Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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 |
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
(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the
{{User:MiszaBot/config}}at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter|algo=old(7d)which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC) - There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 98 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 43 | 49 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 304 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)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Topic ban review request
I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Two questions:
- You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
- There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?
- --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
- I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:
UTRS context, slightly trimmed
|
|---|
Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31: Hello Joseph2302, Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice? While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning. Let me know what you think, Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator ----------------------------------------- Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11: Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped> ----------------------------------------- Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12: Hello Joseph2302, No problem, I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response. Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator |
- --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
- In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus on this? Don't want to see this thread just archived. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.
- Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.
- Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.
- Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.
- So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Close?
- I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
TFA vandalism
By now many of you are aware of this ongoing vandalism. They are targeting Today's Featured Article, among any other random article. Vandalism on TFA is commonplace, but to this extreme I think we need to do something beyond relying on patrollers. Sometimes this remains for minutes, when TFAs get maybe 20-30 views per minute (judging by the last several TFAs). It looks awfully bad for the project.
I know it's a perennial proposal, but do you think it'd be okay to put TFA under pending changes protection, procedurally, until we get this vandalism under control? This way everyone gets to at least edit, and I assume it being the TFA, pending changes would be tended to quickly. I have other ideas that don't involve any form of protection, but they're quite complicated. It would be great to do something. The edit filter is not cutting it.
Reminder that the vandal may be reading this discussion. — MusikAnimal talk 03:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I believe it is fairly common for us to apply semi-protection to TFAs when it becomes clear that they are attracting vandalism. The question here, I think, is about pre-emptive protection; and we already do that in a sense, by applying move-protection to all TFAs (the bot does this). I would certainly be okay with applying PC protection at the first sign of trouble. I'm a little reluctant to support pre-emptive PC protection simply because the load on PC reviewers will increase considerably. MusikAnimal Is a TFA-specific, IP-specific, image-specific filter possible? Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I really want -- to make the filter TFA-specific. If we can do that we'll be in much better shape. Unfortunately there's no way to detect this right now. We'd need the bot to add an empty template, maybe {{TFA placeholder}} (or something), or even just a comment somewhere in the wikitext. The filter would also have to ensure only the bot or an admin can add/remove the template/comment, which is possible. I think having this identifier could be useful in the future for other vandalism-prevention, too, so maybe it's worth the trouble of implementing it? — MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: My technical knowledge is limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if such a filter would be based on a template that had to be inserted into the TFA text, I think it would absolutely be worth implementing, as it could then be manually added to other main-page entries that were targets of image-vandalism, too. As such I think it's likely to be a worthwhile investment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I like this idea. It's potentially better than pre-emptive pending changes protection as it would allow for more good faith editing to be done in real time and potential vandalism edits to show a warning to the user. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Legoktm: Would you be interested in having TFA Protector Bot perform this for us? It should be rather simple to implement; at 00:00 UTC put
<!-- TFA -->in the wikitext, I guess at the bottom. Then remove it the following midnight. If you are too busy I can pursue this, but I figure since we're doing this for counter-vandalism reasons, TFA Protector Bot seems most fitting.Unrelated oddity -- the system edit count of TFA Protetor Bot is currently at 22 edits, but the bot has clearly made many more than that. — MusikAnimal talk 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think relying on an edit to be made at midnight is a good idea. What about a template that uses time-based parserfunctions to add some magic text, and look at the pst in the AbuseFilter? That way the bot can add the template in advance, and remove it later on without relying on exact timing.
