Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	16	107	129
TfD	0	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	23	32
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 106 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 42 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 65 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (41 out of 7880 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin JJ Redick 2024-06-21 05:49 2024-06-24 05:49 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Kolis 2024-06-21 02:24 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare OTR-21 Tochka 2024-06-20 20:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Kyiv strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:26 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Mykolaiv strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Kherson strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:18 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Vuhledar 2024-06-20 20:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Mala Tokmachka 2024-06-20 20:10 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Huliaipole 2024-06-20 20:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis 2024-06-20 20:03 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Tehran 2024-06-20 19:15 2024-07-20 19:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Thumb Cellular 2024-06-20 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup final 2024-06-20 04:00 2024-06-27 04:00 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Xelia Mendes-Jones 2024-06-20 03:29 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG

User:Citation bot unblock discussion is stalled

• Citation bot (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Prior discussion: User talk:Citation bot/Archive_15#March_2019, Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users" and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Bot unblocks

JJMC89 (talk · contribs) blocked this bot on March 16, citing two reasons:

1. The addition of CiteSeerX links to articles in violation of WP:ELNEVER (due to copyright problems on CiteSeerX)
2. Concerns that the bot is user-activated, yet does not authenticate and log the identity of the user who activated it.

The problem with the CiteSeerX links has been fixed by Martin, the bot's operator, by blacklisting CiteSeerX within the bot. However, JJMC89 has declined to unblock the bot because they feel that the matter of authentication and logging the identity of the user that activated the bot is sufficient grounds to leave the block in place.

There has been extensive discussion. The remaining disagreement is mainly around three points:

1. Who is responsibile for the bot's edits. The bot's operator of record (Martin) and the two assistant operators, Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan, have stated that Martin, as the operator of record, is ultimately responsible for the bot's edits. This is also consistent with the bot's initial approval for automatic operation -- not as a user-directed bot. Subsequent approvals were also for automatic operation. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that the problem with CiteSeerX links was originally approached as a problem that could be best addressed by dialog with the users activating the bot rather than by the bot's operators. It is on this basis that JJMC89 believes that the bot is not in compliance with WP:BOTMULTIOP, which requires that bot operators be identified and disclosed for each edit. Thus the question hinges on whether the bot is "operated" by the users who activate it, or by the operator of record.
2. Compliance with WP:BOTCOMM. While Martin remains engaged in technical maintenance of the bot, he has stated that he "no longer regularly engage[s] in discussions on Wikipedia talk pages" and is grateful to have AManWithNoPlan take this role. While WP:BOTCOMM permits communications to be delegated, some commenters believe that Martin, as the operator of record, has an obligation to engage with the community to a greater degree.
3. Whether the bot's tasks are being performed as approved. The most recent BRFA for CitationBot was approved in 2011, and the bot has evolved considerably since then.

Discussion has stalled with JJMC89 declining to unblock, and Martin unwilling or unable to add WP:OAuth to the bot, at least in the near term. There does appear to be quite a bit of support for removing the block, including from those admins and members of the WP:BAG who have participated in the discussion, but not a clear consensus.

The bot does valuable work and I am listing here to try to find some sort of way forward. UninvitedCompany 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Much of that thread is technically over my head, but this might be a good place to point out that there needs to be a consensus to maintain a block, not a consensus to lift a block. If there is, after further discussion, still no consensus, I believe the default must be to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Striking per Gallobter's comment below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • While adding OAUTH to the bot is clearly desirable, it's not a trivial task and no one currently has the bandwidth to implement this. Frankly, it would be more productive to spend development time fixing bugs in Citation bot than adding OATH, in my personal opinion. Insisting that we need to know who activated Citation bot for each edit is a bit pedantic punctilious, IMO, as Citation bot used to just run across all articles all the time (in the old days). And just like then, Martin (as the operator) was the person ultimately responsible for the edits. I'm not necessarily up-to-date on all the bot guidelines and policies, and I agree that it's unfortunate that this venerable old bot doesn't really have a dedicated full-time maintainer, but it seems like the bot does more good than harm, so I would support unblocking it. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't fault Martin for setting boundaries on how much time/effort/energy they want to contribute to the project. When the other issues with the bot are fixed, I think any stipulation that Martin increase their engagement with the community as part of an unblock would be unfair. Rivselis (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Rivselis: You may think it unfair, but in that case your disagreement is with BOTPOL. While I sympathise (deeply!) with Martin's desire to avoid controversy and the often really toxic discussions that are beginning to be the norm on the project (CIVIL? collaborative? consensus? Bueller?), that desire is simply not compatible with operating a bot on Wikipedia (what, nobody remembers a certain bot "enforcing" NFCC and how that turned out?). This is not an issue of an operator being busy IRL and having limited bandwidth or long response times. They have been asked four times, over four months (five now) to confirm whether they are in fact still the bot's operator, and to address WP:BOTACC, second para, and WP:BOTCOMM. There has been no response, beyond removing the question with the edit summary Archive aggressive comments. They have received this question on their own talk page, on the bot's talk page, on the BOT noticeboard, and now here (UnivitedCompany notified them of this thread). They edit elsewhere on the project, they are just refusing to respond to a simple, neutrally phrased, question about how they view their adherence to policy. At the time it was first asked I would have been inclined to accept any responsive answer—even one I disagreed with—but after five months of refusing to answer it I am forced to consider it willful disregard of BOTPOL (not necessarily in bad faith, but the result is the same). Instead of an answer from the bot's operator to this straightforward question, I've gotten increasingly hostile insistence from others that this is an entirely unreasonable question to ask a bot operator. I asked JJMC89 to address a similar question about WP:ADMINACCT in their RfA and nobody seemed to object to the question at the time. Granted RfA can be a quagmire of toxicity at its worst, but, really, asking admins about ADMINACCT, and bot operators about BOTCOM, really shouldn't be taken as hostile unless it's at a level that involves curse words or something. --Xover (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue really here is whether the bot task should continue (no point unblocking if the bot doesn't make any edits), and bots need consensus to do a task. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Stricken. Still true for humans tho! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hi there, xaoflux here, these are the relevant points I'm seeing:
  1. Is this bot making "bad edits", that is: edits that if they were individually made by any other editor would be considered unacceptable? If so, the operator needs to fix this or stop operating entirely. It is cetainly possible that the edits would not have been considered "bad" in the past, but as the project has evolved they are now.
  2. Is there an operator that is responsive and taking responsibility for their bot's edits? If not, it should stop operating.
  3. Is the bot making edits that are not approved under a BRFA Task? If so, the operator should cease these edit and seek a BRFA.
  4. Any of the above items that result in "stop", where the bot won't stop can certainly be enforced with a block until the operator says they are resolved.
  5. Have the community's needs signifigantly changed since this bot's tasks were approved, such that one or more tasks should no longer be performed, or not performed in the way they are now? (This is the 'what is needed in the edit summary line') If so, a thread should be opened at WP:BOTN to seek de-approval of the task(s).
     1. If this is the ONLY issue, unless it is so agregious, blocking shouldn't be needed.

— xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Concerning 1), there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. 2) The operator is Smith609. AManWithNoPlan is currently the main/active maintainer, and they are very responsive/active in addressing bugs. Concerning 3) not that I know of. But the bot is approved for general citation cleanup, so that's pretty wide reaching. Concerning 5) the needs of the community have changes yes, but mostly in that CitationBot is expected to do more than ever and be of use to less 'experty' users. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. Citation bot is currently excluded from 546 articles, which is high compared to other bots excluded from articles: more than 4 times the next highest excluded bot and more than 15 times the average exclusions per excluded bot. That number is ~3.5 times what it was a year ago, which seems to have been steady for a couple years until sometime after Q3 2018. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful that statistic is. I spot-checked a few pages that Citation Bot is excluded from, and found that in many cases, Citation Bot had never edited the page in question. It seems that a number of aircraft-related articles in particular have the bot blanket excluded, and there's no edit summary or comment in the article source explaining why. In other cases, it's excluded due to the CiteSeerX issue - so if that issue is solved, we can't exactly use the fact that it was previously excluded as evidence that it would still make "bad edits" today. ST47 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: if we unblock this and 'bad edits' resume, it can obviously be blocked again. The CiteSeerX complaint appears to be addressed by the operator, do you see any other impediments to unblock? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would support unblocking the bot. It has an operator who is willing to provide support, the CiteSeerX issue was resolved, and I personally don't think the issue of attributing edits to the specific end user who "requested" the bot visit a specific page was ever an issue in the first place. The overwhelming majority of {{nobots}} exclusions are either due to CiteSeerX or for no stated reason at all. Let's unblock it. If there are more issues, as you say, we can always block it again. ST47 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: You can stop mass removing bots deny: the ones I saw were added deliberately to prevent edits from Citation bot that were deemed objectionable (and people became aware after the RfC linked below), and in response to the bot's adherents suggesting there was no need for the bot to be fixed because editors could just use that template to prevent it. When they realised people would actually take them up on it they tried to switch to suggesting tagging each individual parameter in a citation template instead (but, obviously, still not fixing the objectionable edits at their source in the bot), and using a fiddly HTML comment for it. Shifting the burden to human editors instead of the bot, and making sure they can impose stylistic preferences on 5.5+ million articles and only actually discuss where someone objects. Or, hey, when the de facto maintainer (not the operator, they are still unresponsive) refuses to fix the first issue that eventually got the bot blocked the community can just make an edit filter(!) to prevent those edits (but let the rest of the bot operate). Note well: not "didn't have the time to fix", but "refused to fix" a genuine concern raised about the bots edits. Whether Citation bot has edited the articles before is completely immaterial: the instances I saw were people adding the bots template to articles they edit regularly or created, and specifically to prevent the objectionable edits the bot makes. They were doing that because the bot's operator was unresponsive to community concerns, its maintainers are opinionated beyond what CITEVAR provides for (and it takes a community RfC for concerns to be heard), and the oversight mechanisms designed to prevent just this situation have failed to do so. Using the bots template is neither a blunt instrument nor "FUD" (as you just told Nikkimaria), it is so far the most surgical and only recourse to prevent the bot from doing whatever its maintainers want to all citation templates regardless of consensus. The fact that it's now present on this many articles should in itself tell you that this bot's edits are both not uncontroversial (which BOTPOL requires) and not unproblematic (or so many editors would not feel the need to prevent the bot from editing so many articles). There is no edit summary and no hidden comment for it because they were not added by a bot, but by human editors who object to the edits the bot is making but who cannot hope to keep up with the speed or volume of a bot. This is why we have BOTPOL in the first place! --Xover (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JJMC89: any additional insight in to this? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• If I have a comment on the regard of the operation of this bot, it's this: Given our current bot policy, it should not take an RFC to stop activity for which there was never a clear authorization. I do not have faith in any of the operators of the bot at this time to operate the bot, whether actual or stand-in. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: can you elaborate slightly? It would help if you can provide some diffs occurring after that RfC where this bot is making edits in violation of the RfC closing? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  The bot has been changed since the RFC. The point I'm making is that the operator(s) (whoever those are) should not have forced an RFC to stop the bot's activity on the point, given that it was never obvious the bot had authority to perform those actions in the first place. That means somewhere, someone, or some process failed to ride oversight on what the bot is doing or what the bot operators have subsequently coded the bot to do. That's not okay. The correct way for the bot operators to have proceeded (again, if it were obvious who the bot operator was), once the activity was in question, was to stop that activity and verify with the community whether continued removal was okay. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  Essentially, #5 in your list above. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: thanks for the update, is it your understanding that this issue is not expected to continue to occur should operations resume? Can you elaborate on what unaddressed issue is still so egregious that the task needs to be reevaluated prior to resuming operations? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think Xover below hits on one of the points still egregious about the situation below. That particular point aside, the other "egregious" point is that the bot has not had a BRFA in some substantial time while its functionality has continue to increase. It's not doing whatever it was signed up to do in the most-recent BRFAs, and that's driven by the personality problems described by Xover also. If you were to review User:Citation bot#Bot approval, and then review what the code actually does, I think you'd find it clear it is not now and has not been for some time within any of its BRFAs. That's a problem by WP:BOTPOL; WP:BOTACC if nowhere else. To take a "personal" example, I much appreciate it when you (specifically) approach the community about a bot which may be problematic for the community, an activity that some significant portion of the BAG will also do. At no time in the past several years, besides the RFC that I initiated (not any of the responsible or less-responsible persons directly involved in the changes that have been made to the bot) has anyone from that bot project approached the community, when there have been several potentially-problematic changes made to the bot code. Either the bot operator (or one of his proxies) should have had, many times, the good sense to invite additional comment beyond the people who show up to the bot's talk page.

