogged. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I wonder how many people consider spammy usernames - as opposed to spammy edits - a problem that merits a block on its own. There is a sense of urgency at AIV that probably does not exist at UAA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• When I see a spammy username, I usually warn them via {{uw-coi-username}}. I then wait to see if they edit in a promotional way. If they do, I then report it to WP:UAA. I don't think we should block such usernames on sight; we need to give them an opportunity to comply our policies. It's when they prove they are not willing to comply that actions need to be taken. Unfortunately, that's had to happen more than 150k times (ref). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, Jo-Jo Eumerus, there are certain "spammy" names that are really immediately blockable--obviously at UAA we don't just deal with the spammy ones, many of which fall under "name gives the impression that this is not an individual" or words to that effect. Those don't necessarily need to be blocked immediately, and at any rate we have a "soft" username block for that. That's not really my main concern. There's at least two problems here: in general, UAA is kind of overwhelming when it's backlogged. Having the template and block combined via Twinkle has helped, but the various filters deliver a lot of false positives, and I frequently skip those when I don't feel like it, since you have to open the edit window and remove them from a long list and run into edit conflicts etc--so frequently I just go for the obviously blockable ones. Judging from those lists I'm not the only to do so. Second, though, it would be a GREAT help if the admins who do the "other" work, esp. deleting spammy user pages, would check the account name; the ones I saw this morning were obvious candidates for a hard spam block. Every little bit helps, and this won't take care of the hard username violations (the troll and nazi names, etc.), but every little bit helps, since patrolling UAA is repetitive and boring, and sometimes depressing since you only see the worst of Wikipedia. For instance, I frequently check contributions, and in every session there's a set of contributions which leads to some high school hoax article that leads to more vandal accounts; it's not something that encourages happiness, but again, our colleagues can pitch in even without patrolling UAA. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I regularly worked UAA for several years and can't count the number of ties I've seen this type of thing, which is puzzling because it is so easy to just soft block spammers and move on. I eventually stopped working UAA directly and for a while was pretty much the sole curator of the holding pen, but I eventually quit doing that too, but I have no hesitation when it comes to blocking spam usernames. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Policies are just pieces of text. I don't think that softblocking accounts and wading through a number of username policy false positives is the kind of job that creates a sense of urgency, unlike AIV. That's my theory as to why the backlog happens, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate the call, though, to check for bad usernames when reviewing speedy nominations. (You're checking the article history before you speedy something anyway, right?) I go through the G11 queue with some frequency, and quite often, I find myself deleting a spamvertisement for "Acme Corporation" for the second or third time, written by user "AcmeCorp" or "ExamplePR" or whatever have you. If someone had done a {{spamublock}} the first time around, we could've saved some trouble, and it's my experience that at that point, a lot of these types realize "Oh, I'm really not supposed to do this stuff" and actually do quit rather than trying to sock around it. A few (though a very few) actually even request an unblock, agree to quit doing the spamming, and do some decent work in other areas. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding Doncram

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Doncram

Community ban proposal for User:Filipz123

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.

---

• Filipz123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filipz123 is a user who was blocked indefinitely back in March of this year for disruptively adding false nationality invention categories (especially asserting that Nikola Tesla's inventions belonged in Category:Serbian inventions) against consensus and frequently with unreliable sources or no sources at all. Since being blocked, Filipz123 has been the subject of 67 reports at SPI, editing with throwaway accounts and IPs in a series of known ranges to continue trying to force these disruptive categorizations and sometimes outright hoaxes through. This list of pages vandalized with these improper edits contained 720 articles and categories as of when I created it about a month ago; there would be more now if I took the time. Recently his socks have also started inserting blatantly copyright-violating material into articles (for example, this discussion from today). Not too long ago he started inquiring about how to contribute properly, myself and Andy Dingley have both tried in different ways to suggest ways to improve, but it's clear from his continued socking and now escalation to copyvios that his requests are not genuine at all, he's just trolling. Although the obvious result is that his indefinite block is never going to be lifted, I propose that we make it official that Filipz123 is banned from the site. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, obviously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I thought we'd got this far already. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I think he'll be pleased to be banned. More attention he doesn't deserve.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC) My apologies, there was a part 2 to this comment, but I'm making marmalade and got to the "stir constantly or suffer the sugary consequences" part. Yes, Filipz123 is likely to enjoy being banned. We have this conversation often, whether or not there's any point in adding a community ban to a user who is de facto banned anyway because of their behaviour and block log. I keep coming down in support: a user with no intention of reforming, with a siteban notice on their page, is much less likely to distract attention from the "any editor can reform" good-faith helper types like Andy and myself, as well as the "we can keep good edits from blocked users" reverting types (especially because of the recent escalation to copyvios), and will be less of a time waste overall. I do agree also that the action is pretty much entirely symbolic, but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I might support the ban if you'd send me some of the home-made marmalade.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I want marmalade. Especially if it's Canadian, because it'll be extra nice. Katie^talk 17:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's got habanero peppers in it, and also some chunks of burnt stuff. Stir your marmalade, folks. [92] Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: This behavior is actully enough for a ban from the project. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, no good reason not to, the user has caused so much disruption that I'm honestly a little surprised a long-term abuse case still has yet to be created. I also have reason to believe Filipz was or is going to try the standard offer. Please never unblock. Sro23 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per many of the above. A community ban will make it clear to people not familiar with the situation that he should be reverted/blocked on sight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:50, 6 November 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 comment on PC protection

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrator assistance requested for fixing premature closing of AfD on topic "Polemic"

The AfD discussion was abruptly and prematurly closed in discussion of article "Polemic". Request help fixing the problem with the discussion page being archived and anything else this may have messed up. I don't know how to do this. KSci ^(talk) 21:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ksci: Um, why? That AfD is indeed very unlikely to end up as something other than "keep", and "merge" discussions belong onto the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The question was closed well before giving the usual time for all interested parties to respond. In fact, my response to the comments couldn't be saved due to the abrupt early close. I was able to reverse the edit causing the closure, but this put the AfD discussion and article (and other documentation I may not be aware of) in a mixed state. You may fully close the discussion if you feel it is appropriate to do so in such a short time, but the mixed state of the documentation still may require edit because I'm not sure how to fix the inconsistent state.

I would have like to have seen the discussion of merging the topic come to some type of consensus to prevent precipitation of unnecessary disagreements.

Thank you for responding so very quickly. Please let me know if I should revert my reversal of the closure edit. If this is your preference, I will do so and leave the topic be.

KSci ^(talk) 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have reopened the deletion discussion, but AfD is the wrong forum for pursuing a merge. If you wish to pursue a merge, you should state on the AfD page that you are withdrawing the AfD and then you should start a merge discussion pursuant to the instructions in WP:MERGE. Also, I was NOT properly notified of this discussion on my talk page as is REQUIRED for an ANI discussion. I happened to notice in an edit summary that one was occurring. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@all I've withdrawn the proposed AfD, the only concern that may remain is for someone more knowledgeable than I am verify that any associated documents are now consistent in the closed state. No other action is requested or should be needed.

