Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Requests for closure

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue. You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb. Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines). Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself. Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time. Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised. On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here. There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure. Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section. Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have. Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow. Technical instructions for closers Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}. If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Other areas tracking old discussions Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log Wikipedia:Proposed article splits Administrative discussions Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading Requests for comment Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process (Initiated 201 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments (Initiated 56 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead (Initiated 55 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)  Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period (Initiated 31 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#RfC On the Better of Two Revisions (Initiated 15 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature (Initiated 23 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent? (Initiated 17 days ago on 15 November 2024) There's no need for this to go on for a month. Consensus is overwhelming. Can we get an independent close please, as this is a highly contentious topic. TarnishedPathtalk 12:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I was about to ask just this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Second @TarnishedPath here - consensus is in WP:SNOW territory. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)  Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC) talk:Rajiv Dixit#RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede (Initiated 74 days ago on 19 September 2024) This seems to have rujn its course, but the vote is evenly split, so it's hard to judge consensus as an involved party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)  Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading Deletion discussions XFD backlog V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total CfD 0 0 19 0 19 TfD 0 0 12 0 12 MfD 0 0 1 0 1 FfD 0 0 15 0 15 RfD 0 0 67 0 67 AfD 0 0 0 0 0 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Category:National artists of Thailand (Initiated 43 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)  Relisted on 2 December by Bibliomaniac15. SilverLocust 💬 10:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)  Not done, as above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading Other types of closing requests Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement (Initiated 321 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)  Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC) @Allan Nonymous: do you still plan to close this? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Yes, sorry about this, I forgot I had this outstanding :). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump (Initiated 47 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Tesla_Cybercab#Proposed_merge_of_Tesla_Network_into_Tesla_Cybercab (Initiated 45 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