  Continuing, from WP:BOTPOL, we have at least one specific section that the bot is not in accordance with (though without fault of its own); that's WP:BOTMULTIOP. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Xaosflux: Citation bot ticks all three of your first "stop" criteria (which, it should be noted, are just the ones you adduce under BOTPOL and the BAG's remit, but just because it's a bot doesn't mean it is exempt from other community norms).
    1. The bot itself has not made any problematic edits, because it has been blocked for two months. However it is still operating in Gadget mode, and there it still makes mistakes: the last one I saw was setting |publisher=London. Those were, thankfully, much easier to handle because in this mode the edits are attributed to the user operating the tool, and so they get notified when the edits are reverted. Of course, tellingly enough, the edit in question was by the bot's de facto maintainer: so much for checking the edits before saving and not making mistakes a human editor wouldn't. Before being blocked the bot made similar mistakes: changing a {{cite magazine}} into {{cite web}}, messing with the whitespace inside the template (which is annoying for cosmetic change reasons, but majorly so for anyone trying to maintain citations by hand), etc.; stuff that Headbomb above dismisses as mere "GIGO". And since the bot's maintainers claim they have authority to do essentially whatever they want to citation templates, it's just a question of time before it starts doing stuff like removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} again (the latest use of valid citation parameters that its maintainers DONTLIKE seems to be |via=, so I'm expecting a spate of edits to remove that to show up any day now), again pointing to an 11 year old BRFA about adding DOIs to {{cite journal}}.
    2. As explained (at length, sorry) elsewhere here, the bot's operator is not only not responsive but is actively refusing to interact with the community, even to the point of not responding to requests to address policy issues on their own talk page, the bot's talk page, BOTN, and here. Of its two "helpers" one doesn't have time to involve themselves (thanks for the "pedantic" comment btw, Kaldari; that really made me feel like you care about my concerns), and the other "doesn't have an opinion, they just want to code" (I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't be bothered to dig up the diff). This bot also doesn't so much have an operator as it has defenders, to the point that I'm actively avoiding its talk page (thanks for the ping there btw, UninvitedCompany, but I'm not going near that place unless the need is great; you migh try Serial Number 54129 and David Eppstein though, I think they still have the stomach for it).
    3. The bot's BRFA was in 2008, and was for adding DOIs, removing duplicate template parameters, and other such minor cleanup in {{cite journal}} only. And even then its edits were problematic enough to end up… here at AN actually. And the consensus then was that it had to respect, in essence, CITEVAR. At the time that was regarding removing |url= when it pointed to the same place as |doi=, but in some articles they used the URL to signal that the journal article was free to access. That particular issue is, I think, moot now, but the point was that the bot should only make edits that were safe in the face of such citation style issues (i.e. CITEVAR). (It also, incidentally, concluded that when the bot was being directed by someone other than the operator of record, the user operating the tool should be identified. This concern was not sprung on them out of nowhere and recently.) In any case, the bot now makes edits far outside the scope of that BRFA. The RfC triggered by it removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} is the immediate example: its maintainers don't think those parameters should be used, and so they program the bot to unilaterally remove it. There was no attempt to seek consensus for its removal from all articles, objections were met with… well, it ended up with a contentious RfC. And now they claim authority to do whatever they want to citation templates based on that ancient BRFA (so long as they think it qualifies as "tidying"). I have suggested elsewhere that the bot's functions need to be broken down, analysed and categorized, grouped into meaningful tasks, and each task subjected to a modern BRFA using modern standards. Because any new bot proposing to do what Citation bot is doing would, if not rejected outright, have been required to run an RfC to demonstrate that there is consensus for for its proposed tasks (just look at some of the hoops a few recent bot tasks have had to jump). --Xover (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. I did warn that this would eventually end up at a noticeboard (but thanks for small mercies it's here and not at /I).
  @UninvitedCompany: I think you are mistaken: to my knowledge no one on the BAG has expressed an opinion in favour of unblocking; except Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it. In fact, the BAG, despite the issue being raised on BAG/N, has so far responded in a way best described with "crickets" and "ten foot pole". Personally I expect this is due to the two (independent) factors that there are (some, I don't want to blow it out of proportion) behavioural issues surrounding Citation bot and its community of adherents (which is outside the BAGs remit), and because a BAG member is involved there and it would be awkward around the watercooler if they touched it (regardless of conclusion). We could have presumably have avoided ending up at AN if the BAG had involved itself at least to the point Xaosflux has done here (hint: letting stuff like this fester is unlikely to result in less conflict).
  I also think you should have included a link to the contentious RfC that is the proximate cause of the current situation. I realise that for those who have not yet lost faith in this bot's ability to perform in accordance with community norms and policy are enticed by the good functions of this tool, and thus inclined to see that RfC and the behaviour surrounding it as a single issue and water under the bridge; but it was the straw that broke the camel's back and is hence very relevant background. I'd link the concurrent discussions on the bot's talk page, but frankly I'm too discouraged to go trawling through that mess (I avoid it like the plague now, because of stuff like whatever this is every time I go near it). What this bot lacks in an operator it more than makes up for in defenders. --Xover (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it." You can request I recuse from discussions 3 billion times, I will not. I have recused from making decisions involving citation bot, and that should be enough for anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Headbomb: Indeed; since my comment that you quote can easily be misconstrued to mean more than I actually intended, let me be tediously clear about it:
      I think you need to recuse from making any decisions regarding this bot in your capacity as a BAG member: as you say yourself and as you have done. And—lest the opposite should be implied by mentioning it—it should be noted that you did without any prompting from anyone (least of all me). Very much appreciated!
      I also think that to the degree the BAG holds any discussions (on IRC or a mailinglist or a obscure talk page etc.) that are to some degree non-public, that you recuse from those discussions. Your status as an "insider" combined with the absence of outside voices would influnce such discussions no matter how hard you tried to be neutral and objective (and that's about all human nature, not you personally). I'm not aware that the BAG employs any such forums or processes, and if so you can feel free to just consider this a pedantic and theoretical request.
      And finally, I think that when you participate in discussions like here, you need to note that you are not speaking in your capacity as a BAG member. Your membership in the BAG means those reading your comments tend to assign them weight, authority, and presumed objectivity that are not merited on an issue where you are INVOLVED. For example, I believe UninvitedCompany read your comments as from a BAG member and for the BAG. I realise it is tedious, but when you have hats like that you do need to specify whether you are currently wearing that hat in certain discussions where the distinction has bearing (such as this one). That was the issue my above comment was actually addressed to, and the frustration you can probably detect in it was at your failure to make clear that you were not speaking for the BAG.
      I absolutely do not mean that you should in any way refrain from participating in public discussions regarding Citation bot, but I see that my comment could be read that way (and if read that way it implies an accusation that you had acted improperly in that regard), and so I apologize for not being clear there. --Xover (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Xover:, fwiw, I did not interpret Headbomb's comments as speaking on behalf of the BAG. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone issues statements on behalf of the BAG. I had also interpreted Xaosflux's comments as being generally supportive of removing the block. I note that the BAG is small, with 13 active members at present. At least 4 of these members have commented on or formally approved Citation Bot tasks in the past. The BAG is collaborative by nature and I am unsure that it makes sense to ask BAG members to recuse themselves as a result of past collaborative behavior. I do value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. That said, I'm watching for a consensus to emerge, and do not necessarily have my own mind made up. Citation Bot has both proponents and detractors, which is unusual for a bot, and I am unsure what to make of it. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @UninvitedCompany: Thanks for clarifying, but I feel you somewhat prove my point: you value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. They indeed have that (very valuable) experience, but in Headbomb's case they are so deeply involved with Citation bot (top filer of change requests, chief "defender" of the bot that interjects themselves in all discussions where the bot or its operator is criticized) that you cannot assign that weight to their statements. Were this at arbitration, they would be named as a party (not an accusation, just an analogy!); were the question discussed an admin action, they would be WP:INVOLVED; were they a member of ArbCom they would have had to recuse. They are subjective and biased (like everyone else, me included, that cares deeply about a given issue) and letting their frustrations with the bot's critics shine through (see their responses to my BOTCOM question at BOTN).
          Compare that with Xaosflux who has no discernable personal relationship with Citation bot or its operator, is very carefully neutral in how they address the issue (refering almost exclusively to BOTPOL), and does not express an opinion beyond that (I, frankly, wish they would; precisely because I value their experience even beyond the remit of the BAG). But I have not seen Xaosflux express an opinion on whether the bot should be unblocked: they have merely explained policy and tried to clarify how it applies here.
          I have also not seen any other BAG member (except Headbomb) express any opinion (either way) on this; so if that's indeed the case I'm afraid I'm going to have to say "Diffs please!" (sorry, not trying to be glib, but I've been watching the issue and haven't noticed those comments). That a BAG member performed the formality of approving a BRFA 11 years ago—when a huge part of the issue here is that the bot is not operating within its approval—does not mean they can be presumed to hold any particular opinion on the current situation. The issue was referred to the BAG at BOTN, and apart from Xaosflux trying to sort out what the issues were, there was no participastion from the rest of the BAG nor any conclusion or recommendation. In other words, so far as I can tell, it is actually specifically incorrect to say that the BAG or any of its members have expressed an opinion either way on this. --Xover (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Could you, like, dial down the pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric about 204 notches here? I'm being pilloried for having opinions, filling bug reports, and making feature request, including one that requests that activators are identified. And somehow, this is a crime which means my opinion is now irrelevant and should be discarded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'll also note there's a pretty easy solution to all this. If the anonymous activators are deemed undesirable, just have the bot fail to edit when no activator is specified. Either through a code update, or an edit filter. I don't understand why this hasn't been coded in yet, or implemented at the EF level so the bot can resume normal operation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb. And anonymous activators are undesirable, as Citation bot can be used to do questionable edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that JJMC89 had previously stated that they would not find any solution that does not authenticate the activator to be acceptable. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BOTPOL reads users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (e.g. non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, IRC hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I will also note that keeping citation bot blocked is harming Wikipedia as it cannot be used to improve referencing. Our purpose here is to make an encyclopedia. The benefit of its use out ways the fear that it might be misused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