KSci ^(talk) 22:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've re-closed it. ansh666 06:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed

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 goofed up this afternoon, and my bot (CitationCleanerBot (talk · contribs)) edited with faulty logic. I had tested it fine on my main account, but when I logged in AWB with the bot, it loaded an old bunch of settings without me realizing, and my bot didn't do exactly what it should have been doing.

If someone could mass rollback everything CitationCleanerBot (talk · contribs) did today, that would be really nice, because I can't review all those ~1750 edits in a reasonable time frame. Most will be fine (~90-95% from my early estimates), but many won't be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I got the first 100, am currently working on the rest. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

But sheesh, that's a lot of edits.... -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Really, really sorry about that. I've updated my AWB settings to make sure it doesn't load anything automatically anymore. I'd do it myself, but I'm no admin. I'll make sure you get a barnstar out of this~ Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. I thought mass rollback allowed me to create a customized rollback reason, but it doesn't. So now it looks like I'm rolling back 100's of good edits. I imagine I'll get a few notes on my talk page for that....

Anyway, I bit off too much at one time and froze my browser, so I'll try to rollback smaller chunks. If anyone wants to help, I'll start at the earliest ones and go forward, anyone want to start at the most recent and go backwards? I'll meet you in the middle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The second 500 just completed, with multiple edit conflicts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect those conflicts are with me. If so, these should be fine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we got them all. Can you make sure? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, you got them all. Many thanks and sorry again! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:49, 7 November 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.

Blocking without prior notice

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. ...should be banned. Thoughts? 86.185.112.203 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Not at all - when you've got obvious block-evaders or vandals there isn't the need. Talking of which... Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 8 November 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.

RFC closing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Already listed at ANRFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to? should be closed because it has been more than a month. It looks like the most common vote was AD. Therefore, 1 should be moved to AD 1, 2 should be moved to AD 2, ..., and 100 should be moved to AD 100. Then, 1 (number) should be moved to 1, 2 (number) should be moved to 2, ..., and 100 (number) should be moved to 100. Can an administrator please close the RFC and move the pages? Thanks. Timo3 13:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

P. S. Per Talk:1#Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, just like Donald Trump won the presidential election, AD (Anno Donald) will win this RFC. Timo3 14:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Timo3 This has already been posted at WP:ANRFC with some important additional technical details. Also, as an involved user, please don't make a pseudo-judgement call yourself. — Andy W. (talk) 19:29, 9 November 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.

Rangeblock 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.

---

I've never performed one, but perhaps one might be appropriate for the IPs editing Brad Keselowski. It's obviously the same user with a dynamic IP. See here. Enigma^msg 23:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: The smallest possible range for those would be 74.82.4.0/25 covering 74.82.4.0 to 74.82.4.127 (128 IPs). Whether or not that is large enough is unknown at this point as I only took into account those IPs they edited from. --Majora (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh it is a proxy server. Should be blocked anyways. Hang on let me grab the whole range. --Majora (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep it is just the 4.x range. So just bump the number after the / down one. 74.82.4.0/24 will cover the whole proxy range. It is by Hurricane Electric. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Majora—How do you know it's a proxy server? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: Sorry, it is a colocation webhost. They are just blocked the same way as proxies. See {{Colocationwebhost}}. Anyways, whatismyip check and some quick research showed it. Anyone is welcome to check my work (I encourage it actually). --Majora (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Majora—Actually I'm more interested in why it wasn't blocked if it is that easy to tell? It feels like more and more proxies are being used these days (or I'm just getting better at spotting them… Couldn't we automate blocking them in some way? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: True proxies are blocked by User:ProcseeBot all the time. Actually if you look at WP:ADMINSTATS the bot has almost 2 million blocks to its name. Webhosts are different though. They aren't true proxies since you can't just connect to them. Usually you have to pay for that ability. Companies like LeaseWeb and DigitalOcean are used by a few trolls I know of to get around blocks. Why they aren't already blocked? I can't really say for sure but I suspect it is a collateral thing. Either that or there are just so many of them and they are difficult to spot bot wise that we only block them when they come up. But that is just speculation. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Majora thanks, Enigma^msg 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another IP in this range has just vandalized Brad Keselowski again. If a rangeblock can't be arranged, I'd like to renew my request for semi on this page, which Enigmaman denied in favor of a rangeblock. General Ization ^Talk 04:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems the block wasn't implemented yet. Majora, can you apply it? Enigma^msg 06:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Er...I'm not an admin. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done 74.82.4.0/24 range blocked, though only the /25 is currently used. The range is apparently operated by Sophidea, but there's mostly large amounts of vandalism from it anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:13, 8 November 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.

Blocking without prior notice, part 2

We've got an IP-user making legal threats at User talk:Offnfopt, File:American Freeway Patrol logo.jpg, and Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop; back when this person was Patchbook, he uploaded the AFP logo, and because he's decided to prohibit derivative works, he's taken exception to Offnfopt's fulfilment of a WP:GL/P request for a derivative work, including revoking the GFDL/CCBYSA3.0 and issuing legal threats. Normally I'd {{Uw-lblock}} the guy without warning, but since his address is changing, is there a point to it? He signs his posts as Patchbook; is there any reason to block the account, too? What about a rangeblock? We're looking at 2605:E000:A413:6200:8DCD:6246:F501:1EC0 and 2605:E000:A413:6200:2957:C7FF:461E:D316 (which, if I understand the process rightly, would require a rangeblock involving at least 8,070,450,532,247,928,832 IP addresses), which seems a bit of overkill, but I've never handled rangeblocks of IPv4s or IPv6s. Sanctions apply to people, not accounts or addresses, so one could defend blocking the account, but since the account's not been used in nearly four years, I don't see a block as being preventive of anything. And I don't understand how blocking any one of these addresses (or AN-notice notifying them) would be at all helpful, since they're dynamic. I've semiprotected the file page, but I won't semiprotect Offnfopt's talk without a request from him (this isn't some overwhelming attack of vandalism), and we shouldn't go protecting community pages like WP:GL without an overwhelming attack of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think a warning about legal threats should suffice for now. It's clear he doesn't understand the terms of the licenses he used, the invalid non-modification disclaimer notwithstanding. clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He issued a cease-and-desist after both Offnfopt and I explained the irrevocability of the licenses and their explicit permission of derivative works. I'll leave a NLT warning on Offnfopt's talk, since that's the only place where the IP's even attempting to make a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Might want to look at Patchbook's user page. The same legal threat is there. It is clearly them editing as an IP. --Majora (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've actually seen that. The IP's repeatedly stated that he's the uploader, and his messages are routinely concluded with a signature of "Patchbook". The concern on my part is that, as the account itself hasn't been used in years, blocking the account may be unhelpful, since it won't prevent anyone from doing any disruption. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it in case the disruption continues (it can be protected). The takedown threat is obviously bogus and the email to legal (if it actually happens) will just be shrugged off. No big deal really. --Majora (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure; thank you, and I should have said "Actually, I've already..." so it didn't look like I was complaining. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh that never crossed my mind. Don't worry about it at all. --Majora (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