PC2 for Mangoeater targets

As anyone who monitors AN/I, SPI, CSD, AFD, or even, lately, RFA [1] knows, de facto banned Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has been incredibly persistent in his disruption, generally in relation to articles on NYU Poly (promoting it) and Cal Poly Pomona (trying to minimize it). It got so bad that two weeks ago Reaper Eternal full-protected Polytechnic Institute of New York University and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people‎ until March 28 and March 6, respectively. To me this seems unfortunate (though I completely understand and agree with Reaper's decision), especially as both articles are in serious need of improvement. So, I was wondering if we could discuss the option of implementing Pending Changes Level 2 protection (in conjunction with semi-protection, probably). While there was never any community endorsement of its use, neither was there, as King of Hearts pointed out at AN/I recently, explaining his decision to apply PC2 to 1948 Arab-Israeli War, any consensus against its use, meaning that there's nothing to stop the community from making ad hoc IAR decisions to apply it to certain articles. (Elockid has since applied PC2 to First York, Transdev York, and York Pullman.) Clearly it's better to let users edit an article, subject to review, than to not let them at all, and both articles are monitored by several reviewers and admins. Furthermore, Mangoeater has been active since May, had his first sock blocked in July, and has been indeffed since October, so there's no reason to believe he won't just start up again come March. I suggested at the Arab-Israeli War AN/I thread that we hold future discussions PC2 discussions here, as AN/I can be so hostile that well-respected community members steer clear of it, limiting the degree of consensus that can be achieved on anything policy-related. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Thoughts? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Not because I don't think putting PC2 on as an alternative to full-protection is a bad idea to protect against banned socks (etc.) but because the community consensus in the PC RfCs doesn't endorse PC2 and use of it is likely to lead to accusations that we are setting off down a slippery slope, on an express train through some undemocratic wasteland. So, yes, support in theory, but in practice it seems like the community will excrete a brick. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the previous discussion I mentioned can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ? Everyone who commented agreed that PC2 was merited, simply leaving the question of whether the community allowed its implementation. The only objection to KoH's decision was by The Devil's Advocate, who himself noted that he supports PC2; considering that this managed to fall off the board, it's clear that no one, even at AN/I, had a serious enough objection to raise hell in the ways you describe. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Both PC2 and full protection are game-able by socks, but this won't be substantially easier for them, while this will be substantially easier for good-faith editors than it would be to force them to use editprotected requests all the time. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per IAR, even though I believe it would be more optimal to gain consensus for its use to avoid any possible shenanigans. I would also think an edit filter would be a good alternative in many cases, but here it seems that the behavior is not truly consistent enough for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this seems to be one of those cases for which IAR exists. --Nouniquenames 04:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note, if anyone would like to reference the note I ended up leaving on the talkpage of the article referenced above, that kind of note should suffice to explain the reasoning for the PC2. As long as we don't go PC2 on everything, I think it's okay for a very select few articles. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A little ironic, because I like PC2 and detest PC1, but with the amount of dishonesty that went on with the original implementation of PC, I think anything that even smells of going against community consensus needs to be avoided. The primary opposition to PC was based on "slippery slope" style of arguments, and this just feeds them.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is ridiculous. Maybe Elockid added PC2 by accident, but either way this should not be getting implemented like this, period. It can only create confusion for admins and reviewers. So I implore any admin to immediately remove the PC2 protection from any articles that have them. As far as I know this would just be the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, the Transdev York article, the First York article, and the York Pullman article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• How do you suppose it will confuse admins or reviewers? --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know it confused me to see an article on my watchlist (1948 Arab-Israeli War) with PC2 protection when I knew the RfC did not get consensus for that level of protection. You may also have the old "other people are doing so it must be acceptable" reaction and then have admins imposing PC2 protection like any other protection under the impression it is now legit. Not to mention that we don't have a clear procedure set out for reviewing changes of the sort PC2 is being used to stop in these ad-hoc cases. Although not related to the above, the whole notion of half a dozen editors using AN/ANI as a workaround for an RfC that involved several dozen editors is not the sort of thing I endorse.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't understand your last sentence; could you clarify what you mean? Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe TDA is listing the four articles currently under PC2 protection (according to the relevant category; it's possible that others are, but haven't been tagged with {{pp-pc2}}, which auto-categorizes them). In response to TDA's general points, though, I, like, Jasper, don't really follow: This is about as visible a forum as it gets; if it's good enough to ban and unban users, I'd think it's good enough to apply protection to a single article. So I don't really understand what could be confusing about this. I don't see what's ridiculous about trying to stop a lone troll from permanently stalling the improvement of two articles in need of substantial cleanup. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• You may find this astonishing, but plenty of people edit Wikipedia without paying any mind to cesspools such as this page and certainly many edit without looking at it on a regular basis. Circumventing a broad and lengthy community discussion involving dozens of editors by using AN because you want to thump on the socks is not appealing to me at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not circumventing consensus; I'm seeking it. Circumventing it would be to find some out-of-the-loop admin and email them to ask if they'd mind downgrading it to PC2. Starting a thread at the board that we use for some of our most substantial discussions is seeking it. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal, for rather obvious reasons. If the consensus here is that this really needs to be done by RfC, so be it, but WP:PC2012/RfC 1 closed as "No consensus", so it's really not circumventing anything to start a discussion in a prominent community forum as to whether we should apply PC2 to a particular article. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd normally agree with you that you can't subvert a "no consensus", but since the original PC trial was marred by such blatant dishonesty and efforts to bypass our normal consensus process, I think we need to tread especially carefully.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been a firm supporter of using PC2 in limited circumstances, and this is certainly one of them. But the PC debate has been a feculent clusterfuck of drama in large part because of the failure to end the initial trial on time. As such, doing *anything* new with PC, including any use of PC2, without an explicit and broad community consensus, seems foolhardy due to the risk of disrupting the community. It's "cheaper in the long run", to do this right, even if it means a few full protects in the meantime. Want PC2? I'll be there at the RFC supporting it. But not until. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Moving to Support in view of listing at WP:CENT, which I believe will reduce the probability of bad splashback. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support In this case, I believe WP:IAR applies. This is a wayyy better solution than full protection here since good faith editors don't need to make edit-requests all the time. It also protects against socks. It's a win-win situation, and it works extremely well here. Vacation9 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Gives editors in good standing better leverage against likely POV changes from socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Use this as a test case if necessary but the more countermeasures we use for persistent socks the better off we will be.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this is definitely the case for PC2 to be implemented on. A little concerned that PC2 had no consensus at the time of PC implementation, but in this context, I like it. Let's see if the community is willing to play ball. -T.I.M^(Contact) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if we were to every use PC2, this would be the type of case. But A) there is no consensus to use it at all and B) as Kww and others have said, there has been way too much drama around this in the past to open up this can of worms now. Fully protect it if needed, but PC2 is a really bad idea as it will create more drama and work than it will save. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. PC2 has never been approved for use on Wikipedia (outside of the trial a couple of years ago). That it was approved was one interpretation of the close in June to the big PC RfC, but during the September RfC specifically on PC2, the case was convincingly made that neither the voters nor the closers in the spring had given PC2 much thought. PC2 would be something not only new, but revolutionary, on Wikipedia (creating a class of Wikipedians whose job it is to decide which edits of everyone else are good enough to stay and which aren't), so turning it on would require consensus; the RfC was closed as no consensus. To use it now is to say that developers and not the Wikipedian community have the authority to decide how we protect pages on Wikipedia. Reading quickly, I don't see evidence that any of the supporters above have considered any of the problems with PC2 that were pointed out in the September RfC. In particular, this is a critical stage for PC1, which is new and unexpected for most editors ... and now, as a result of allowing the use of PC2 here, an editor has just changed the table which is supposed to describe PC1 back into a table giving two PC2 options, which is going to make it even harder for people to get comfortable with PC1. Having said all that: IAR is policy, and I'm always in favor of non-disruptive experimentation. If this were just treated as a lone experiment, with discussion about possible positive and negative consequences and requests for alternatives that might be better than PC2, and if there were no changes to the main PC page, I wouldn't have any strong feelings about it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd totally support changing it back when there are no article space pages with PC2, but it appears there are a couple currently [2]. Monty₈₄₅ 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've respectfully reverted you, Monty; if this proposal is successful, I'm planning on adding a few footnotes explaining that there've been a handful of IAR applications. But considering that the abbreviated table already links to the full one, I think it's unnecessary to revise policy based on the minority of cases. I'd like to make it clear to all who've opposed that I very much feel that a large-scale implementation of PC2 should only be conducted through an RFC, and that this noticeboard is not the place to establish binding precedent. Anyways, Dank, if I clarify that my intention, at least, as original poster, was only to, as you say, treat this as a lone experiment (and, looking through the support !votes, it appears to me that this is the general sentiment among those who support), would you perhaps reconsider your !vote? You make some very good points against PC2 in general, but you seem to concede that it could be effective here. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• When this turns into an actual experiment ... with the supporters agreeing that the point is to try new approaches to a difficult problem, discussing pros and cons and alternatives on the article talk page, rather than taking the position that this is an approved protection tool that needs no discussion ... I'll strike my oppose, if this thread hasn't been archived. Note that a form of protection that would be obviously superior to PC2 (if used only for these rare cases of very determined socks) would be to make some pages require 50 (or 100 or 250) prior edits by new accounts; that wouldn't create a special class of editors charged with ruling on everyone else's edits, but it would succeed in frustrating the socks, and would make it easier for us to identify them, possibly before they can even edit their target pages. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean as a sort-of ultraconfirmed usergroup, and corresponding ultra-semi-protection? gwickwire^talk_edits 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• You could think of it that way, though I'd want this to remain rare enough that it wouldn't make sense to talk on-wiki about a new "class" of Wikipedians ... just have the code exclude edits by people with less than 100 (or whatever number works best) contribs, for a handful of articles. Obviously not something we'd want to apply often, but it beats all hell out of PC2 ... particularly in this case, where PC2 is being used to let reviewers rule on whether edits are coming from socks ... when reviewers aren't being selected or encouraged to do any such thing, reviewers are supposed to be checking for vandalism and BLP edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There exists, as of this posting, 125,500 active users, of whom only 7,000 have reviewer capability(reviewers + admins). Only 3600 editors are watching this page, and obviously many of those are admins. Even if we assume there are zero admin or reviewer watchers, that means only 117,000 or 3% of active editors are monitoring this page. To disable the effective editing capability of 97% of Wikipedia editors without notice is disruptive to the editing process. NE Ent 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow: Currently, there are only 848 users who can edit these articles, and very few of them probably ever will; if we implement PC2, any user (or, assuming we combine it with semi-protection, any autoconfirmed user) will be able to; yes, their edits will be subject to review, but I think it's safe to say reviewers will be very cautious before rejecting submissions that wouldn't fall under their purview under PC1. (In fact, we can explicitly mandate this, if desired.) I hate removing editing access to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as much as the next guy, but that's why I'm suggesting this: Nothing less than PC2 will have any hope of being effective while Mangoeater's out there, and full protection is... awful. The question here is should we leave an article un-edit-able for three months over philosophical objections to the general theory of PC2? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Full protection provides a clear and well known interface; PC2 does not, it provides a "fake edit" interface that makes it appear to autoconfirmed editors they're editing the current view of the page, but they're not. FPP is good because we know it's painful, which mitigates the temptation to overly apply it; because PC2 appears to be cheap there will be a tendency to use it more and more. Long term normal editors will have to become reviewers or the reviewers will have to spend more and more time reviewing. Now is the the time to address the question how will this scale? "Four" articles becomes 40 becomes 400... NE Ent 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Philosophical objections? Replying on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would support using PC2 on the pages only if we agree that it is a test case and the protection is temporary. (Having worked with Dank on some of the recent PC RfCs, I agree with many of his views on the matter.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Kww. Let's not go down this road. We just finished a seemingly interminable process involving multiple RfCs and much contentiousness. Enough is enough for a while. While it may be tempting to make "just one exception" here, exactly how long would it be before someone wants another exception, and another, and another? And if the rationale given in those subsequent requests is compelling, what then? Somehow we got by for more than a decade without PC1, and we seem to be doing all right without PC2 now. Anyone who'd like to modify a fully-protected article can make an edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the condition that every registered (inserted edit - I meant autoconfirmed) user is given reviewer rights. Otherwise Oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe this is just a case of somewhat-too-deadpan reductio ad absurdum (in which case, well played), but granting all registered users "reviewer" status would not only make PC2 identical to PC1, but reduce both of their protectiony-ness to below that of the current PC1, since it would allow non-autoconfirmed but registered (and therefore reviewer) accounts to bypass the protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I knew I should have wink-smiley-faced it. One of the reasons PC2 didnt gain consensus was the argument that it would create another layer of trusted users/permission levels/senority, however you wish to word it. Setting the reviewer bar as low as possible would eliminate that concern. However I did mean 'auto-confirmed' in the above, not merely 'registered' so have clarified. But I was only semi-serious. I would support admins ignoring the lack of community consensus regarding PC2 only if the reviewer bar was low, as accusations of power-gathering/protectionism are irrelevant at that point. Otherwise if the 'community' is not going to be made reviewers, then effectively the lack of consensus should stand, otherwise its just another wedge between admins and non-admins. Either respect lack of previous consensus, or hold another PC RFC (yes yes, another one). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not usually a big fan of slippery-slope arguments, but in this case, it's compelling. We as a community have seen fit to keep PC2 from entering the admin toolbox. We've had one instance of PC2 slipping under the radar already; here we're asking for another. At what point are we admins just overreaching and ignoring the consensus of the community? I don't think this instance puts us over that line, but it's a line that we should be staying far away from. If it's not in our toolbox, we don't get to use it, period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously. WP:PC2012/RfC 1. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• So a lack of consensus is reason to oppose an attempt at getting consensus? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With respect, I think you've got it backwards; it appears to me that the opposers are doing the things normally associated with trying to get consensus, such as pointing to past discussions and weighing pros and cons. I'm not saying that supporters don't know what they're talking about, and don't believe that ... but if I'm just looking at what's on this page, I don't see evidence that the people who supported before I weighed in were either considering past arguments or encouraging people to treat this as an experiment. OTOH, I'm not on board with "just say no", either ... the September RfC closed with a recommendation to look at this again in six to nine months, after we had sufficient experience with PC1 to be able to say something intelligent about where all this is going. Let's make it six months, and let's spend a couple of months looking at PC1, PC2, and alternatives to PC2. My preference, based on what I've seen so far, is stated in my thread above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no problem attempting to get consensus, there's a problem with claiming consensus for so fundamental a wikitask as article editing on a page which bills itself as "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators ... Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (emphasis original)NE Ent 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But this does affect administrators because this thread is about a specific dane-braimaged sock and trying to effectuate countermeasures to halt him. Yes, Dank, my support statement above encourages this to be an experiment but one that needs done now not in one or three months. Mangoeater is wasting too much of our time and we are looking to halt him ASAP. This limited use on what, maybe 10 articles(?), probably would affect less than 100 regular editors. I'm not part of the discussions on PC and hold no particular opinions on them but my ears have perked up at the idea of seeing another tool in grasp for ridding us of some of the worst problem children.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose' even though it might make my specific job easier. I am currently dealing with an edit request for one of the related articles, which I am answering in good faith, though it is made by a new SPI, and consists essentially of a request to restore the old and inappropriately promotional material. It is I think easy to justify my edits and non-edits, but I am editing through protection, which is always an uncomfortable position. The reason for my oppose is very simple: irrelevant to the merits of PC2, doing it now is hopelessly confusing. We have enough problems with PC1 being unfamiliar. Let's learn to use it first, and then see if the community wants to make a trial of going to the next level. If the PC1 experience is good, they probably will, so what we should concentrate on is getting PC1 to be part of the accepted and understood routine. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a one-off test case. Much of the opposition to PC2 (IMO) was more about "let's not do this kind of complicated thing yet", with a three-month delay suggested before reviewing the issue again, rather than "absolutely never". The expected flood of articles listed at RFPP for PC did not materialize. The couple of times I've checked, the entire queue has had a single-digit number of changes yet to be reviewed. The predicted endless complaints haven't materialized (well, I haven't seen any, but I am behind on my watchlist, so perhaps I've just not gotten to the pages where the whole world is freaking out). So I think that reality has proven less dire than predicted, and we could probably cut short the planned three-month system for such an appropriate use. (I don't think that I'd support its use at this time with anything less than a significant discussion here at AN.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Four other articles have PC2 protection so this instance would be expanding from several others.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those of you who read F&A's linked discussion may or may not have noticed that my question was never answered. Now, I freely admit my ignorance: I am not very familiar with Mangoeater1000's case, and I don't know much about blocking account creation, but before I weigh in, I'd love to hear an explanation for why a hard block doesn't or wouldn't work on Mangoeater1000. Is he circumventing an account creation block, or is there not one currently in place? Full protection or PCPP 2 both seem excessive when they're essentially only there to thwart one persistent user. I can't disagree that semi-protection is probably insufficient here, but why is further protection the only answer? —Rutebega (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just realized I can see the user's block settings in his block log, sorry. He's justifiably been indef hardblocked since December, which does raise the question of how he's been circumventing that to keep on socking. I'll wait for further comments on this before I cast my !vote. —Rutebega (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Account creation blocked" only applies to the user account itself, and to its last-used IP address when autoblocked. However, after the autoblock expires, more socks can be created while logged out. Although CheckUser can help prevent this by find out and hardblocking the underlying IP address(es) for extended periods of time, IP hopping can and does occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Pretty much everything has been tried. Skimming through a random sampling from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000, it appears that all (or almost all) of the 79-and-counting socks have been hardblocked. And according to the SPI archive, Avi and DoRD have now blocked at least 6 ranges. I don't know if those ranges were softblocked or hardblocked (or softblocked with account creation disabled), and I see that earlier on there was some hesitation to hardblock an NYU range that Mangoeater was using; if a CU is at liberty to comment on the degree to which IP-blocking actions have been pursued, I think that would be helpful to editors like Rutebega who want to be sure that PC2 is the only feasible alternative to full-protection before they consider supporting this. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose until consensus for PC2 is achieved first. 01:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerFromVega (talk • contribs)