via= is removed if there is a doi/pmid/pmc and no url of any type. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to find a page that blocked the bot for any legit reason. I know that it is often there because someone flipped out after a gadget edit was done and a bunch of non-bot edits were down too and the bot took all the blame. As for the punblisher=London, that was GIGO, but still made article better since it now has locatio(just in the wrong place!). London is now in the bot as a bad_publisher AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot seems to be mostly blocked because it converts ISBN 10 to 13. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the use of the bot blocking template on specific pages seems to be mostly for the ISBN conversion feature. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the code for isbn upgrades has been changed to match the newer style guides and now only changes ISBN to ISBN13 when year is 2007 or newer. Also, someone claimed that the bot changed magazine to web: I find that hard to believe without an example. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: who are you talking to? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the bot in my pages because of the ISBN conversion and because it screwed up my cite journal entries by removing the publisher and location. I gather that the first issue has been fixed in a way that I'm fine with, but what about the second? And I very much did not appreciate the removal of my blocks with inexplicable comments like "not a blunt instrument" or whatever. Not helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The removal of publisher/location was changed back in March, I believe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GB: Negative. Citation bot was blocked because it was harming Wikipedia by disimproving "references", and without adequate attribution of editing. As to the implied argument that various alleged improvements require us to accept any collateral damage: bullshit. And perhaps it is time to discuss that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the {{nobots}} card to John Glenn as an interim measure on 17 October 2018 because the bot became confused by the use of handles for web sources other than journals. I did not see this as using the template as a "blunt instrument". I thought that was what it was there for. I raised the issue with the maintainers at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 11#Handles are not journals, and a fix was deployed on 31 October 2018. I should have removed the {{nobots}} template, but did not do so. My bad. Some clarification of the term "blunt instrument" would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what the rationale behind a generic 'blunt instrument' removal would be, especially without diffs. Sure {{nobots}} is a blunt instrument, but it's also one that works as intended. A {{nobots}} template should only be removed once it's confirmed it doesn't screw up that specific page anymore, or the problematic citations are bypassed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• To reply Xaosflux: 1) the number of erroneous edits (i.e. edits with more mistakes than intended fixes) is minuscule, to the point that it took months for some users, repeatedly asked for examples of harmful edits, to come up with any example; 2) in my experience the bot operator is very responsive to requests in his purview, while the most active developer generally fixes any reported issue within a few days, which is better than the vast majority of bots I know of; 3–5) the essential task (to fix citations so that they're closer to the expected usage as stated by the documentation) is supported by the original consensus and no new consensus has emerged (sometimes the consensus changes on specific parameters and how they should be used, and the bot has been changed accordingly). In conclusion, I agre with Graeme Bartlett and ST47. Nemo 15:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  (Copied from my talk) in general I think most of the "making bad edits" issues seem to have been addressed by the operator, so on that consideration unblocking and resuming operations should be allowed. I think the force edit summaries to include the editor it is reacting to part is an outstanding consideration - however I don't think it is a showstopper. Policy-wise, I don't see these edits that react to requests as elevating the others to the status of "operator", as such editors do not exert autonomous control over the account. (Compare to how someone not signing an edit is not operating sign-bot). I'd want to see affirmation acknowledgement of the current operator (Smith609) that they will be responsive and take responsibility for all edits their bot makes, and that if minor adjustments are needed to meet changing standards (e.g. if a certain parameter should not be removed from a template) they will comply to the standards. Taking responsibility for edits of one's bot is a core tenant of bot operations, and "garbage in - garbage out" isn't an affirmative defense (it should be "garbage in - nothing out"), as they are always welcome to NOT make any edit. While I'm on BAG, this is not intended to be a response "for BAG". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I can confirm that I am happy to take overall responsibility for the bot's edits. I have confidence that the bot's overall error ratio is presently very small – for every deleterious edit, there are many, many positive changes, and (invisibly) the bot visits many pages and correctly identifies that no edit is required. The bot now has an extensive test suite against which edits to its code are evaluated, and as a result, I can't think how long it's been since the bot systemically introduced major errors (which would occur occasionally before this test suite was introduced). There is a transparent way to report errors, linked in each edit summary, and an active community monitoring the bot's talk page and its contributions. As a result, fixes to most bugs are now rolled out to the production code within 48 hours, and the bot can be blocked very rapidly if necessary. Likewise, any changes in policy or template protocol can be reflected in the bot's code rapidly (I would welcome any suggestions from the community as to how planned changes can be communicated to the bot operating team before they take place, to give us a head start in adapting the bot's code). Whereas I am not now in a position to donate as much of my time to the Wikipedia project as I used to be, I am reachable by e-mail (via my user page) where my personal input is required. Finally, I would note that the scale and incidence of bugs requiring input from the operating team is now much smaller than it used to be; I've manually reviewed runs of c. 1000 page visits without noticing any adverse edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At this juncture, I do not believe that there is any remaining rationale for keeping the bot blocked:

1. The operator of record is clearly taking responsibility for the bot's edits
2. The original reported problem with CiteSeerX links is solved
3. There does not appear to be widespread support for the idea that authentication of the users activating the bot is strictly required by WP:BOTPOL
4. There is an absence of diffs showing actual problematic operation other than problems already addressed
5. Blocking policy states: "bots may occasionally not operate as intended for a variety of reasons. Bots ... may be blocked until the issue is resolved.... Blocks of [...] malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots [...] are repaired."