- And protection log entry dummy edits don't count as proper edits :) Legoktm (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Legoktm: Would you be interested in having TFA Protector Bot perform this for us? It should be rather simple to implement; at 00:00 UTC put
- That's what I really want -- to make the filter TFA-specific. If we can do that we'll be in much better shape. Unfortunately there's no way to detect this right now. We'd need the bot to add an empty template, maybe {{TFA placeholder}} (or something), or even just a comment somewhere in the wikitext. The filter would also have to ensure only the bot or an admin can add/remove the template/comment, which is possible. I think having this identifier could be useful in the future for other vandalism-prevention, too, so maybe it's worth the trouble of implementing it? — MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have started an RfC related to this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Alternative proposal: disallow non-autoconfirmed users adding images on TFAs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
LDS terminology issues
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [1]. It seems this may have initially been released in August, though there has been a recent influx of Wikipedia updates based on this, possibly due to the recent General Conference. Per our standard practice, Wikipedia does not automatically follow those guidelines. Some parts of it may be applied to articles if they become common usage, other parts may not even in that situation (I doubt we will be updating articles to refer to this group as the unqualified "Church of Jesus Christ" in the foreseeable future). A variety of LDS-related articles have seen updates from well-intentioned new editors that have had to be reverted as a result. I request that administrators consider themselves aware of this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- No! I refuse to be aware! :-) Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." Is part of this new? I know they've discouraged the use of "Mormon" for years, but I don't remember hearing discouragement of "LDS Church". Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did see that in the news, but doubt anyone outside that religious organization will give any heed to it.16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
- Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- funny that they would post that on “mormonnewsroom.org”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Main page photo
The photo of Paul Romer on the Main Page has the dimensions of the new, cropped photo on Commons, but is in fact the older one. Just look at my sandbox (and I don't know why my sandbox shows two different photos). wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- User:Wumbolo This parameter "width=100" is the only difference I see between the two images. rest everything is as expected. and After I added it , they are the same. It might be possible that your browser was using an old version of this image that was already downloaded, well clearing the browser cache or checking this link from another browser are two ways to fix it. Cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: This phenomena can be seen virtually anytime an image is overwritten; it briefly shows the new copy with the dimensions of the old. Some time back, a serial vandal kept uploading the same vandalism photo repeatedly to Commons, and when I would replace the image with text (to prevent it from being added to articles), it would briefly show the text squished to the dimensions that the photo had been. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, seriously
Look at the last line currently under DYK, the bit about reading on the toilet. Is this serious? It almost seems like someone has snuck a joke onto the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bathroom reading is a valid article that met the DYK criteria, so why should it not appear? This is not really something for the administrators' noticeboard, however; perhaps you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Fish+Karate 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Dweller had (and has) consensus, so that's not wheel-warring? Fram (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. It's not WHEELing GiantSnowman. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet,
but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations. — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet,
- I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh. Who knew that whether poop smells or not could be so controversial (this filter immediately comes to mind)... 
Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RblbZQth0KE --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- "In one celebrated instance farting became a source of safety instead of fear. A boy in Jungian analysis used flatulence to create a ‘defensive olfactory container’ to protect himself, skunk-like, against fears of disintegration and persecution and to create a ‘protective cloud of familiarity’ when threatened. The clouds started to lift after the analyst blew loud therapeutic raspberries back at him (Sidoli, 1996)." [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Now that sounds like a DYK hook I might actually click... — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP is serious business, guys. Knock this shit off. Cleanly, in a large mass and with minimal smell. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Range block assist
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock that will cover:
- 103.252.25.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 103.252.25.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
...and more within that range? I've reported this guy before here in June, but this most recent flare-up was brought to my attention by Vivek Ray. The vandal submits gibberish, typically in the form of film titles and actor roles in Indian cinema articles. Often months or dates will appear in the garbage he submits. He is quite prolific. Some examples:
- The Once Again Parents Meeting At Mathruka Nikethan Higher Primary School At 9th April 2018 At Karnataka Baiyappanahalli is alleged to be the name of a film.
- More alleged film titles: November 2012 As Travel Joiner Returns, Dussehra 2017 On Navratris, The Grihapravesh Pooja At 25th March 2018 At Karnataka Thambu Chetty Palya Bengaluru, etc. Under "Cast" he adds: "In Voice In Radio At Salman Khan, Asin, Chunky Pandey". WTF does "in voice in radio at" mean?
- Awards ascribed to fake titles April & May 2011 As Travel Joiner, etc.
I don't know if he's doing this by hand or has some mechanical assistance, but he's definitely got some kind of a system going on. Anyway, a long-term range block would be appreciated. I'm probably going to have to create some kind of informal LTA page on this guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- 103.252.25.32/27 has been blocked before; I'd like someone to check for proxying. Not that that really matters much for my block--given that the last one was for three months, I made this a one-year block. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed edit to User:Kiko4564
I propose that the banned user template on his userpage be replaced with either {{banned user|link=[[WP:3X]]}} or {{banned user}} as the current text is incorrect. I've not posted on his talk page as it's semi protected. 51.9.92.58 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for catching the error. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive edit summary
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could any admin please delete this disruptive edit summary?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I am requesting a set of admin eyes on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ) and on its talk page and at User talk:Legacypac. The interchange between the author, either User: SiddiqFarooq or User: DJ Kamal Mustafa (possible sockpuppetry), and the nominator, User:Legacypac, is a little ugly on the part of the author, who is accusing Legacypac of hate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&type=revision&diff=863685448&oldid=863684572&diffmode=source in which the author tries to erase the interchange.