Comment: If anyone is wondering my rationale for applying PC2 + semi, here it is. As you may or may not have known, getting autoconfirmation is extremely easy. So easy in fact that a number of blocked and/or banned users have decided to take advantage of this ease of attaining autoconfirmation and bypass semiprotection. In some cases full protection has been applied to deal with the disruption, but from what I have seen, editors tend to opt for allowing at least some people (not just admins) to edit an article. There are really no other more feasible means of preventing the disruption while minimizing collateral. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Many school articles--I would say almost all school articles-are edited mostly or entirely by students or alumni. Obviously, they're the people most likely to be knowledgable & interested. We just can't rely on a 16-year-old high school dropout(PinkAmpersand)--Unitskayak (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for Unitskayak. 72Dino (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• That's a fucking low blow, Pablo, even for you. If you comment here again, I'll initiate proceedings for a formal community ban with the additional rider that talkpage access be summarily revoked for all of your sockpuppets, provided that they're CU-confirmed. I don't know what else we can do to make it clear to you that you are not welcome here, since you persist in this delusion that you'll be able to show up here at AN or at SPI, insult me and/or other editors, and come up with lies to defend your own actions, and wind up with anything other than yet another block. Incidentally, if you're aware that I'm not attending school at the moment, you're also aware that I'm clinically depressed, in which case you might want to take a nice long look in the mirror, and review your priorities here, and in life in general. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (the grandson of a former NYU School of Engineering professor, by the way)