IP doesn't care; after I left that warning, we've had him twice vandalise an article using this image and give another legal threat at Offnfopt's userpage. Is a rangeblock reasonable? We're up to at least three IPs now: 2605:e000:a413:6200:8dcd:6246:f501:1ec0, 2605:E000:A413:6200:EDE5:A233:3B7:3321, and 2605:E000:A413:6200:2957:C7FF:461E:D316. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the range is 2605:E000:A413:6200::/64. The range contribs are currently just this (visible here with the CIDR range gadget). A rangeblock seems feasible. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 20:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. Would Special:Block/2605:E000:A413:6200* be what we need? I've only done rangeblocks a few times, and only after someone else has confirmed that the Special:Block link is correct, and only ever ipv4. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd do it for you, padawan, but learn you must. :-) No, don't use your link. All you have to do is copy Voidwalker's string into the block field and the software will do the rest. It'll return with 0s in all the fields after 2605:e000:A413:6200,, but if you go to the contribs page of one of the individual IPs it will show it's blocked. It just looks weird. FWIW, this really is one guy - /64 ranges in IPv6 almost always are. Katie^talk 00:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, block levied, and thanks :-) I know you have to have the ::/ stuff for an IPv4 rangeblock, but for all I knew, the * variable would work to enable an IPv6 rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Naw, the '*' is a wildcard for the CIDR range contribs gadget. It tells the script to search for the contribs of anything that begins with the preceding string (I used that since the script only handles /16, /24 and /27 – /32 ranges). The block interface does not accept the asterisk as a wildcard. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 00:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Hello fellow admins! I wanted to make sure you were aware that the proposals phase of the annual 2016 Community Wishlist Survey has commenced. During this phase, we invite the community to submit proposals for features, tools, etc, that you'd like WMF's Community Tech team make a reality. There is an admin and stewards category that currently has zero proposals... so share your ideas! Note that the voting phase will begin on 28 November, and after that we'll reevaluate everything and triage accordingly. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is spam again

A new user Plimitarmed associated with Archive.is (all his edits except one are related to archive.is) adds and reinstalls spamy links to ad-farms on domains easycounter.com, websitelibrary.com and checkmysitevalue.com [93] [94] [95]. Please consider blacklisting that domains. ping @Kww:, @Beetstra: 113.180.75.25 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection of User talk:TheGracefulSlick

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.

---

Per the guidelines on the protection page, I'm informing the community that I've increased the semi-protection on TheGracefulSlick's talk page to extended confirmed protection for the same duration (1 month). Unfortunately, the TheGracefulSlick has been subject to harassment by an individual who has created a number of sleeper accounts months ago and utilizes them when the protection has been removed or reduced. I believe that extended confirmed protection will make it significantly more difficult to continue this disruption on the talk page. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the community has decided to amend that requirement such that MusikAnimal's bot's transclusion at the top of this page satisfies the notice requirement and manual notification is not usually needed. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:29, 11 November 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 needed to complete grandfathering of new page patrollers

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.

---

Help is needed to complete the grandfathering of new page patrollers mandated by the recent RFC on the subject, as patrol will soon be restricted to patrollers and admins. The list of users to grandfather is available at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4. See also this relevant discussion: it appears that all those who satisfy the criteria (are listed) should be granted the right, without extra conditions applied. Cenarium (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 9 November 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.

New editor having a bit of trouble moving draft into mainspace

Is there an admin around who can take a look at WP:THQ#I create the page. But how I make it live? Help me please? There's a new SPA editor trying to create an article about a martial artist and they've made a bit of a mess in the process by mistakenly adding it to the Wikipedia namespace and also creating a duplicate in the article namespace with a copy-and-paste move. I believe they are editing in good faith, but just are not familiar with how to create an article. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the various redirects and copy/pasted moves under G6. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach) still needs to be deleted on the same basis. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MSGJ for helping to sort this out and thank you too David Biddulph for your comments at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Range block assist

Hey all, could someone familiar with range blocks please look into the following IPs and see if range blocking is possible? This is sock of Mriduls.sharma

• 2606:F180:1:20F:20F:BADF:B6A9:6229
• 2606:F180:1:20B:20B:5BE0:A83E:7384
• 2606:F180:1:20F:20F:809F:1A74:9A6A

I'll defer to your range block expertise for duration, but this guy seems intent upon being irritating for the foreseeable future. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2606:f180:1:201::/60 would cover that, however from the history of your talk page it looks like a wider range, and I suspect that 2606:f180::/32 is all anonymising proxies shared by the same user. I've taken out the 2606:f180:1::/48 range for now, which is 2606:f180:1:*, for a month. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By my calculations, 2606:f180:1::/48 is 1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 hosts approximately (that's one septillion, aka one million billion billion). Just making sure this matches your intent, zzuuzz. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, considering the average individual gets assigned 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses, huge numbers are not so meaningful. I've examined all the contributions from the range, and what isn't vandalism or anonymising proxy, is almost certainly a proxy of a different sort. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, he's already back as 2606:f180:2:2f9:2f9:c046:1249:3068 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So 2606:f180:2:* has now gone, so multiply a large number by two. 2606:f180:3:* is the next and last candidate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

SuperDuperJew

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.

---

How to deal with this user's edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:3504:6893:7032:8AC3:D4A (talk) 03:05, 13 November 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.

I request the page protection

I request the Administrators to protect the page Ilias Psinakis from edits by Winkelvi. He /she, without even reading, reverted the page contents to the old version, which was improved afterwards taking into account the relevant requirements. Each and every content of the page is confirmed by reliable sources. This user many times before harassed the page. Please, help! LS 11:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

No. This is a content dispute, please discuss at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I note also that LanaSimba has a long history of editwarring and "ownership" on that article and repeatedly removes maintenance tags without fixing the problems . I have now added {{copyedit}}. After her latest revert it is full of grammatical and lexical errors. LanaSimba's editing pattern as an SPA and the promotional style often correlate strongly with a major conflict of interest. I strongly urge her to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. and if it applies, to follow the guidelines there scrupulously. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore Please help to correct the page as a native English speaker, if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) 12:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

LanaSimba, the maintenance tag will attract copy editors to fix the problem. I will be away for the next 10 days. However, the article is also plagued with unencyclopedic puffery. So far, you have resisted all attempts to copyedit it to an acceptable form. You also removed Winkelvi's comment [96] from Talk:Ilias Psinakis. That is completely unacceptable. I have restored it. I strongly suggest more admin eyes on this article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore I never resisted any reasonable edits and all of them are duly considered and applied in the recent version. I resisted deletion of known and publicly confirmed facts (each substantiated by relevant links in the text). As for templates, sorry.. you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article somewhat and added a few tags here and here as appropriate. If LanaSimba wants to play silly that's his business. But he should heed the advice of seasoned editors if he wants the article to be the best it can be. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC) PS LanaSimba sign by adding ~~~~ after comments.

Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) I really appreciate your contributions! Thank you! And I will follow your advice LS 14:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear administrators Winkelvi again reverted the page, discarding Iadmc' edits and deleting many facts and links, previously confirmed. I treat this nothing more than Vandalism and Harassment.LS 14:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

He did not revert wholesale. He further edited the article for neutral point of view and appropriate encyclopedic tone and style. In my view it's a vast improvement. and any further changes should be discussed on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Artur Aleksanyan

This is a content dispute and should be discussed at Talk:Artur Aleksanyan. No admin action needed. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Anonymous user removes the information from the article based on the source in defiance of WP:NPV[97][98] claiming that it contributes nothing to the article however this is about the official reaction to the act of the subject of article. I don't want to initiate edit warring and ask administrators to return the relevant information and protect the article. --Interfase (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an obvious content dispute and nothing requiring admin action, but I'll note in passing that nobody is going to be sanctioned for removing the gibberish Azerbaijan's Ministry of Youth and Sports evaluated the Armenian wrestler’s action as country’s attempt to overuse of winner and bring politics to sports-ground from an article. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So what sentence do you suggest to use? Maybe we can change it. --Interfase (talk) 01:17, 13 November 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.

Diannaa Abuse of administrative privileges

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.

---

Abuse of administrative privileges

Administrator Diannaa, while notifying me of a content dispute regarding MikeSAdams(columnist), and asking for a rewrite of the final paragraph, instead chose to obliterate all of my edits to the page from the Wikipedia History. Her deletes centered on a paragraph tangential to the dispute, concealed in the edit summary. Only by carefully reading the summary did I find that she deleted sourced content from the page.

Ordinarily I'd not take this up here - but obliterating the wiki record to prevent restoration of content is not what her job as an administrator should be. Anyways, I've restored the content that she deleted, as well as editing the page. I am bringing up this complaint so that the early history may be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Adams_(columnist)&action=history

Diffs are above. You can clearly see she removed a full page of edits from the Wikipedia history of the page.

Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, all these revisions did contain a copyright violation, and are thus copyright violations themselves. No "abuse" of anything there. Also, if someone removes an edit you made, merely reverting them is seldom well advised, especially when you don't use edit summaries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:55, 13 November 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.

Eyes on Stephen Bannon please

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 not about to get involved with any article related to the election or American politics any time soon, but the editing on this has gone pretty crazy for the last few hours. Lots of potentially defamatory stuff happening, lots of IPs involved. Someone with thicker skin than I might want to help slam on the brakes. (I come from a long line of cowards, I admit it.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely a major target right now. Someone should consider semi-protecting the page. Dustin (talk) 05:24, 14 November 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.

Compromised accounts

In the last few hours both user:Jimbo Wales and user:Legoktm have had their accounts compromised, seemingly by the same group, and used to vandalise the Main page and other articles. I would suggest any admins with weak passwords change them. Stephen 13:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Another hacked account: AlisonW (talk · contribs). I would advise all admins to either change their password to a strong one and enable Two-factor authentication. Don't know how they're doing it, maybe Brute-force attack. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Another hacked admin has just been blocked. The hacker, who is from the hacking group OurMine seems to be blocking Zzuuzz with the admin accounts they get control of. How is this even happening? Also, will two factor authentication be enabled for extended confirmed users as well as admin's? Class455 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

They seem to love me as I've blocked most of the hacked accounts. My guess, if it's their usual MO, is that they're reusing passwords hacked by others from other sites. It's probably no coincidence that most of the compromised accounts are likely to have had WMF email addresses. It's important (if not using 2fa) to use a Wikipedia password that's never been used anywhere else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense, strong passwords if reused on multiple sites are no longer strong. So far six accounts seem to have been hit: four admin accounts and two non-admin accounts. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked five myself, and I know of three that I haven't. Like I say, most but not all of them seem to be WMF employees. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the real me, and thanks to those who've been picking up the violated accounts. As one of my very oldest accounts the WP password was weaker than my others, but no longer (thanks to Ajraddatz for releasing me) FYI, every site I use has an individual password and WP did not reuse one from anywhere else, thus it was either brute force (was only nine characters - now 24 random) or backend access. My money's on the brute force. --AlisonW (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, if it was a brute force attack this can be prevented by various countermeasures, as for only allowing a limited number of attempted logins over a certain time period; see Brute-force attack#Countermeasures. I wonder if any countermeasures are in place? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes we do have countermeasures against brute force attacks (max 5 logins every 5 minutes, and no more than 150 attempts every 48 hours. We also keep a record of every failed login attempt). However at this time we do not believe this was a bruteforce attack. Most of the victims seem to have shared passwords across multiple sites. We are still in the process of investigating. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"no more than 150 attempts every 48 hours" seems _very_ excessive. If someone has got it wrong even three times I would expect / require them to do a reset. 525 attempts per week is just asking to be brute-forced. I would strongly propose a substantial decrease in those numbers. --AlisonW (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