I do not believe that a continued block is in accordance with policy, nor do I believe it is in the best interest of the project.

I do acknowledge that there are various other concerns unrelated (or loosely related) to the original block. It appears to me that the operator of record and maintainers are making a good-faith effort to respond to specific concerns. I would hope that these dialogs continue. I also recognize that there are a minority of editors who oppose ongoing operation of the bot. The proper venue for these concerns is to make a request for reexamination at the bot noticeboard.

I note that the blocking admin has been absent from the discussion for several days despite being aware it is ongoing. Accordingly, I am unblocking the bot. I will remain engaged in discussion should there be any further comment about the unblock. I will also follow any request for reexamination that is filed in an effort to mediate and build consensus. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot has unblocked, and the third edit I looked at caused a working link [1] to no longer work by changing it to [2] instead[3]. Doesn't give a good impression... Fram (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported this on the bot's talk page and will continue to monitor the situation. UninvitedCompany 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The link works, Academia.edu was down for a while. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well no. The original link worked all the time, the "improved" link didn't work for a while and works now. Furthermore, the old link made it clear that you were going to a PDF, the new one doesn't. Why is the bot making changes which don't improve things and may make things worse (replacing a direct link with one which needs an extra resolve step at the source site, increasing the risk that it won't work sometimes, like here)? Fram (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, in one instance the bot changes a link to BBc news from cite web to cite news, and changes "work=BBC News" to "newspaper=BBC News". The BBC is not really a newspaper though. Baffling is why then in the same diff, in the next ref, the bot again changes a BBC link from cite web to citenews, but now adds "work=BBC News", the exact thing it removed higher up in a similar link. The bot seems to do a lot of good things, some useless but not in itself wrong things (like an edit which only changes "citeweb" to "cite web"), and then some weird stuff which seems more like annoying meddling than actually helpful improvements. Fram (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I believe these are legitimate concerns but are unrelated to the block/unblock discussion. Everything the bot is doing should be listed in one of the bot's BRFAs. If these changes are not listed there, initial discussion should be on the bot's talk page. Ideally then the maintainers would remove the feature or start a new BRFA covering it. If the response is unsatisfactory, I believe it would be appropriate to make a request for reexamination at WP:BOTN. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sysops can customize new Twinkle preference for notifications after speedy deletion

As previously mentioned, Twinkle's CSD feature will soon allow sysops to notify page creators of deletion when the page has not already been tagged. The default behavior will match that of the current system for notifications when tagging, and will replace the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. I'm planning on making this change live next Wednesday (June 5th), but you can customize which criteria receive notifications right now using your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment moved to WT:TW ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj topic ban

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

---

I would ask that my ban from editing schools articles. from over a year ago, be removed. I do not subscribe to some of the harsher judgments made about me in that case. There was a huge learning curve for me between January and March of 2018, since in my few years of creating articles I had not run into most of the issues raised in those two months. I have a much better understanding of procedures now, and I intend to seek community consensus on any disputed edits, now that I understand what community consensus means. I have created seven articles and made around 4000 edits in the past year, adhering to what I have learned about following established procedures. Jzsj (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• The original TBAN can be found here. There was a short ban for an infringement fairly soon after linked here, which was about a year ago. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Please notice also that this is the first time that I have requested the removal of the ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Jzsj (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment Just a quick skim of his editing from the past few months shows that he has not been abiding by the terms of the TBAN. I would think a broadly-construed ban includes participation in AfD conversations about schools or school-related organizations [4][5][6], but even if you assume his TBAN didn't involve deletion discussions of schools, there's also this, which is a pretty blatant violation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd thought that was an overly extensive reading of the TBAN, but I agree the "Mentioning" probably covers it. Although my reading indicates the 1st (which isn't a !vote) and actually evade the prohibition. The other two I'd classify as minor breaches (though they happen right next to each other, which would have been problematic had it been noticecd at the time). His participation in them is at least not problematic (the disagreement on the 3rd I've seen made by non-blocked editors), so he's moving the right direction. I'm currently leaning against it, but am still in a persuadable area - I need to have a check for whether he's learnt to drop the stick (given that the prior TBAN was heavily premised on proposing edit wars as a method of getting his way). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose In March of 2018, I wrote that "Jzsj is a tendentious and tenacious editor and a Catholic priest who is doggedly determined to add promotional content to his pet Catholic high school articles against consensus." And more. I stand by my assessment and see no evidence that he has changed. Only two days ago, he made eight edits to Milošević-Rugova education agreement, a clear violation of his topic ban. Here is the wording: "Jzsj is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." That's chutzpah. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - When the primary argument to lift the topic ban is you do not agree with it, that in and of itself is enough to deny it. It's a clear indication of the editor's unwillingness to conform himself to the community's expectations. The further violations especially considering how recent they are in relationship to this request indicate it may be time to talk about simply indeffing him. This is by my count the third unblock request. Perhaps this should instead be a discussion of whether we need him at all. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jzsj received a firm warning on his talk page from Bishonen on March 8, 2019. The heading is "Tendentious editing". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Jzsj: - would you care to explain your multiple editing 2 days ago on an article that (possibly unlike AfDs) is a clear breach of the TBAN, and why no further sanctions should be applied? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear: My whole focus was on the Community of Sant'Egidio article that I'd spent seven days improving with multiple edits, virtually rewriting it, and I was focused on the inter-governmental dispute and Sant'Egidio's arbitration of it. It honestly never occurred ot me that this was a school article, but I don't deny that it's something I missed. I ask that you look at my 4000 edits and seven articles over the past year and see how much my good works outweigh my few, inadvertent slips. Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comments. I agree with Cullen, above, that Jzsj is a tendentious and tenacious editor. I supported the original topic ban; indeed, I thought it might be insufficient, and wrote "I'm not sure a topic ban is the best recourse for an editor who despises so many of our guidelines and policies, and seemingly the very character of Wikipedia." And I have indeed warned him since. However, as far as participating in AFD discussions, which Grandpallama mentions above, the banning admin User:Cyberpower678 together with other admins (me, for example) decided on an exception for school articles that Jzsj had himself created. He was allowed to take part in the AfDs for those, as not allowing that seemed inhumane. See this section on his talk. So, if you were talking about AfD's for articles created by him, @Grandpallama: there is an exemption for those.