• Too many comments here seem related to the use of PC2 as a standard form of protection. There's no consensus for it's use in that way, but it's use on certain articles may be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Maybe it can be used in some circumstances, but in each case should be reviewed to determine whether it's the most appropriate form of protection. Certainly protecting poor quality articles (such as Transdev York, which has now been nominated for deletion) isn't the best solution. Peter James (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The use of PC2 exclusively to prevent blatant sockpuppetry from autoconfirmed puppets (assuming this is what is going on here) seems useful, and a good application of WP:IAR. (I really don't think such protection should be for an indefinite duration, though.) Any further use of PC2 (such as to prevent edit warring) should not occur without broader consensus, as there are broader issues at play in those cases. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of page watchers tool deprecated

Hi. It's now possible to view the number of page watchers via the "info" action. For example, at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=info>, you can see that Main Page has over 76,500 page watchers. In the coming weeks, I'll be deprecating the watcher tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The info page itself has a link to the old tool at the bottom, under "External Tools" -- I have no idea how that's edited. NE Ent 02:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pageinfo-footer. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for updating that page. :-)

The link is also available from MediaWiki:Histlegend. I'm thinking that replacing (rather than removing) the link from there makes more sense, but I think I'd like to develop a better target for the link first. I guess there are two approaches to take: (1) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info; or (2) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info with an anchor to the number of watchers row, preferably highlighted (like we do with clicked references). Option 2 is my preference, but the underlying HTML currently has no support for this. The tool is only deprecated, not yet abandoned, though, so there's time to work all of this out. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I like (2), and I suppose this is better than nothing. (It's quite bizarre that the id for that sub-table begins with #, though. Is that typical?) AGK [•] 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't code, so I can't solve problems, but I'm good at pointing out problems for others to worry about. Currently, if a non-admin clicks on your (MZMcBride) tool and there are less than 30 watchers, it comes back and explains "fewer than 30 watchers". If a non-admin clicks on the action=info page instead, for a page with less than 30 watchers, the page watchers line is just gone. So for non-admins looking at MediaWiki:Histlegend for a page with less than 30 watchers, clicking on "Number of watchers", for both options (1) and (2), are just going to confuse them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see three bugs here, but I probably won't have time to file them until later. I'll post here after I do. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it anticipated that a link to the "info" action will replace the link to your tool? Otherwise, it seems the only way to get to the info action page is to manually edit the url. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go to the History tab for a page, there's a "Page Information" link in the toolbox on the left. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That link isn't just on the history tab. KTC (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the skin; in MonoBook that's the only place I see it. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In both Monobook and Vector, the "Page information" link should be present in the "toolbox" section of the sidebar for any action (history, view, edit, etc.). If it's not, there's a bug.