To give some idea, a password three letters long constrained to only the English letters would take 26 weeks to tray all combinations and expect to succeed on average in 13 weeks. Add one more letter and that time rises to 6 years. One more to five and it's 145 years. At six the chance of any success in a human lifetime is low. Dictionary attacks using either dictionaries or known lists of passwords and attacks using credentials stolen from other sites are more of a concern. Dictionary and known list attacks still take a long time with the current limit. Known email/password attacks are far easier and not likely to be blocked by rate limits at an individual account level. You can protect against those threats by using different email addresses and passwords. On the email side I normally use a different email address for every site and place I do things with and passwords I don't discuss my practices. An easy password approach is to have a base password and put something about the site somewhere within it. So you might have a base password like 1.z'€A and use 1.zwikimedia'€A as a login password to WMF servers. Since email and password are then different for every site your account won't be compromised by automated attacks using stolen details. High value targets like Jimbo can still be affected by human or intelligence agency analysis and attack. € is the euro currency symbol, available on many keyboards via an Alt Gr + 4 key combination or just directly in some countries or devices. I included it as an example of a character not in the traditional English language that will greatly increase brute force attack time. Jamesday (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with this method. If hackers discover from another site that your base password is 1.z'€A and they're looking to break your wikimedia password, it won't take long to come up with the correct combination of 1.zwikimedia'€A. Base passwords, and twiddling numbers tagged onto the end of it, are not a great security device unless you add a lot of extra work. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well, as this is not a brute force attack (as mentioned above), and not one borne out of the yahoo email leaks (again, as Alison mentions above, hers was a unique password), it is imperative that the Foundation is open to the fact that someone may have hacked our own servers and takes preventive action immediately, including forcing every password of registered users to be changed immediately (well, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook keep buying leaked passwords from the white/darkweb and force users whose passwords seem to be available on the net to change their passwords; thus can the WMF too). Lourdes 03:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  I think we may be missing some details still. Some useful information would be if the comprised accounts were done so via password resets or not. Right in the middle of all of this someone at 188.50.20.119 tried to password reset my account. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  You got a reset? That's nothing... try having a really simple user name.  — Scott • talk 17:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  We are still investigating the issue. We are of course considering all possibilities, however at this time we do not believe that anyone "hacked our own servers" (for a variety of reasons). Lets not panic folks. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  Of course, the intention is not to create panic. It's just to suggest a judicious move to inform all users (or at least all administrators immediately) that such an incident has occurred with multiple administrators including the co-founder and that they should take steps to secure their passwords. All this at the Foundation's discretion of course. There's no gain saying that in the technology driven world, such things do happen. What's important to know is if there's a procedure set by the Foundation to handle such episodes, or is the same handled on an as-is-where-is basis (which is not what I'm saying is happening in this case)? This would go a long way in ensuring users like I do not feel that there is no formal procedure in place to handle such situations. Thanks. Lourdes 04:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  We do not have the full picture, and probably neither does the IT staff at WMF yet either. If it's brute force, it will show in the logs. Going by Alison's comment, it is not a re-use of passwords (though multiple methods could have been used). If it is email interception, it will show a reset of the password. Maybe someone at WMF traced the attack and found the vulnerability, but cannot disclose it until it has been fixed.

  Anyways, changing passwords is security theater at that point.

  <rant>In any case, if the password database was properly managed and salted the compromise will have limited effect. That should be the bare minimum of password database management but I guess that if Yahoo does not have the money to do it, the WMF cannot be expected to pay for it. </rant> Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not security theater to change your password if you have used it on multiple websites. If you have used your password on multiple websites, please change your password. If you have used the same password for a very long time, we also strongly encourage you to change it (Common trend among attacked accounts is they used the same password for a very long time). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot mistake help

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, my bot User:GreenC bot made a mistake in a bunch of articles today. List of articles effected. Is there an admin tool or method to revert the edits other than manually? I'll re-run the bot on the pages after the revert. (the mistake was using MDY instead of DMY in certain cases). -- GreenC 03:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 In progress Checking. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Green Cardamom is this all of these pages, or just the ones on a certain date ("...articles today")? Some of these haven't been edited since 11NOV2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi xaosflux. Yes all the articles in the list. Most edits were made today, but some from the trial period and right after the approval. -- GreenC 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 In progress — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all going to be simple, I've got Fluxbot working though the list supervised - only doing rollback where your bot is the last editor, and where there was another editor before it. See output so far on User:Green Cardamom/yes/2. The lines with * need manual cleanup. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I can do the manuals. Looks like Fluxbot is getting the bulk of it. thanks! Good to know there is a tool for this situation. The problem was the bot was checking for |df=y but not |df=yes, a silly oversight on my part but fortunately the bot keeps a local cache of the original articles so it was easy to identify those effected (out of 20,000). -- GreenC 05:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Green Cardamom Job completed, there are 66 pages that need to be reviewed manually listed here: User:Green Cardamom/yes/2. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux thanks again. The 66 are done, and the bot is re-processing the list. -- GreenC 05:48, 14 November 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 new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Administrators' noticeboard.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protection of Litfire Publishing

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.

---

CambridgeBayWeather has applied extended-confirmed protection to Litfire Publishing. This is in response to the repeated addition of defamatory material by a single (autoconfirmed) user.

My understanding is that in this situation it would be more appropriate to block the account... if it reached that point.

They have been warned twice. They haven't edited since the last warning. I think it would make sense to leave it at that for now. If they do come back with another, similar edit, then it is time for a block.

If new accounts are created after that, semi protection is sufficient... unless it looks like someone is repeatedly creating throw-away accounts and getting them autoconfirmed... in which case ECP would be appropriate.

I thought I should bring it up here for discussion. That's what we are supposed to do with any slightly controversial applications of ECP, right?

Yaris678 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The account in question is not even autoconfirmed so I'm going to drop to semi. Discussion of the user can continue. BethNaught (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a mixed bag. A rather new account, User:Awareauthors continues to add a negative claim about the sales tactics of Litfire Publishing, which is interesting though it may not be reliably sourced. Then there is another editor who has been removing that and calling it vandalism.

• Litfire Publishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Awareauthors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asipulako (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The negative critique is from a group called Writer Beware which is covered here on Wikipedia in this section Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America#Writer Beware. If that makes their web site a reliable source (at least for their own opinion) there might be a way to get a toned-down quote from them into the article, and not violate BLP or anything. Part of the charge against Litfire Publishing is that they are connected to Author Solutions. We know from our article on the latter that Author Solutions have been sued for some of their practices. Both Litfire and Author Solutions offer their services to authors who want to self-publish. Though Awareauthors (talk · contribs) could be an SPA it looks as though Asipulako (talk · contribs) is a normal editor, though relatively new, with 54 edits so far. His removal of the negative content was probably just intended as normal article cleanup. I have notified both editors of the discussion here. Awareauthors may be the newly-registered incarnation of Special:Contributions/174.62.219.161 though that is not a problem. I hope that one or both of the opposing editors will join this discussion. If so, ECP may not be needed and we can use talk to settle this in the normal way. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I must have clicked on the wring protection level in the box. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. The first edit was from an IP:174.62.219.161 here. Then I asked to add back with a RS here but my edit was reverted. I then asked to discuss on talk page[99] but the user kept reverting and inserting defamatory content and even reported me of vandalism here. I think it can be business competition since the user is only interested on this article and keep adding the content as soon as the protection expired. I leave it to you as you are much experienced editors. Thank you. Asipulako (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this page Victoria Strauss may be connected. The article lacks credible sources and doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. I found another organization "The Write Agenda"[100]. The neutrality of all these articles including Litfire Publishing and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be checked.Asipulako (talk) 07:01, 15 November 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:GreenC bot

This bot is not using the correct formatting with regards to dates. Example: Green Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I brought the issue to the attention of the bot operator [101] who is essentially saying sorry, SOL. Fix it yourself with your own bot. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This should probably be at the WP:Bot owners' noticeboard - or a notification should be sent there to draw their attention here. Mike1901 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd prefer to answer this at the WP:Bot owners' noticeboard. -- GreenC 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Started a new thread Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#.7B.7Bwebarchive.7D.7D_merge. -- GreenC 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Come on bros, I know I'm a fatass but I can't fill 7 seats all by myself. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect many Americans are a wee bit distracted with another election you may have heard about. If our major cities aren't all on fire tomorrow I expect folks will be more willing to think about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

At least you're in Alaska, where the biggest city's #65 on the list, and everybody else lives in cities of thirty thousand or smaller, or not in cities at all. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey Salvidrim why did you only call on the bros? did you forget the sisters? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever gender or nongender you identify with you can still be my fucking bro. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay I am chill with that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: Nominations are closing in less than an hour and a half. There are currently 9 standing candidates running for 7 open seats. (For comparison, last year had 20 candidates for 9 open seats.) Mz7 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an urgent issue.