Articles for Deletion is often pretty heated, but Miscellany for Deletion can get ugly too. This is just a request for a set of admin eyes for the remainder of the seven days (and of course for closure at the end of the seven days).
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think one of the accounts accused everyone at Wikipedia of hating Muslims and Pakistanis - not just me. I restored the deletion of a whole section of my talkpage, and am managing the situation. The accounts have little interest in Wikipedia except to promote the DJ so I've not sought any Admin action other than a CSD and to force a rename of the one acct. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- JamesBWatson has left a message on DJ Kamal Mustafa's talk. I have left an agf-sock on both DJ Kamal Mustafa's and SiddiqFarooq's talk pages. This may need to go to ANI and SPI. DJ Kamal Mustafa has said Yap i accept that i edit my page with my team what I'm saying is I'm adding notable links of those newspaper who have already wikipedia pages if I'm not notable then those pages shouldn't be too as simple as that.
Topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was topic banned almost two years ago from witchcraft. I would like to appeal this ban. I haven't violated the ban. Once I made an edit but quickly reverted. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) If you could provide a link to the discussion that led to your ban, that would be helpful to those participating in the appeal discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum (topic ban discussion) Asterixf2 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I do not plan to edit Malleus Maleficarum. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it would also be helpful to express where you went wrong and show evidence of how you've behaved since the ban. Just saying "I want to appeal the ban" won't help anyone in determining if the ban is still necessary.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was editing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asterixf2#Malleus_Maleficarum(User_talk:Asterixf2#Malleus_Maleficarum permalink) when I met with the very persistent, strong and, as I see it, irrational opposition from user Ryn78 related to some specific points. This is the last version of the page without the controversial additions by Ryn78: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&oldid=749385708. The article has since deteriorated and the "Reception" section is still hidden in an html comment. Since that time I was not involved in any disruptive behavior or prolonged discussions. I failed to drop the stick. Asterixf2 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was editing
- In attempting to present the case for lifting the ban, you have in fact presented the case for keeping it. You are still exhibiting one of the key attitudes that led to your ban: a conviction that you are RIGHT, and anyone who has a different view from you is "irrational". Also, despite being invited to "express where you went wrong" far from doing so you have dedicated most of your latest post to expressing how wrong you think another editor was. The only token gesture towards indicating that you know what you did wrong is the brief and unelaborated statement "I failed to drop the stick"; as far as that goes, it follows three sentences, together amounting to about ten times the length of that one, in which you express your view that you weren't wrong, and that the problem was another editor who was being unreasonable I'm not sure how you could better demonstrate that even after two years you have still not "dropped the stick", as you call it. In fact, you have done a remarkably good job of showing in a few short sentences that you still have exactly the attitude that led to the ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I was correct but it was said that being correct is not enough. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Following the imposition of the topic ban, the editor was absent for 18 months. Since their return to editing, they have worked on a few articles. One of those is Martin Delrio, an article clearly related to witchcraft. They have violated their topic ban by making six edits to this article this month. I am very concerned that they will resume and continue their disruptive behavior if they are allowed to edit witchcraft articles without restriction. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis directly above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- One change was reverted before I posted here, quickly after making the change when I recalled I was topic banned. When I recalled I was topic banned I appealed the ban. The other change was made after posting here. I have just lost my attention due to switching between language editions of wikipedia. :) Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see JamesBWatson has helpfully expressed my thoughts better than I could. I agree with his assessment, and I oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
190.90.140.43
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please block. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Change in oversight team
In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Keilana (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Keilana for her years of service.