AGK: bugzilla:42629 is the bug you're describing, pretty much. Floquenbeam: bugzilla:44252 and bugzilla:44253 are the bugs you want. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've updated User:Jake Wartenberg/centijimbo to reflect the change; if I've made any mistakes, someone please correct me, though I've obviously tested it on my own userpage and found no issues. Incidentally, should we perhaps move it to templatespace? It's Wikipedia-related (if not particularly related to improving the encyclopedia), and has been edited mostly by users other than Jake (who appears to be only intermittently active). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review requested

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

---

• Doktorspin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ihutchesson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ihutchesson/Archive

I think these blocks need a community discussion. They are blocked as socks. Doktorspin is claiming that they are in fact two Wikipedians living together, and that the he used the other account by accident. As a matter of policy that is generally not ok, but is it really so far-fetched that we must block them both, one indef and the other for a month, for what they claim is s simple mistake? I placed the unblock on hold while consulting with the blocking admin, User:Someguy1221, who seems basically unwilling to reconsider, citing behavioral evidence, and undid the hold on the unblock request, so I am bringing this here for further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To my naive eyes, this looks to be a variance of the little brother argument, as there is indeed strong evidence they are the same editor; the attitude displayed on Doktorspin's talk page fills me with further unease about the situation. GiantSnowman 16:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the little brother argument involves blaiming someone else. This person is saying "yes, I did it, it was an accident." I don't see that as the same at all. Their attititude is exactly what I would expect from someone who feels they are being railroaded and wiki-lawyered into a permanent block. If the finding of socking is upheld, that is what it will be, socks are the exception to the "indefinite does not mean infinite" rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming they are the same person, it is precisely the same as the little brother argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Whoops, I used my partner's account by mistake, honest" and "whoops, my little brother got on my laptop and started messing around, honest" are very similar defences. GiantSnowman 16:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. One excuse blames another, the other excuse takes the blame. Similar at a glance, perhaps, but at a closer look the psychology and rationale are totally different. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a matter of policy and precedent, I think we should start with the presumption that Doktorspin's explanation is false. I also think that when two people (partners) live together, they do NOT share the same computers (Doktorspin mentions "access to the same computers"). I haven't reviewed the underlying details.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? I know AGF is not a suicide pact but it seems like everyone just wants to disregard it entirely here. My wife and I use the same computer all the time, as I am sure many couples do. She has no interest in editing WP so I have never had this problem, but it is hardly unprecedented. I don't want to call anyone out, but experienced users may recall more than one situation where even admins have had similar problems. When they admitted their error and promised not to let it happen again we accepted that, why is everyone soooo convinced not to even consider the possibility here? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't let anyone touch my computer, not my wife, my partner, my closest friend, or my dead grandmother (on my maternal side). But I suppose people's level of trust varies considerably. Perhaps we should do a survey.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are editors with such a relationship. My spouse and I each have a computer, but we use each other's too. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone in the world is wealthy enough to have a computer for every member of the household. Just saying. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good point. (Indeed, some have zero computers; I'm aware of at least one prolific contributor who does all their editing from a public library.) 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a load of malarky. My wife and I have totally different interests in articles, even though we have the same "schedule" in many cases. We also use the exact same computer(s). However, I would not be averse to unblocking both with restrictions:

1. only one account is allowed to edit any article or its associated talkpage, ever.
2. they must take great care to logout at the end of any editing session, and will take even greater care in verifying that it is them who are logged in
3. future violations will lead to both accounts being indefinitely blocked