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 have been blocked by a malicious user, using the account of User:Maury Markowitz. Be aware of their recent edits. 2602:306:3B46:1600:D571:80BF:4917:795D (talk)MgWd —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And your account is...? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 16 November 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:Libertarian Macedonian

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 is probably nothing, but I think that a mention is in order. I reviewed User:Libertarian Macedonian/sandbox and tried to move it to Draft:Igor Janev. I was unable to move it because the title had been salted. I inserted a comment in the draft to that effect. If it were approved, admin action would be needed to unsalt it. I then commented that the second half of the Biography was a philosophical handwave. (Well, I tried to be kind. I thought it was mumbo-jumbo.) The author then posted to my talk page: "Hi Robert, I am new here. Can you tell me should I continue with submission of draft on Igor Janev or just remove the text. Thanks!" They then posted, "Does "protection" mean that only admins can create art. or what? " Well, the answer to that is yes. The author then blanked the sandbox and posted RETIRED banners to their user page and talk page. Other than that, the editor’s contribution has been a rant on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I have the editor watchlisted. This is probably just a passing tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the prolific Igor Janev spammer back again. I have reported it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 14 November 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:Contents

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 not sure what has happened but our main help page Help:Contents has been deleted and so have the redirects to this page even the portal redirect. Not sure whats going on here but this page is view many times an hour and link in our main side bar on the left. Need this restored asap!!!!!--Moxy (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. What are you seeing when you visit it? ansh666 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, a vandal was redirecting the page, it's now been full-protected. ansh666 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromised adim account User:Maury Markowitz ...others they seem to be working on the problem. Guy in the section below got blocked by this FAKE admin. -- Moxy (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the compromised accounts changed the content model of the Main Page (see mw:Help:ChangeContentModel), an idea I've never heard of before. I'm looking to test it on a sandbox page and then revert myself. This is just a note to demonstrate that I am in control of my account; please don't think that I've been compromised because I'm doing something that a vandal just did. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And an edit with my alternate account (it uses a password that I don't use anywhere else) to demonstrate that yes, this is the real me. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And a reminder that the test is complete. You won't see me editing the Main Page, Donald Trump, or anywhere else, unless it's an actual thing that can be improved. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:BEANS? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes; your point? The compromised account already did this; I'm not introducing something that wasn't previously done maliciously. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another admin has just been hacked and globally locked. I was skeptical but really, all admins need to start using 2FA ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 16 November 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.

Account globally locked with no warning and no information on what to do

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 try to logon today to be told my password is invalid; when I get a new one I get told my account has been "globally locked" with no explanation as to why, no information as to how to unlock it and nothing at all in the help link. When I look at my talk page I am told I should contact admins & stewards I know privately, which is none. How am I supposed to get my account unlocked with no clear information whatsoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your account appears to have been compromised, as it was used to make vandalism-like edits to the main page. Please email the stewards at "stewards-at-wikimedia.org" for information on how to proceed. (As an aside, please be careful not to sign posts as an IP if you don't want your location known to a large number of people. I've asked an oversighter to suppress that bit of info.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Now unlocked and trying to make sense of the 2FA page. Tim 13:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs)

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 block one of my alt accounts

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 forgot the password to User:ThePlatypusofDoom's Sock. I forgot to link it to email. I have created a new alt User:PlatypusofDoom (alt) that is connected to my email. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:46, 16 November 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.

Protection request for the article Ganja, Azerbaijan because of POV pushing of the official and referenced population data

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.

---

An IP is constantly POV pushing by erasing the official and referenced population data of the city of Ganja, Azerbaijan and is replacing them with unsourced bogus numbers. The person has done this previously according to the revision history of the article under the accounts Cavadxangence1992‎ and Historicalcity2016 and as an IP, and the article was temporarily proteced as a result. But the temporary protection of this article and warnings to that person have not deterred him or her.

Sondrion (talk) 21:16, 16 November 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:EEng's userpage deleted without discussion and with improper rationale(s)

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.