As for lifting the topic ban, I'm unsure. He writes above about having a "huge learning curve" between January and March of 2018; but, as can be seen, in my warning + discussion from March of this year, I still think him tendentious and tenacious. He has indeed learned to answer mildly and concede wrongdoing; but nevertheless he was still, in March 2019, not long ago at all, editing tendentiously in favour of Jesuits and the Catholic Church. And, of all things, obfuscating sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. (That has not AFAIK happened again after my warning; if it had, I would have either indeffed or taken him to this board for a topic ban on the Catholic Church broadly construed.) It doesn't look to me like the learning curve has gone far enough. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of @The Banner: concerning lifting the topic ban. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks for the clarification; I hadn't thought to read through the talkpage to see if an exception existed. That doesn't account for the occasional direct editing of articles, of course. Minor breaches, maybe, as Nosebagbear stated, but less minor for someone who'd already been blocked once previously for violating the ban. Grandpallama (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TheBanner proposed for deletion 74 of the articles that I created, that editors have succeeded in preserving. (And I've explained on my talk page how I got into creating articles on development centers with insufficient notability: I thought that their being reviewed without tags meant that they suited Wikipedia's criteria.) Is pinging TheBanner not canvassing? I may not ping those who have been more supportive of my work. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I'm unsure about lifting the topic ban; I have neither opposed nor supported your appeal yet. I've seen The Banner so much on your page that I thought pinging them might help me make up my mind. But you may be right that there's a whiff of canvassing there. I apologise. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC).

Do not worry, Bishonen. I have this page on my watchlist and I had already seen this discussion before you pinged. The Banner talk 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And just responses like this make clear why lifting the ban is not a good idea. The Banner talk 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Jzsj, you have to thank Wikiproject Schools for most of those keeps, as they reject the very idea of deleting a school article. So a lot of them were not kept on their merits! Without their efforts, I would have nominated far more of your spam-articles. The Banner talk 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are misleading people. Even apart from the school project articles you proposed for deletion, 65 other articles which I created and you proposed for deletion were kept, with about a dozen proposed for merging into university articles. Well over 50 editors voted to not delete in one or more of these cases. I haven't counted all those from "Wikiproject Schools" who voted to retain almost all of those articles.Jzsj (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, please. Do you really think this is going to help you get rid of your topic ban? Even after a narrowing was already rejected? Seeing all the Jesuit-spam you added to so many articles, a widening of the topic ban would be a better idea. The Banner talk 09:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Okay, his last block for breaking the Tban was last august. But still it were three (3) blocks. And all of them were "slip ups", according to Jzsj. I do not believe that. He is too often skirting the ban, for example with Milošević-Rugova education agreement. I have no confidence that lifting the ban will improve Wikipedia and its workings. The Banner talk 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Skirting"? He is topic banned from education broadly construed, and the article has education in the title. Those eight edits look like a clear-cut violation to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you really believe that I'm so stupid that I'd appeal for removal of the schools ban when I am aware of having violated it a few days before? Is there nothing else in the past six months that you can point to? I did learn from the Bishonen exchange, but we won't know whether Bishop Pell has been unjustly defamed for life until the appeal hearing is over at the end of this week. Jzsj (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I was more referring to articles about people who were once working in education, professors and the like. The Banner talk 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I'd endorse a topic ban on Catholicism broadly construed, that Bishonen mentioned considering above. However, that would, practically speaking, be the equivalent of an indeff, as I cannot find a single edit anywhere Jzsj has made that doesn't relate to Catholicism in some way. Let me say this: just as we frequently end up having to indeff editors who focus on fringe theories, we are going to have to at some point consider that for Jzsj. Not that Catholicism is a "fringe" theory by any means, but, as a Catholic priest, he simply cannot separate his beliefs from his encyclopedia editing. And BTW, pinging those involved in prior discussions on this editor is expressly not canvassing. Although they probably all should be, especially the one single editor that supported him. I'm going to think on this for a few days, but I honestly think that we've surpassed the end of the rope with this editor. Unless I see a reason to sway me or someone beats me to it, I'll likely move formally for an indeff on Friday. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I review the whole history of our interchanges from January to March 9, 2018, I agree that I was very slow in realizing that while interpretation of policy and guidelines was being discussed, I missed the point that content issues are resolved by consensus, which to the uneducated editor would be better described as a nose count of informed editors. To make that clear early in any discussion would be a great saving of your time: very general references to MOS without sectioning just causes doubt. I have not run into much dispute in my 4000 edits since the ban, so I see no justification of extending the ban: so just let it ride. I mainly wanted to restore to universities some well-documented facts about their service programs, that are often integral to their academic curriculum and integrated into courses. These references were almost all lost when the university service programs were deemed not notable enough for a separate article and the conclusion was merge. The merges seldom happened. It's not clear what you mean by "the one single editor that supported him". I had support from The Gnome, Alansohn, Lionel, Billhpike, Zfish118, Clean Copy, Mannanan51, ... and over 90% of the material opposing me was coming from five editors: Meters, The Banner, 32.218.42.122, John from Idegon, and Cullen328. As to my focusing entirely on Catholicism, I've often worked on articles about people or organizations I admire, with no reference to Catholicism. And I'd welcome your checking out the 65 times I've responded to requests for comment in the past year. I hope you'll take that into consideration. Also, in thousands of copy edits I made in the past year, I did not try to impose any point of view on the articles and have only encountered a couple conflicts, which I handled in a respectful way. Jzsj (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and now you start again with counting noses and revisiting already made community decisions. With the same disruptive results as before. The Banner talk 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As has been pointed out, immediately before opening this topic ban review the user violated his topic ban on Milošević-Rugova education agreement. There is no question that edits to an article about centralized education in Serbia and the handling of disputes over education curricula and financing are blatant violations of the topic ban "indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." The statement by Jzsj that this is the his first attempt to remove the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard seems disingenous. As I said in one of the previous topic ban reviews (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300#Request narrowing of ban) "I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption." Meters (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please, one of the things that caused me to lose trust in you and the few others that were consistently opposing me is that you had to mislead at times to make your point. There is no time prior to this that I tried to have the ban removed. The request you cite was to have the ban narrowed to only high schools, since that was the area of offense being discussed. Jzsj (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, yourself. This is about you, not us. I don't appreciate the accusation that I intentionally mislead, or that I consistently oppose you. I didn't say that you had attempted to get your ban overturned before. I didn't link to all previous actions on this topic ban, but the thread I referred to, I did ink to and called a review. I simply said that it seemed disingenuous of you to state that this was the first time you had attempted to get your ban overturned on this page. By that I meant it was disingenuous for you to have done so without mentioning your previous actions on this topic ban on other pages.You left the impression that this is the first time you have attempted to appeal this topic ban, whereas an open appeal would have mentioned and linked to all of your previous actions on this. Don't you think it germane that you previously attempted to get the scope of the topic ban loosened with a result of "Strong consensus against any modification of the topic ban" when you are now attempting to get your topic ban removed completely?