Probably more restrictions would fit in ... but WP:ROPE and WP:AGF are at the crux of this. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look at the toolserver report, Talk:Suetonius_on_Christians Do you overlapping, let's pretend to be two people edits? Nope. Do you see something that's plausibility, oh I thought I was logged in, didn't realize you had borrowed my computer? Yep. So, in case of doubt, we're supposed to assume good faith. Simply unblock both and require they cross link users pages with {{User_shared_IP_address}} to avoid future confusion per policy. NE Ent 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Question Are these accounts blocked "ONLY" because they share the same ip address or was there some inappropriate editing going on as well?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They appeared to be socks, and a CU was run. The blocking admin and Doktorspin seem to have a different recollection of the exact series of events, he claims he admitted to it before the CU results were in, Someguy seems to feel it happened the other way around. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question for me. What disruption or damage to the encyclopedia were the alleged sockpuppets doing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The disruption was confusing a talk page discussing by using the pronoun 'I' to refer to edits of the other account. NE Ent 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's it? No edit warring, no personal attacks, no copyvios, no unreferenced BLPs? Sounds like a pointless set of blocks from that angle, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Admission came before CU. spin resigning ihuchession posts, DQ's CU statement three hours later. NE Ent 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, since we do not have cameras in their house or the ability to read minds, we can never know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. All we have left to guide us is our own policies, and I believe AGF is the most relevant here. Our other option is to assume this user successfully hid their socking since at least 2008, until this mistake blew the whole deal. Does anyone really believe that? . Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock and encourage the use of {{User shared IP address}} as recommended by NE Ent, so that if both editors edit the same article or participate in the same discussion, other editors are aware of the connection. We have current and former arbs who share computers with other longstanding editors; let's not have different standards for new editors in the absence of some evidence that the editors are doing something nefarious. As an aside, the idea that someone would marry a person that they wouldn't trust to use their computer seems a bit weird. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, comments about relationships are generally ill-advised. I remember one woman who said that another couple couldn't possibly trust each other because they didn't share finances, whereas she and her husband did. Interestingly, the sharing couple divorced and the non-sharing couple are still very happily married. Each to his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that in one recent case the "little brother" argument seemed to ultimately be found to be factually accurate. I also think there is a rather real chance of us sooner or later encountering identical twins, with even more identical editing and language patterns, perhaps editing the same topic area because of their remarkably similar interests in general, perhaps in relation to some classes they might be taken together. I have no particular objections to seeing the block in place, but I think it does make sense to advise the parties in question that they are free to try to contact some administrator in a more direct manner, possibly through skype or some other means, to try to establish that they are in fact two different people who might just occasionally be using the same computer or internet connection. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The "little brother" case usually applies to alternation between useful article edits and juvenile vandalism. That's not what we're talking about here, is it? Unless there's some evidence of bad edits beyond a single incident of making a similar article edit, I'd recommend unblocking, per WP:ROPE, with a strong recommendation to be more careful in future, and avoid editing the same article. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really think that Beeblebrox really understands what a sockpuppet really is. Two accounts editing from the same ip is not sock puppetry. There was no disruption or attempts to game the system. No evidence that any one of these accounts was being used as leverage in the debate. I would call this a bad faith attempt to get a rival editor blocked for technicality. I think that both accounts should be unblocked immediately and the blcoking admin should be censured and have someone explain to him/her what a sock puppet really is as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, could you please review the facts of the case and possibly re-evaluate your remarks about me? I am the one tryong to get this block overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My Mistake.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I really do not want to spend much time on this, so I will make the passing comment that having looked at the edits, I now actually think there are two physical human beings there, of differing characters, Huchesson being a low key person (based on his tone) and Doktorspin a more aggreesive/argumentative type. Yet, I am not sure if the September and October 2012 edits indicated by Rschen7754 ([3] & [4] and [5] & [6]) were the same person or different people. I think the issue on the SPI involved the previous edits from 2012 as well. Now I will stop, type no more and let you guys figure it out. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the links above are quite concerning and why I think they should remain blocked. --Rschen7754 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The blocks seems bad (looking back, it may have looked fine walking in,) and should be lifted. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I was the one who encouraged Rschen7754 Someguy1221 to make the block. As I saw it, on the SPI page they said "I used a computer yesterday that had already been logged on", so right there we have sharing of accounts, which is a big issue. Now I can't go over the CU results again just yet, but I seem to remember that the edits were very closely timed together on the same IP. That said, being it's a first violation, I think that Bwilkins has the right idea towards an unblock, as blocks are meant to be preventative. If they stay off of each other's accounts, don't cross the same subject area, and be very very careful about IP editing, then I'm willing to AGF. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, that was Someguy1221 who made the blocks --Rschen7754 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to give the impression that I think everything is ok here, but I am concerned at losing one or two long term contributors over what appears to be a mistake. Did Doktorspin act carelessly? Yes, clearly he did. Was it malicious or actually intended to deceive? Doubtful, but even if it was I think the message has been sent by now that the two of them need to be more careful about this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rschen, I obviously need more french vanilla today. I'll reply to the above when I get home. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doktorspin made this edit at 09:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC). Four minutes later, Ihutchesson made this edit, followed by this and this; then, a mere three minutes later, Doktorspin made this edit. All of the edits are made from the same IP, using the same operating system and (not particularly common) browser. I'll leave it to others to draw whatever conclusion they want to draw from this. T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• They were sitting on each other's laps? Playing musical chairs? Distracted by the dog chewing on the cable? Good faith my foot.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Those diffs show spin working on Marie Stopes (1st and 5th) while Ihutchesson was working on Haven (2nd, 3rd, 4th). This is sockpuppetry?? It's hardly suprising multiple computers in the same location would have the same browser installed and isn't it the IP of the router that shows up in a log? Like many words, uncommon is a tricky one in that its meaning depends on context. Chamicuro is a very uncommon language in the context of the world, but if one person in a particular dwelling in Peru is speaking, it's highly likely another person in the same dwelling is, too. NE Ent 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. While my wife and I used different computers with different software, I'd have to believe that for a lot of couples one person would maintain both computers. In any case, even if this is one user with two accounts, I'm not seeing anything that would be abusive socking. And I suspect it's two users given the analysis above about writing styles etc. Block wasn't unreasonable, but time to warn the users to be sure they don't abuse the situation and unblock. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My wife and I have a single laptop between the two of us, and we often use the same account and browser. Luckily this isn't a problem because she doesn't edit, but just saying it's not really that strange of a situation. And I've edited from the shared computer at my parents' house, which is likely the same computer my sister has used to edit Wikipedia with her account (Again, not a problem, since she's been inactive for a couple years). ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, we have three computers in frequent usage, for which I do all the maintenance, installs, updates and fixes. That's the only time I touch my partner's computer, though that doesn't stop me from accessing webmail, checking forums, etc, while I'm there. The problem in this recent incident was the computer in the lounge room, which I wouldn't have expected my partner to use, but this was vacation time and it's close to the kitchen. -- spin|^control 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC) copied from tp by Ent