---

For those of you who do not have WP:AE watchlisted, the discussion is currently here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#EEng. I'm simply posting this notice here because many people do not have AE watchlisted and therefore do not know the deletion occurred. Therefore this posting is a notification of the action and the link to the discussion. If persons wish to discuss the admin action here as well, that's fine. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See my statement at the AE for examples of some of the heinous things on that user page. The deletion was entirely proper, and it most certainly was an attack page. The plainly non-neutral heading to the section is unhelpful. Borderline canvassing, even. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You're saying, like User:The Wordsmith did, that the entire page was "an attack page"? And, as User:Softlavender has pointed out, wasn't the enforcement notice referred to related to BLP violation in article mainspace? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no discussion or even tagging anywhere prior to the deletion, and the rationales supplied for the unilateral deletion did not apply. There's also no current consensus that any of the humor on the userpage was "heinous". A userpage is not the main page or The Signpost. Please see WP:CRYBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't even know we had a guideline or policy called WP:CRYBABY, but it certainly applies in this case. EEng 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an essay, doesn't apply here in any event, and in response to Martinevans123, no, the remedy specifically states "all edits" and "all pages". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The deletion (both process and rationale) is correct, whether the deletion is subsequently reversed because of the Arbitration Enforcement decision does not make the initial deletion improper. The BLP policy and a number of Arbitration decisions give administrators enormous leeway to take a cautious approach with material they believe to violate the BLP policy. Nick (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I agree with Nick here. That I don't agree with the deletion (as should be clear from the discussion at AE, and the fact that Arbcom will probably take it as a pretext to desysop me once they figure out that I've unilaterally reverted an AE action), doesn't mean I don't believe Wordsmith was within the bounds of reasonable discretion in deleting it. ‑ Iridescent 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't an AE action. The erroneously cited ArbCom ruling applies to articles, not userpages. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a BLP action, and we have wide discretion in enforcing BLP, period. It doesn't matter if it's in an article or a userpage or in the Signpost. Katie^talk 00:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wide discretion, as in deleting a 113,000-byte longterm humorous userpage, largely about Wikipedia, of a longterm editor without the slightest discussion, notification, or tagging? Can you please point me to a policy that covers that? Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Badlydrawnjeff definitely applies here, but I'd also point to WP:BLPTALK. Katie^talk 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff only refers to articles. WP:BLPTALK has some bearing, but only to remove contentious material, not entire userpages that are mostly gentle humor about Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many adjectives to describe that page, and I'll use a few soon. "Gentle" is definitely not one of them. Katie^talk 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender, that just isn't true; the ruling in question (WP:ARBAPDS) explicitly says "all pages", not "all articles", so if one accepts that the material is problematic then it explicitly is covered by BLP. ‑ Iridescent 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not the ruling in question. The ruling in question is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs. Even the ruling you linked to is only about WP:DS, not deletion. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As a BLP action, it is massive over-reach. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least massive overreach is one thing we won't have to worry about with the incoming administration. EEng 00:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The BLP policy and a number of Arbitration decisions give administrators enormous leeway". Specifically, with deletions. This authority to delete per BLP policy and a number of Arbitration decisions should be described somewhere at WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• (I wonder would EEng be interested in writing a monthly political column for Signpost?) Martinevans123 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Here Nick (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, that refers to articles, and nothing else. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you want this then which specifically states pages rather than articles. Nick (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please read that. Nowhere does it say summarily delete, without discussion, tagging, or notification, an entire 113,000-byte humorous userpage about Wikipedia that happens to also contain some material that could be problematical. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• • @SmokeyJoe and Softlavender: In this clear-cut instance, WP:G10 certainly applied. Again, I invite any editors who wish to defend this page to affirmatively state they see no issues with calling Trump's son a "chip off the old pussy", Trump's wife comparable to a sex doll, and asserting that Christie has a fetish for overweight women. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:G10: G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose (underscoring mine), which it clearly wasn't. It was a 113,000-byte longterm humorous userpage, and most of the humor was about Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • No opposition to the deletion, just a note that WP:CSD is years lagging in documenting BLP deletion. However, I do find your repetition of the offensive remarks to be offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The sex doll thing is easy enough to cite, at any rate; it's well documented that Rachel Johnson (contributing editor of The Spectator, sister of British Foreign Secretary Boris, and fairly high-profile spokeswoman for the UK right-wing) is on record as publicly describing Melania Trump as "a scary sex doll". ‑ Iridescent 00:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, there are editors who are actually attempting to state that this didn't violate BLP in any way, whatsoever, at the AE. Many are even trying to get this user page restored. Those individuals either need to own the attacks they're trying to protect or reconsider, and I do not intend to allow them to pretend the attacks didn't exist. Additionally, I note that many of the editors who quickly leaped to EEng's defense are not actually administrators, meaning they may very well not know what they're defending. Makes one wonder why they're defending it, doesn't it? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing the unilateral undiscussed, un-notified, untagged deletion of a longterm 113,000-byte humorous userpage. If there were problems with it, the proper procedure would have been to do one or more of the following: (1) Request to EEng that he remove the perceived problematical material. (2) Open an WP:MFD on the page. (3) Tag the page. (4) Open a noticeboard discussion about the page. (5) Remove the perceived problematical material. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the questions prominently raised by the Gamaliel arbitration case earlier this year, but not resolved by that case (perhaps because it is a policy matter), is whether a BLP violation exists where, outside mainspace, (1) statements are made about a prominent living person that would be defamatory if taken literally, but (2) the intent is satirical and no reasonable reader would take them literally. Perhaps a further consideration might be if (3) the statements are unusually graphic, or indelicate, or some would say crass. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this question, and perhaps the (über-serious) discussion of April Fools jokes that took place earlier this year could have discussed the broader question. (My own passing comment at the time was, "non-mainspace humor has its place in Wikipedia, as part of the friendly comeraderie and shared experience of editing that sustains the community—but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction, the humorist should reconsider whether it is serving its purpose, whether it is or recently was April 1 or any other day. This is not a call for self-censorship per se, but for common sense.") Regarding today's developments, I am actually pleased to see a situation in which administrators and editors are acting out of principle and with good faith on all sides. A compromise seems to be working out, under which the userpage is being restored without the most disputatious of the material, and I'd be happy to see this matter resolved, without further action against anyone, on that basis. (Cross-posting this to AE also.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also cross-posted. One comment re your sensible criterion, but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction...: I completely agree, but in this case, of the literally thousands of editors who have apparently visited my user page in the last six months there has been, to my recollection, exactly one objection registered [102] -- which I resolved by making a change addressing the concern expressed. (Can't diff that edit since it's in the deleted part of the history.) Had there been more than that, I would certainly have rethought my approach.

I too am pleased this is being discussed so constructively (by most, at any rate). EEng 01:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(Responded on AE. We can't keep cross-posting forever. :) ) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(Understood, but I wanted to make the point re "just one objection" for those here to see.) EEng 01:20, 17 November 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 hide insulting edit

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 edit has been only partly suppressed. The summary text and page content should be also suppressed as they contain insults in Persian language. huji—TALK 17:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That needs an oversighter. I have emailed them. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your batsignal. Oversighted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, everyone please remember not to post requests for revision deletion or oversight on AN or ANI - the most widely watched pages on the site. Use email, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and JohnCD: please hide This and This edit--Sunfyre (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sunfyre: already done, but please read the note just above: this high-traffic page is not the place to mention problematic material. Next time use email - see WP:Oversight for the address. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ok; Thanks--Sunfyre (talk) 10:16, 18 November 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.

Unlock the 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.

---

There is a request at Articles for creation/Redirects, which was accepted but could not be processed due to salted title. Please unlock the page, Angry video game nerd so that it may be redirected to Angry Video Game Nerd.  sami  ^talk 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you one better, I've created the redirect to Angry Video Game Nerd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 17 November 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.

Revdelete, not a privacy issue

Could someone go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%A2&action=history and revdelete the edit by 71.107.172.221 at 03:11 on 10 January 2008? It made my browser basically unusable (except for keyboard shortcuts) because the single character is so massive that its associated whitespace covered most of the screen, so my mouse really couldn't do anything. The code is visible at [103], if you care. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I reckon RD3 purely disruptive material covered that. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen RD3 used in the past for this kind of thing: it's not offensive per se (nowhere close to putting goatse on a random article, for example), and it's not something illegal such as copyright infringements: it's just playing with the website in order be disruptive, and it's successful to the point of making the website hard to use. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can be (and was) disruptive without being offensive. WP:CRD includes "browser-crashing or malicious HTML". JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

US Presidential inauguration

Howdy. It appears we've an editor (Jvfmgnlllj) at List of multilingual presidents of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth, who isn't listening to others. He keeps inserting Donald Trump in those articles, despite being told to wait until January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Someguy1221 a few minutes after you left this note. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible Promotional username

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.