Sorry, but I see this as more of the disruptive, argumentative behaviour that got you topic banned in the first place. Even in opening this appeal you still didn't accept that what you had done was a problem. I called the discussions related to your threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2 "probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Wikipedia" and nothing in this appeal convinces me in the least that removing your topic ban won't result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, I am going to assume you group me in that group with Meters of editors you "distrust". The point you are missing is that the community endorsed our position, not yours. So, therefore, that too is an indication that you do not have the temperament to successfully edit in this collaborative environment. Your viewpoint is incorrect, and the community has told you so. You can either make some indication that you accept that, or you can expect that you'll not be here to worry about it much longer. Making enemy lists is strongly discouraged here. You know, I do admire your devotion to your church. But here is something to think about: If a man that ran a Chevy dealership came here, and made edits about subjects related to General Motors like you make to subjects related to Catholicism, we would have banned him several years ago as a promotional account. You've been given a whole lot of WP:ROPE. I think it may be about to snap. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have carefully responded to the misleading charges in this section and I truly have corresponded to all Wiki policies and guidelines in the past 6 months, with only a few inadvertent slips. If you care to bring up some of these cases where you find me simply advertising rather than documenting according to Wiki policies in the past six months (as I get progressively more sophisticated in this editing business) then please point out to me so I can learn from you. Jzsj (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, do explain how editing an article with "education" in the title while banned from editing about "education" is "inadvertent". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you find incredible about my answers to this above, I assure you they are the truth. What more can I say? Jzsj (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything else aside, the clear violation of your topic ban is a blockable offence and sufficient for me not to agree to remove the topic ban. As user:Cullen328 said, it takes chutzpah to violate your topic ban on Milošević-Rugova education agreement and then ask us to remove the topic ban. I cannot believe that you were unaware of the violation when your very next non-userspace edit was to inquire about lifting your topic ban. Meters (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting TBAN. Propose CBAN. Per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Pre-_and_post-nominals_discussion_needs_reopening, TOPIC BANNED: Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed.

Yet on 1 June 2019 Jzsj makes a series on edits to Milošević-Rugova education agreement, and two day later — on 3 June 2019 — requests a lifting of the TBAN he has just violated.

That flagrant breach of the ban indicates either:

1. disregard of clear conditions imposed by the community
2. a severe lack of competence in comprehending plain English (see WP:CIR)

Either way, this editor is not to be trusted. And I don't see any evidence that this POV-pushing editor is anything other than a severe negative to the encyclopedia. Enough is enough: time for a WP:CBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no warm feelings for Jzsj. The way he is acting is costing too much time and too many headaches. Still I will plead against a community ban as that looks too harsh to me. To stay in Jzsj's remit: The Lord is about seeing the Light. I hope the Lord will send him an email to advice him to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and stop spamming and obstructing. And see the Light.

Instead of the community ban I plead for another harsh treatment: a topic ban, widely construed, for education and Jesuits plus a mentor to train him. And no right to appeal this within 3-5 years. The Banner talk 13:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: I agree with a lot of that, but he already has a topic ban, and hasn't exactly been abiding by it. If your solution is to be implemented, it must be very strictly enforced, with immediate and escalating blocks for any violations whatsoever. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you prefer to judge me to be lying when I say that my editing of the article on the arbitration agreement was completely inadvertent and my only violation of the ban in the past six months. If my edits there resembled the issues that got me in trouble then I would have most certainly noticed that this article was under the ban. And among 4000 edits in the last six months, is this one oversight so difficult to understand? And is it likely that I would do this knowingly right before requesting the lifting of my topic ban? You can decide to not believe me if you wish, but I insist that my whole focus in the edit was on the arbitration being carried out by the Community of Sant'Egidio, which had gained a worldwide reputation for its arbitrating ability, and whose article I had just spent a long time improving. I skipped scores of articles on schools as I copy edited hundreds of article over the past six months, and also gave constructive responses to 65 requests for comment. There was no reason for me to risk anything for this one addition to the Sant'Egidio story. Jzsj (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You had 42 "oversights" here. en now again we must believe that it was just an oversight? Nope, at least no from my side. The Banner talk 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting that admitted single slip of over a year ago, where others were willing to accept my explanation. Jzsj (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting TBAN per the very recent violation observed by Cullen. No comment on site ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the only violation of the ban in the past six months, and the one I just explained right above. Jzsj (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still a violation. Do you understand what a topic BAN means? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all. -GeniusWorkbench4622 19:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

CBAN

There is a clear consensus that we not lift the TBAN, and it has been proposed that a CBAN be issued for continuing WP:TEND as clearly illustrated by Jzsj's behavior in this very thread and his continued boundary pushing as mentioned by Cullen.

• Support - there has been very little useful content added by this editor anywhere. Most of his editing has been strictly to promote the Catholic church or some facet of it. The value of his contributions is clearly exceeded by his argumentative, disruptive behavior, and despite having it pointed out to him for the Nth time here, continuing in this very thread. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't find anything here or at CBAN that says what you are proposing. Is it a total ban from Wikipedia editing into the indefinite future or not? Why don't you specify? Jzsj (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - please cite where "in this very thread" I have been disruptive and argumentative, or where Cullen said this of my behavior "in this very thread". I have merely tried to point out inaccuracies in statements, and explain the truth of my own behavior, where I find others gratuitously denying the truth. Jzsj (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And that is exactly the damn problem. You are right and everyone else is wrong. I used the wrong word. I forgot that I am dealing with Jesus II. You didn't skirt it you blatently and intentionally broke it. HERE! John from Idegon (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The fact is that I take all correction seriously, and have changed my practice in accord with all I've learned. Here I ask you to show where "in this thread" (as you say just above) I have done otherwise, and you change the topic. It's difficult to hold you to truth-saying, given the unqualified support you get from some editors. I explained above this one slip in the past six months, and that if I did it deliberately I would not have opened this appeal a few days later. I can only repeat that I regret this slip in the 4000 edits in the past six months. In view of it I would ask the community to just forget about my request here and recognize my continued efforts to comply with the ban and with the good editing that has characterized my past six months, including the seven articles I created properly. Jzsj (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I showed you what you asked. I'm sorry, but your explanation does not hold water. How can you not know the subject of an article you are editing? And if you truly do not, then I'm sorry, WP:CIR applies, and you should still be CBANned for that. John from Idegon (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I can do no more than keep repeating the truth, that I was focused on "Milošević-Rugova educational agreement" and, unlike my other 4000 edits in the past 6 months, it failed to occur to me that this agreement was in the schools area that I was benned from discussing. My interest in the article concerned only the role of Sant'Egidio in mediating the agreement, which was my one addition. I copy edited and completed citations in the article while I was there, but I, like you, wonder at this one slip in 6 months, that it never occurred to me that this was a schools article. Jzsj (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John_from_Idegon. -GeniusWorkbench4622 16:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to give him one last chance but he slammed the door about that. Enough so. The Banner talk 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Enough doubt, I go for the extended topic ban again. The Banner talk 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Perhaps the user could have responded to some of you a bit better, but a community ban is an overreaction and a bit unfair. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do my absolute best to stay out of discussions that intersect with Catholicism, which is the content area I have traditionally edited, and a discussion of the behaviour of a self-disclosed Jesuit certainly falls in that. At the same time, whatever Jzsj’s problems are on this project, he certainly has not risen to the level of a CBAN. He honestly wishes to improve our coverage of things he cares about and generally speaking tries to work within our sometimes arcane policies and guidelines. A CBAN is not appropriate in this case when other remedies will do. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any need to escalate this to a full community ban, especially not related to behaviour during a TBAN discussion at WP:AN which can stress the best of us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have disagreed with this editor quite forcefully at times and it is clear the the current topic ban will remain and be enforced. But I believe that the editor has made many useful contributions outside schools and education, so a community ban is not called for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: At this time, I do not believe this to be a proportionate measure, given the circumstances, as stated by Boing! said Zebedee. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Category:SPI cases awaiting administration