I wasn't aware of the reassigning of signatures three hours before the checkuser, but I still would not consider on par with admitting the alleged mistake. That said, the abuse in this case is giving the appearance of being two different people in current and historical content disputes. That said, the purpose of my block is to prevent Doktorspin from interfering with normal dispute resolution processes. Although I still believe that they are one person, the problem would also be solved with the unblock conditions suggested by Bwilkins. The reason I haven't unblocked is that I don't believe the excuse. But if spin and hutch agree to these conditions, I wouldn't object either. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I contacted the user on his talk page, laying out the conditions set above that seem to be the general consensus on his talk page and requiring an answer from both parties before proceeding with anything. If the reply is deemed satisfactory and agreement to the conditions is settled, I will unblock (or will let Beeblebrox, the reviewing admin, do so), as the blocking admin explicitly said he wouldn't oppose an unblock if the conditions are accepted. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Considering the fact that both accounts have been active for years and that, as far as I've seen here, no violations of our sockpuppet policy have occurred whatsoever except for a very recent mistake, I am inclined to recommend an unblock (unless the next reply on Doktorspin's talk page is somehow highly unsatisfactorily). It's not uncommon for partners to have similar interests and thus editing patterns, and if the situation was a problematic sockpuppet case, it would have arisen a long time ago. I also see a part of the community seems to lean the same way, although with (justified) concerns. Salvidrim! ✉ 05:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looking through the above discussion, and associated evidence, while I am not entirely convinced that they are in fact two separate editors, I think the claim that they are two distinct editors is sufficiently plausible that an unblock is appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we allow page overlap (editing the same page) with the exception of responding to RFCs, XFD, and any voting situation? This seems a reasonable response to the concerns brought up at the account's talk page. --Nouniquenames 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

... but what about tag-team reverting, etc? Do they as a couple get WP:6RR? It's all about the appearance of false consensus, which is exactly what WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT is about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, we've had users accidentally share a laptop before. How'd that turn out? We made one an administrator and elected the other to ArbCom poor sap ... so is it really that big a deal to let these folks you know, like, edit? To date no one has shown any usage of overlapping accounts for tactical advantage ... they're not editing Climategate or The Beatles or vote stacking the infernal Mexican-American War article title discussion. They overlapped editing on Haven, hardly a contentious hotbed ... why are we still talking about this? NE Ent 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with NE Ent here. All you need to do is say "I'm married to X" on your user page. Simple. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Very true. This is the exact reason I emailed ArbCom the moment my little brother registered an account. Speaking of WP:BROTHER, I recall one case where it actually proved to be a valid defense. In fact, I think the third and fourth conditions imposed in that unblock might serve as a good general rule for situations like this, especially since the more broadly worded "try to steer clear of each other's areas" is preferable to any sort of bright-line rule. And the interaction analysis doesn't seem particularly damning. The vast disparity between how many edits came from each account (i.e. 6 vs. 137, 225 vs. 7, never 120 vs. 85 or anything close) is exactly what one might expect to arise from two partners living together - Hey, honey, what are you working on? Oh, such-and-such article. Oh? Looks like section X could use some work. Hmm, yeah, but I'm working on section Y for now. Oh, okay, I'll take a look at it myself then. Aww, thanks. See? Both plausible and kind of sweet. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Two accounts been here for years, contributing constructively without problems, and the only "offence" is plausibly explained by one person accidentally using the other's logged in account, with neither having done any harm whatsoever? Should we AGF and unblock? Of course we should - unblock already! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That's one of the daftest SPIs I've seen in years, and both the reporter and the closing admin should probably lay off SPI for a while until they get over the everyone-is-a-sock mentality that occasionally seems to infest people around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee said "the only "offence" is plausibly explained by one person accidentally using the other's logged in account, with neither having done any harm whatsoever?" That is not quite right if I may say so. As the person who noticed the "mistake" in the first place, could I point out that there was a consensus discussion going on at the talk page of Suetonius on Christians.Ihutchesson suddenly appeared on the talk page and started making points seemingly supporting the same line of argument as Doktorspin. Other editors very conscientiously, in my opinion, started re-weighing the discussion as if there were now two editors, not just one, in support of that line of thought. Had "Ihutchesson" not made a slip and referred to an edit made by "Doktorspin" as one "I", ie "Ihutchesson" had made, the discussion could very well have continued under the false impression that there were two editors, not just one as was actually the case, supporting that line of reasoning. I have made no effort to get either of those users blocked and have no opinion as to whether they should be blocked, but I do think something should be done so that it is not possible for one person to create the misleading impression, whether inadvertently or not, that there is more than one person supporting his opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC

This has support so far, although BWilkins has suggested I go slow. Feel free to edit or comment. If nothing changes, I'm inclined to take it live in around 12 hours, so we're going to need some maso closers in about a week. Note that this is a 3-part RfC, and after the first round, the voters have the option of asking for new closers, after they see your closing statements. (That's necessary because success in the second and third rounds depends on the voters having a lot of confidence in the closers.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that page is tl;dr for me. Looking at the page I find it very hard to figure out what it is all about. A meta-meta-meta RfC about how to word enother RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What we've found in many years of trying to reform this ten-year old process is that the way that people usually approach RfCs hasn't worked (not once) for problems as complex, and voters as dug-in, as are involved in RfA reform. I am terribly sorry that I have taken more than my fair share of air-time to discuss the problems. But I can't remake the RfC system into something that will work for this particular problem, and then apply it to the most intractable problem on Wikipedia, in 25 words or less. This format is getting some support at WT:RFA#New RfC, and you may need to read that discussion as well to figure out what's going on here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (I hope I'm not being too snippy ... it's just, if that's TLDR, then you don't want to go anywhere near this RfC, because I'm deliberately structuring it to try to get people to say more than they would normally say ... and the people who engage in RfA reform discussions generally don't need any prodding to give you pages of thoughts. I'm not looking forward to it; I just don't see any other way forward, and so far, neither has anyone else.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw ... if the concern is how much the voters will have to read rather than the closers, I'm going to be breaking the big RfC into a series of little RfCs, and telling the voters for each piece only what they need to know (and referring the curious ones to the big page). - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First phase is live at WT:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1. It's more digestible. - Dank (push to talk) 05:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since it's clear it's not going to succeed, I would have no problem with someone closing the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks early, so as to not confuse the issue by have so many RfA-related RFC's happening at the same time. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsalting needed