---

Um, I came across an account that is Newenglandradio im not sure if it is an acceptable username. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way it may be a name of a company if you take it in 3 pieces, New England Radio is spells. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using it to promote, I honestly couldn't come up with a better username Newenglandradio (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Newenglandradio: Im not saying that it's a promotional username, peoplemay think it is promotional. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine why that name would be a problem, unless (for example) there have been problematic edits related to a corporate entity that does business as something like New England Radio. (My admittedly very cursory glance at the user's contributions don't reveal any, but if you've any specific edits that you want to draw to our attention it would be helpful.) Absent evidence to the contrary, it's presumably just someone from New England who has an interest in radio, or at least someone with an interest in New England radio stations.

Going forward, Gary "Roach" Sanderson, I would advise erring on the side of cautious inaction. If there are no edits that suggest a conflict of interest, and the name is – at worst – very ambiguously suggestive of a potential business interest, it's best to leave well enough alone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:50, 20 November 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 claiming to be an admin

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 not sure if this is the correct place to bring this, but I came across this user: Pats04 who is claiming to be an administrator on their talk page, however they are not an admin. I am not sure the correct course of action in these circumstances, but I could definitely see this being very misleading. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. Just remove it with an edit summary not to impersonate an admin. --Majora (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that myself in the future if I come across it again. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 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.

Legal noises on Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai, redux

Following on from this discussion, we have this edit, which claims not to be a threat but then goes into detail over how we are all certain to be sued.

(It also quacks exactly like the previous talk page edits by YatesByron & hence is arguably NOTHERE...) Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 SPI Clerk note: As you say, at first glance it seems like a WP:DUCK quack, but KrakatoaKatie's CU result was  Unrelated. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's have Bbb23 look at it to make sure I didn't interpret the data incorrectly. Katie^talk 12:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at only the technical characteristics of the two accounts, not their behavior. I'm also not commenting on any relationship to the sock master, just comparing the two accounts to each other. In my view, the two accounts are  Inconclusive but  Possible. YatesByron is using the equivalent of a proxy server, which hides their true location. If I were deciding whether to block them as being the same person, I would focus on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this the 'I invented email despite it being in use for at least 10 years previously' rubbish still going on? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I expect it will remain a bleeding ulcer essentially indefinitely. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, ah, quacking aside, do we think it's a legal threat? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's intended to be double-talk, but I interpret it as a legal threat. The rest of what the user says is odious as well. Indefinitely blocked for the threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I see I somehow fatfingered and missed the I out of ANI. Sorry about that. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Moved from WP:VPM

I found an account that had been inactive for a while and suddenly had a new edit from an apparent "hacker" that seems to have broken into the account. The hack statement threatened death and stated what is possibly the account holders name. the accounts contribs, the talk page -glove- (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• For the meantime I've just blanked and revdel'ed the content of the userpage and talkpage, but I have to step out so feel free to take whatever other action seems necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

While it does not appear that this account is related to the compromised accounts over the weekend, given recent events, please ping me (on wiki, or better on irc [nickname bawolff]) if any more compromised accounts are discovered over the next several days, so that we can investigate if they are related to the incident. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not being able to see what the threat said, I inquire to admins, is this the kind of thing that warrants an email to emergencywikimedia.org? And if so, has someone already sent said email? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been oversighted, so I would assume that the functionaries are handling it. --Rschen7754 05:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OTRS recruitment

Hey. As always, the Volunteer Response Team could use some new agents to help process emails. The OTRS team handles incoming emails related to all aspects of the project. Without going into specifics, I've handled everything from donations of free text for use on Wikipedia, to helping an article subject combat widespread sockpuppetry aimed at defaming them, to explaining how a potential new editor can make their first edits and become a part of our community. The work of the OTRS team is incredibly important, but it's also a nice change-of-pace from the typical activities I do on the project.

We're especially in need of new agents who can handle permissions emails, meaning the emails donating free images and text for use on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. It's extremely helpful if you have administrator rights on enwiki or Commons, but this is not necessary. It's also very helpful if you have a strong knowledge of copyright, acceptable licenses on Wikipedia, and how works enter the public domain. Please feel free to message me if you don't have that experience but would be interested in acquiring it.

If you're interested in helping out, you can read more at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and meta:OTRS/Volunteering. Please note that there are a couple hard requirements to be an OTRS agent. At a bare minimum, you must be 16 years of age or older, willing to identify yourself to the Wikimedia Foundation, and willing to sign and uphold a confidentiality agreement.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. I'm especially interested to hear from anyone who might be interested in helping with the permissions queues, even if you currently lack knowledge of copyright and licensing. Thank you! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm not an OTRS administrator, nor do I speak for them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought you didn't have to identify any more since they brought in the new confidentiality agreement? BethNaught (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't. Simply sign the confidentiality agreement with your username and you're set. I've signed both agreements this way. Katie^talk 14:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As of July, I identified when I joined up. It may have changed, though. The requirements currently state that you must identify if requested, but you'd need to ask an OTRS admin if they're still requesting or not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Do this, folks. It's rewarding. You meet some great people. I have emails I cherish from Ronald Neame, for example. Also I got Christmas cards from Michael Winner and signed photos from Olga Korbut. You can help real people who are impacted by Wikipedia in real ways, sometimes you can help fascinating people upload images or add content that is a genuine asset to the project. I no longer do OTRS but I miss the daily interaction with real-world readers. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I got a free lunch from the staff at The Minories, Colchester. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing an unblock on a block I administered

Hey, a quickie for fellow admins: If I block an obvious sockpuppet account, is it okay to decline their subsequent unblock request? Though I'd normally agree that if a single-account-holder got him/herself in a behavioral pickle, a fresh admin should evaluate their unblock request, but in a sock situation, no admin would unblock a sockpuppet account, the user would have to request an unblock at their main account. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

An open unblock request isn't doing you any harm, closing even an obvious one yourself leaves you open to irritating wikilawyering, and the administrators who habitually patrol unblock requests are in my experience entirely reasonable people. Besides which, policy says not to. Best leave it for the second set of eyes. —Cryptic 05:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Cryptic. The unblock process offers a second opinion on the outcome. The blocking admin should leave unblock requests from that account to others, even where they're obviously invalid. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Even the most obvious sock deserves to be heard by a second admin (and I've seen cases were apparently obvious socks actually weren't socks at all), and sometimes we do actually unblock sock accounts while leaving the master blocked. And yes, policy says the blocking admin generally shouldn't do subsequent declines. So definitely leave it to someone else, I'd say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• With the exception of requests which are bd enough to need RevDel, there is no urgency with rejecting these requests, so you should leave them for someone else. Other admins are generally good enough to recognise an obvious sock puppet; if you aren't sure, feel free to lweave a brief summary of the major evidence below the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Please can someone take a look at this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)