For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Rob13Talk 16:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC) x-post: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Peculiar use of talk page
Hello admins. Is there anything that can be done at Talk:Terry Hall (singer)? For several months an IP has been making comments about being the article subject's wife. Initially I interacted with the editor, and tried to explain how Wikipedia works (i.e. sources preferred over personal testimony), but I gave up when they started accusing me of destroying their marital status. Despite nobody else interacting with them, this anon editor is continuing to have a conversation (with themselves) about this matter, and the talk page has veered off, shall we say, into uncharted territory. I haven't posted this at ANI because I believe a bit of sensitivity is required with this matter, and I don't think it would particularly help to post the standard editor notification on their page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) I would recommend blocking the IP per WP:NOTFORUM. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It is acceptable to clean up the talkpage by deleting the offendingnmaterial citing WP:NOTAFORUM and keep doing so until the IP gets the hint. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't feel confident that they will get the hint. The term obsessive springs to mind. Can the page not be protected also? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- No crystal ball is needed to see that hints will not be taken. I would have deleted the last section (Representations of his family) but others have replied. If deleting the stuff is considered undesirable, the page could be manually archived and further material repeatedly removed with occasional explanations on the current IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As the IP account was making legal threats regarding the removal of this material, I have blocked it for a year. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think they were making legal threats as such - they had, supposedly, already contacted the British police and Home Office regarding this, with no impact on anyone here. But never mind. We shall have to see if they start using other IP accounts - they've used at least two so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Please check deleted contributions
- Special:Contributions/2602:302:D1A2:C740:4561:CE91:E430:80F7
- Special:Contributions/2602:302:D1A2:C740:B575:BA69:E4FE:32FF
They have tagged various pages for deletion (as well as requesting bans for some users), generally without providing any reason. Despite there not being any reason, Wesley Duncan was deleted for a while which I only found out by accident. Can an administrator check the deleted contributions from these IPs to see if any other pages have been deleted? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- The only edit that is in either of their deleted contributions is to User:JocelynLPIA/sandbox/Jake Porter. ~ GB fan 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- @GB fan: thanks. That page is actually about https://jakeporter.org/meet-jake/. I don't know if he's within the scope of WP:NPOL and what was written on that page, but it may be useful. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Cross-wiki effects?
If account creation is blocked on a certain IP in one wiki, does unified login prevent the creation of user accounts from that IP on any wiki or just the home wiki? DrKay (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just the home wiki where the block is placed. It can also prevent automatic account creation on the home wiki where an account is previously created on another wiki. Global blocks (and global locks) affect all wikis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problems with List of One Piece episodes (season 19) episode summaries
I just did a spot check of three recently added episode summaries[3] and confirm ed that they are word-for-word same as summaries on multiple other websites, a direct violation Wikipedia's copyright policy. Looking at the edit history of the list, this same IP range has added several other summaries that are very likely to be copyright violations as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 19)#Copyright violations about how to remedy the situation. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
RfPP is backlogged
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am going to start at the top of the list. If someone wants to start at the other end maybe we can meet in the middle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- On it. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
My user talk with Faux-nez !
Hello 
, I come here because I have a dilemma (according to your policy).
As the problem is in french on enwiki, I am also looking for someone who speaks French to help me (miminum Fr-2). so...
Vous parlez donc en français pour lire un texte d'une IP (69.174.249.79) qui vient me demander sur ma page de discussion enwiki (User talk donc) de modifier une page sur frwiki. Il ne peut le faire puisque cette page est en semi-protection étendue (3 months and 500 edits). Mais pourquoi il vient m'écrire sur ma page anglaise ? Simplissime ! Cette IP ne fait que des modifications sur des entreprises sur enwiki et frwiki (je n'ai pas les outils pour contrôler tous les wikis). Je n'ai pas su faire un lien entre ces entreprises ou une société mère. Mais je suspecte fortement un Puppet (Faux-nez chez nous). Je pense que vous avez la même politique sur enwiki. Si c'est le cas un blocage global devrait être envisagé. Il doit utiliser un VPN. Probable qu'il ait utilisé plusieurs comptes et/ou plusieurs IP et qu'il vient me démarcher pour faire le "sale boulot". Plusieurs articles sont protégés du même vandale et la page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs devrait fortement vous intéresser. Les administrateurs de frwiki me lisent ici pour déterminer leur marche à suivre. D'ailleurs, un admin global ne serait peut-être pas superflu. Je donnerai une réponse vague demain sur ma user talk, en teneur :
:Bonjour [[User:69.174.249.79|69.174.249.79]] [[Image:Waving.png|20px|Bonjour]],
:Tout d'abord merci pour le compliment. J'espère seulement que vous pourrez me lire avec une IP. Vous me parlez d'un article sur Wikip<big><u>'''é'''</u></big>dia (francophone donc), vous pouvez m'écrire sur cette partie de Wiki<big><u>'''m'''</u></big>edia, [[w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Eihel|ici donc pour discuter en français]]. Alors rendez-vous là bas {{smiley}}. Salutations.--~~~~
C'est bête, il ne savait pas à qu'il avait à faire "The best patroller in Wikimedia".