Soulbust/PewDiePie should be at PewDiePie, but that title is currently WP:SALTed. Can an admin please un-salt the title and move the page, since PewDiePie is the work's most common name? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done just to fix the borken page-move, but I haven't checked to see if it was substantial recreation of the material in the previous AfD. Salvidrim! ✉ 23:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Say, what's the usual procedure -- should deleted history be restored in this case? Salvidrim! ✉ 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the sources and they all suffer from the same problems that were expressed in the AFD. Two PRWeb sources, some trivial blogs, primary sources, and trivial mentions (one sentence) in actual reliable sources.--v/r - TP 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This was in User:Soulbust's userspace, he was a major contributor of the article (as far as I can see), and I find no explanation as to why it was moved to mainspace. He wasn't the one to do it, I believe. Should I be re-userfied? Salvidrim! ✉ 00:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I cam across this as a candidate for speedy deletion as being recreated after AfD, I'd likely delete. Much of the text is the same and there is not a substantial difference between the deleted version and the current version unless you count the removal of content. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What? I can find absolutely no content that's been reposted from the deleted version; it's entirely newly written and nowhere near a G4 candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After a moderately quick readthrough, I also find that the text and sourcing is not subtantially similar. It is not completely different, obviously, but definitely not a G4 candidate in my eye. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I agree with the comments from TParis; he doesn't look notable. Still, thanks for moving the page in question; it would have been silly to hold up the pagemove until we'd decided whether it was a repost. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor who moved it from Soulbust's userspace to article space had also done the same with his own user talk page, so I have a feeling this should stayed userfied. I pinged Soulbust for him to reply here before porting it back to his userspace. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning against userfication. Presumably Soulbust feels that it's as complete as it's going to be (why move it to mainspace otherwise?), so he probably doesn't expect to be able to develop it more thoroughly. As is, it doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, and the long deletion logs for sv:Pewdiepie and sv:PewDiePie suggest to me that there aren't tons of Swedish-language sources either. Basically, we're apparently faced with choosing between deleting it from mainspace and moving it to userspace to become a WP:STALEDRAFT. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the page was in Soulbust's userspace but he was not the one to move it to mainspace. I'm waiting on a reply from him but all signs point to a draft that wasn't ready to be moved. The last improvement(s) to the page while in userspace wasn't old enough to qualify the draft as "stale" IMO. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. I mean that we shouldn't move it back to his userspace now that it's out, simply because he's unlikely to make it a proper article about a notable subject. Either he'll leave it alone, or he'll move it back into mainspace where we get this thread repeated; the best thing that will happen is a WP:STALEDRAFT. Bedtime. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I was mostly responding to "Presumably Soulbust feels that it's as complete as it's going to be..."; I see nothing that would lead to that assumption and that's why I've asked the user to comment. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 07:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oops, you're right. Too sleepy when I wrote that, I guess. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's Kevin Canzanello (talk · contribs) that we should all be paying attention to. The account did this move, and also did this move and this edit. If you see the ironic edits from 2011, please remember how young the accountholder claims to be now. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright so, I've seen the page has been moved so that it doesn't include my name. However, I was planning to contribute more information as I looked for more sources (and will continue to do so) so it would benefit the article and make it less likely that it would be speedy deleted or nominated for deletion. To make it clear I have no problem with it being moved back to User:Soulbust/PewDiePie and I have no problem with the article being currently placed in it's own main namespace. Soulbust (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Back at User:Soulbust/PewDiePie now. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation into Russian

Every few days I see the edit filter catching translation of wikipedia page into Russian, eg Special:AbuseLog/8140504. Is this malicious or likely to be an accident - eg software that translates a browser page content, and then user hitting save? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's thoroughly weird. Why would the browser plugin translate some things but not others? But why would someone attempt to translate random words while leaving other random words untranslated? Even putting chunks through Google Translate takes a bunch of time, since there are so many untranslated words; what kind of vandal or other bad-faith editor would put this much effort into turning the page into macaroni? I can't imagine any logical explanation for it. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I'm beginning to think that it's somehow automated, rather than being a misguided would-be translator. Look at what it did to the convert template: {{convert|5004|mm|in|1|abbr=on}} becomes {{convert|5004|мм|в|1|abbr=on}}. Wiktionary notes that в is sometimes a preposition with the meaning of "in" — humans would render this as "Дюйм" or keep it as "in", because no human would turn an abbreviation for "inches" into a preposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome offers automatic translation of foreign-language pages, doesn't it? Couldn't this be a result of someone setting the browser to translate English pages to Russian and then trying to edit here? Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another: Special:AbuseLog/8125404 a sencond level header translated, which I blocked as a spambot, but I now think this is inappropriate. And another Special:AbuseLog/8080180 just a third level header section being translated; Special:AbuseLog/8080167 another one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one didn't get blocked at all; how did it get through when the others didn't? Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters are not guaranteed to run, perhaps due to too many resources being used. So it is not surprising that some are missed. Jafeluv could be on the right track. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That edit was caught. The filter is warn only, though. And the foreign language filter wouldn't catch these because the edit delta was close to 0. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue / soapbox

This lawsuit spam has been reverted many times by many editors for obvious reasons but keeps being put back. Can the page be locked for a while? 50.100.156.249 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I have semi protected for a month.--Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 50.100.156.249 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a site notice regarding the main page update problem?

We're getting LOTS of repeat questions regarding the main page update problem which is being discussed at this thread, among other places. Every few hours or minutes or so, a new user, unaware of the problem, posts a thread somewhere asking what is going on. Maybe something to the affect of "Yes, we know that there's a problem and we're working on it" may head off some of the questions. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron32 15:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable -- do we know if it's affecting all the projects or just English Wikipedia? If it's all the projects maybe we should kick it to WMF. NE Ent 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Editnotice set. Take it down when needed or if you disagree with the idea of having it there. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please close the comment in the editnotice! It screws up stuff! --Nouniquenames 17:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)