He only touched one page on frwiki, but there are already several articles in his history on enwiki. I let you decide and {{Reply to|Eihel}} because I can not follow all the discussions of all the wiki. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Courtesy translation:
An IP user (69.174.249.79) has come to my talk page on enwiki to ask me to change an article on frwiki. The IP can't do it because the page is "extended semi-protected" (3 months and 500 edits). But why write on my talk page on enwiki? Simple! This IP only edits articles about companies on enwiki and frwiki (I don't have the tools to check all the wikis). I wasn't able to link these companies to each other, nor find a parent company, but I stronly suspect a sockpuppet. I think you have the same policy on enwiki. If that's the case, a global lock should be considered. The IP must be using a VPN, has probably used many accounts and/or many IPs and is asking me to do their "dirty job". Many articles are protected from this vandal and the page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs on frwiki should highly interest you. The admins on frwiki will read this thread here to decide what to do next, and a global admin would probably be useful. I plan to answer the IP tomorrow on my talk page, something like:
- Hello 69.174.249.79. First, thank you for the compliment. I only hope that you'll be able to read this, being an IP. You are talking about an article on the French wiki, so you can write to me over there in French. So, see you there.
It's stupid, they didn't know they were dealing with "The best patroller in Wikimedia".
- @Eihel and Isa: Je pense que je ne sais suffit Français pour vous aider, mais cette IP est certainement un sock puppet de w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline, et il est aussi un proxy ouvert. Je l'ai bloqué ici, et je demanderai des stewards pour un blocage global sur meta (regardez ici). Merci beaucoup.
- Bad translation of my bad translation: I think I don't know French well enough to help you, but this IP is definitely a sockpuppet of ConsumersDistributingonline, and is also an open proxy. I have blocked them here, and I will ask the stewards for a global lock on meta (see m:SRG). Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note that faux-nez in french means sockpuppet. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Fake nose" - wonderful! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Phony nose" is more funny.
--YB ✍ 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I figured it was just like eye dialect for "phony". Holden Caulfield would be ... well, not proud ... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Phony nose" is more funny.
- "Fake nose" - wonderful! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Au cas où ça aiderait, Eihel, un bref survol des articles fréquemment visés révèle que la majorité sont des compagnies et marques liées à Quebecor (Shopping TVA, Vidéotron, MATV, SuperClub Vidéotron, TATV, etc), je serais 0% surpris que les comptes soient utilisés par un ou plusieurs employés de Québécor et/ou de la firme de gestion d'image qu'ils sous-contractent (potentiellement la même firme qu'Énergir). Ce qui saute aux yeux d'un québécois n'est peut-être pas aussi flagrant pour un européen alors je me permet d'ajouter mon petit commentaire ici, en espérant que je ne répète pas des conclusions auxquelles vous êtes arrivés depuis longtemps. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Spelling error in template
There's a spelling error in the boilerplate template for extended-confirmed protection, you can see it at WP:RDM for examples, which says "unconversial" where it should say "uncontroversial". I'm as useful as tits on a bull here; if someone can find the source of the text and fix it, that'd be great. --Jayron32 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Paul Allen dies at 65
Paul Allen just passed away. Article is probably going to be getting fairly busy, especially given that he was a Microsoft co-founder & owner of a couple pro sports teams. Just a heads up to everyone. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Moving a user talk page back
In what looks like several good faith attempts to archive their user talk page, Idraulico liquido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved the page several times. While I could swap the page back and tag the the redirects for deletion, I think this job is easier done by an admin. Sam Sailor 07:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. Idraulico liquido:Talk in main space needs deletion as well. Sam Sailor 07:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- The bulk of the history is at User talk:Idraulico liquido/2009-2018. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Protected Risperidone
New user was trying to edit war bolding into the article and has now switched to multiple IP accounts. I have protected the page for 10 days. As I have edit the article a fair bit before am posting here. People are well to change the protection as they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Benchmarking
Hi, I'm an sysop on the French project. We deal with a specific situation and I'm looking for some type of "jurisprudence" in my own project and elsewhere in order to come up with a solution. We have a user that insults other users through Twitter. Our general policy is that we do not deal with issues that aren't taking place on fr:wiki and I guess this is also the policy here. Yet, the situation is very disruptive and it's really a case of "gaming the system". Hence I was wondering if you had specific examples where the en:wiki sysops decided to take action against a user for offwiki misbehaviour. Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- One that immediately springs to mind is this case, where an editor was banned for outing another user on their personal blog. I believe there have also been sanctions related to comments made on IRC. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, the official IRC server was long-considered "half-on-wiki" and kinda-ish like a sister project; a lot of on-wiki policies applied there as well and the reverse was true. I'm just saying it's quite different from a completely external service like Twitter. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Another well known example is this, where an admin was desyopped and banned for off wiki harassment (he later was unbanned after an arbcom appeal). I believe prolific editors Tarc and TDA were banned for similar reasons by arbcom.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank y'all :)--Kimdime (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bon courage Kimdime, et ne laisse pas les trolls gagner. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank y'all :)--Kimdime (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Another thing to consider is the possibility of joe jobbing -- unless the user confirms on-wiki "yes, this twitter account is me", there could always be a possibility that whoever is tweeting might only be pretending to be the same person in order to implicate the editor. My way out of this is usually simple: if you say the Twitter account isn't yours, post a screenshot of you reporting the Twitter account for impersonation ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Could happen but not the case here. The editor isn't trying to hide her Twitter account. She actually believes there is nothing wrong about insulting people on Twitter :)--Kimdime (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
All hands needed...
Please see IP Recent Changes. There's someone hammering random user talk pages. Any admin help in shutting this down as it happens will be most appreciated. Thanks. --Jayron32 16:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- That was different.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Watch for new hits at 939. — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would also check filter 938, which is targeted for the Reference Desks, and which was the same abuse. Perhaps 938 and 939 could be merged to put this all under one umbrella. The filter terms for 938 would be helpful for 939 as well. --Jayron32 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, in the post-mortem, looking at the list of usernames hit, they people were all recent contributors to one of the reference desks. --Jayron32 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would also check filter 938, which is targeted for the Reference Desks, and which was the same abuse. Perhaps 938 and 939 could be merged to put this all under one umbrella. The filter terms for 938 would be helpful for 939 as well. --Jayron32 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Watch for new hits at 939. — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, can an admin please check this AFD out as it appears an editor has been outed by an ip as they only declared their identity after the event. Also the ips mentioned there seem to be acting in concert and it is also suspiscious that the editor criticising the sources hasn't actually voted delete so perhaps they are all connected, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
- There're no IPs in the edit history of that AfD, unless those edits have all been suppressed already. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the ips comments were copied there by Hhkohh (talk · contribs) after an AFD talkpage request, and the other ips conduct is commented on by Certes (talk · contribs) in the AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see it; I've redacted it for now. I'll be getting in touch with someone for RevDel. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've also redacted the info at Talk:Act 2 Cam and have contacted admins for RevDel. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Atlantic306: please don't report outing here. Follow the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- ok, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Request for Block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I have retired from Wikipedia, and I would like to request a block on my account. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Youtube is down
For your information, Youtube appears to be having a near-complete outage and it's generating heavy traffic on related articles, such as Susan Wojcicki, which has had to be protected. Guessing general vandalism will probably spike anyway since there will be many with nothing better to do for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting. I thought it was a problem with my home network. Thanks for the heads up.--Jayron32 02:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is why I could not get anything to play in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- $10 says PornHub traffic is spiking right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Works for me.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Me too. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking on PornHub's status, guys!—Now, what about YouTube... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's been up and down for me for the last hour. Presently working tho. SQLQuery me! 03:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- $10 says PornHub traffic is spiking right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is why I could not get anything to play in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Please evaluate the block of Did Nychypir
I blocked today indef Did Nychypir. They registered and made just one edit: [5]. The edit is in a heated perennial discussion and is IMO inflammatory, not really addressing the arguments and merely making a political statement. We have plenty of such users, both from Russian and Ukrainian side, and these are commonly blocked indef per NOTHERE if they have no useful contribution or if all of their contribution consists of POV edits. As far as I know, I am the most active but not the only admin in this area. Subsequently, Hddty suggested on my talk page that the user should have been warned and not blocked. Whereas I did not find their arguments fully convincing, they have merit, and, indeed, it is quite possible that due to abundance of POV pushers (and socks} in the topic area my perception is distorted, and I block indef too easily. I think it would be good if the block gets scrutinized at this noticeboard, and I (or any other admin) unblock the user if there IS consesus to unblock. Note that I participation in the same discussion and accidentally voted differently from the user (which was not a factor in my consideration - I would have blocked as well even if we had the same opinion) but I did not strike their vote merely leaving a note that I blocked them.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I think WP:NOTHERE should only be invoked if it's a series of edits, not a single edit which isn't much to go on. Sure the user could've been warned, but that's not necessary in WP:NOTHERE cases. However, I do think the block is premature just because it was based on a single edit and should've waited until the user made more edits, which would've demonstrated whether they would've continued editing in this pattern. If the block gets overturned, they can always get blocked again.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah Ymblanter, where do I begin? To start off, if you are going to deliver block notice, let's use {{Uw-nothereblock}} instead of {{indefblocked}}, so technically the blocked user would be informed of how to appeal. In your block rationale, you mentioned "block evasion"; while I agree this is certainly is not a first account (more obvious by looking at Special:CentralAuth/Did_Nychypir), but did you have in mind what the master account could be? If not, it's probably better to approach more cautiously. I don't think this block is wrong, it's just done incorrectly. Alex Shih (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive WP:POINTY page moves need to be reverted
An editor has moved multiple pages to make a point (after not getting their way when trying to change Allahabad to a new name (Prayagraj, a name that hasn't even been officially approved by the Government of India, and isn't even close to have become the common name in English for the city; as a minor side note the name change is also religiously motivated, and pushed through by the people behind the Babri Masjid demolition in the same city...). In addition to making a cut-and-paste move of Bangalore to Bengaluru (a c-a-p move since the article is move-protected), they moved Allahabad division to Prayag division, Allahabad district to Prayagraj district and History of Allahabad to History of Prayagraj, apparently editing the redirects afterwards since I couldn't revert the moves. And they were not good-faith moves, but obviously made to make a point (based on their editing history). So could someone please move them back again ASAP? And if possible also move protect those articles, because this is with all probability going to happen again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Done (Non-administrator comment) Thomas.W the undiscussed controversial page moves have been reverted and move protection requested art WP:RFP. Please request future move reverts at WP:RMT.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: Requesting it here saves time and energy (since it doesn't require posting on two different boards), it is also, in my experience, faster than requesting a technical move at WP:RMT... ;) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) (and to make it even faster I have now requested extendedmover rights at WP:RFP/PM...)
- WP:RMT is also fast in handling these requests. I posted the links, just to make sure that you are aware. lets wait for an admin now. tick tock tick tock. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: Requesting it here saves time and energy (since it doesn't require posting on two different boards), it is also, in my experience, faster than requesting a technical move at WP:RMT... ;) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) (and to make it even faster I have now requested extendedmover rights at WP:RFP/PM...)
- May be an Admin can add move protection. For the discussion on the rename topic, refer to the thread at Talk:Allahabad#Official_Name_Prayagraj_but_Common_Name_is_still_Allahabad --DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we have an uninvolved admin judge the consensus in this MfD? It caused a lot of fighting while it was going on. But it needs to be closed (its been around for 10 days) now and has not been edited since the 14th. funplussmart (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've closed it. Alex Shih (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In what universe is that not a POLEMIC or BLP Violation? Saying "Trump is racist" (..." but it is an undeniable fact that he is corrupt,[21] dishonest,[22] untruthful, a racist, a misogynist, ...") is not allowed in Wikipedia, and it's funny in a way because I was "warned" about an American flag on my page, but this crap is allowed? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Eh, sometimes feelings are more important than policy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- What's interesting even more is that 21 and 22 are opinion and polls. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well clearly, there was no consensus to delete and it would be wrong to close as delete as what, a supervote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Y'all I'm going to reclose this and point you the way to WP:DRV if you disagree. Butting heads here won't change a thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- What's interesting even more is that 21 and 22 are opinion and polls. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
review of not block, please
CaptainCandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) probably needs a WP:NOTHERE block, which I failed to perform because of my own political COI. Each and every edit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
err, his, not mine.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hasn't made any egregious edits in article space since first being warned. Unless I'm misreading timestamps. I'd be inclined to wait and see if it has indeed stopped, and only block if it starts back up. But if it does start back up, just block indef to avoid a timesink. I'd say the same about someone relentlessly criticizing Democrats after creating their account; give them at least one chance to modify their behavior, but don't let them disrupt anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)