53 cases currently listed here, including some that have been there for weeks. Please can uninvolved admins review? GiantSnowman 15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

56 now :) GiantSnowman 09:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Working on it... GAB^gab 23:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, but still at 56... GiantSnowman 12:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A few of us worked on it all afternoon and got it down to ... 50. Progress! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I got it down to 41. I'll take a minute to go off on my soapbox about needing more patrolling admins at SPI to assist in conducting investigations and taking administrative action as needed. The CU completed section is chronically backlogged and could really use some admin hand even if just to say not strong enough evidence and they haven't edited in a month. Re-report if it starts again and things become clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are editors (like me) who would gladly prefer to help out, rather than just report. If I thought it all possible to be approved a CU without being a sysop, I would ask. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read that close enough. The problem is lack of admins? Only one way to fix that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems, but a chronic shortage of consistently willing admins is part of it. SPI has a high burnout rate, you kind of deal with the worst of Wikipedia constantly. That said, applications are accepted for non-admin clerks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC Closure review

Dear All,

per this discussion I kindly ask a review, or at least an explanation, because as far as I know, in case the are more Support than Oppose the case should be considered decided according to my experiences...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Hello, KIENGIR is doing lies, he should BANNED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamunno8 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be about this Talk:Cossack Hetmanate#RfC Merge. KIENGIR please see WP:NOTVOTE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In the mean time, I've blocked Mamunno8 indefinitely. Multiple accusations of lying without any evidence (here and [7] and [8]), and also damages an article for no good reason [9]. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. I've learned the catch is not necessarily the number of votes, but the strength of the arguments behind them.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC))

Paid editing

Hey, fellow admins,

I was looking at the WikiConference website to see if there was any information about the 2019 event (there isn't) and saw a user page plugging a paid editing website, https://wikipagecreator.org/, that looks pretty professional and makes bold promises, like articles about their clients will never be deleted! I had an idea that these services existed but I had never seen a company devoted to placing customer's profiles on Wikipedia.

I think I know the answer to this but is there anything we, or WMF, can do about this? It is just so, uh, blatant and unapologetic. I thought of paid editing as being done by a lot of freelancers, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Judging from the "from common to famously known" tagline, it's yet another name for Get Wikified (and looks very similar to the known wikipagecreator.net). creffett (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize now that there is nothing that admins and editors can do about this. It just challenged my perception of paid editing which was freelance writers making a few bucks by writing a few articles for random clients. Having at least one company solely devoted to getting their clients' profiles placed on Wikipedia was startling to me, but I guess this is just the shape of paid editing nowadays. Do you think we could write them and get a clients' list to check out the quality of their work? One can dream! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that. Make sure that they log into their accounts and prove that they actually wrote the articles they claimed. It is likely that they are using freelancers to write and/or post the content and that GetWikified is merely a front door. I also find the claims about multilingual spam to be interesting given Adam Kamani and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu. MER-C 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: You should look at WP:PAIDLIST if you want your mind completely blown. (Non-administrator comment) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What I found most concerning from a brief look was their FAQ (second last on the page ATM) that claims the Fifth Pillar amounts to a “loophole” in the WMF’s ToU.—Odysseus1479 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Community sanctions

As a humble editor, I have been blocked by Admin as part of a content dispute (Interaction Timeline). This seems to me a clearcut case of WP:Misuse of administrative tools. Step 1: I have raised the issue with User:Fayenatic london. Step 2:I have raised the issue with an "Independent admin" User talk:Mike Selinker#User:Fayenatic london with no joy. Trying to follow WP:DR it states "The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." I know how much you guys love your boomerangs and it will be me hit with more sanctions but I really do think that Admin User:Fayenatic london's actions reflect badly on the office. I have informed User:Fayenatic london hereJorgeLaArdilla (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

From December 2018 to May 2019, JorgeLaArdilla has been moving articles on Arabic-related topics to page names with diacritics. These include the high-profile topics Surah and Hadith. User:HaEr48, user:Mathglot and user:General Ization asked him on his talk page to desist from this practice, and so did I, citing WP:MOSAR#Common transcription which IIRC had been linked in an edit summary by one of the other editors when reverting one of his page moves. MOS:ISLAM#Arabic transliteration has since been pointed out as the relevant guideline.

JorgeLaArdilla did not reply on his talk page, despite his claim at User_talk:Mike_Selinker that "I always have". Moreover, he not only ignored requests to revert his other similar page moves, but he carried on making more such moves. He was therefore coming across not as a humble editor, but as defiant and insolent, choosing to carry on imposing his personal preferences on the encyclopedia rather than to collaborate. I agreed with other editors that his conduct amounted to disruptive editing. As he had been warned by the above editors of possible sanctions, I imposed a short block of 24 hours, intending to alert him to the seriousness of his conduct. To that extent, it appears to have worked, as he is now engaging in discussions, e.g. at Talk:Al-Nas. I explained this to him when challenged on my talk page. (Special:Diff/899626883)

I'm open to trouting (and for that matter, to recall). If I should have referred the above conduct here for an uninvolved admin to impose the sanction, I will brace my cheek for the slap. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In Dec 2018 User:HaEr48 asked me to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11#Changing capitalization of sura article - not diacritics which I did. As new requests came into the project the naysayers there did nothing- it became apparant that The Islam Project is Moribund. One Title remained with a spelling mistake for Thirteen Years! before I picked up on it. It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. There is no consistency within the articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic the very second example of which proscribes ("Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi"), but is actually transcribed in the article as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī! The MOS talk pages of both do not show a consensus but they show the peops actually doing the work hitting the same problems I am facing. You are not presented with consitency of style within each article...crazy reasoning to have consistency accross title pages and no explanation why every other transliteration within the article differs. Then you get an editor fly in who doesnt know his diacritcs from his capitalisations and an Admin who doesnt know his Guidlines from his policies changing edits which no one has opposed close to 6 months- Strewth.I could go on (I'm sure I will have to) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Blatant UPE. Final warning given. Please block.

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

Above user has been creating articles at a rapid rate for secondary schools with little or no notability. Also virtually never has independent sources. Seems like a strange request from me, who as one of the coordinators of WP:WPSCH generally defends all school articles, but these are only very marginally schools (less than 50 students, frequently treatment facilities that offer education, etc). User in question never responds to messages and states he is a PR professional on his userpage. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: he finally responded with the most self-serving garbage I've ever seen. This is pretty darn straightforward. Clear policy violation, final warning given. Especially in light of the only explanation he's offered, I'd say block is unavoidable and as he created yet another article this morning, is absolutely needed to stop ongoing disruption. He can give his side in an unblock request. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely pending a full disclosure of all paid edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go through his creations, draftifying the ones that have potential but aren't there yet and nominating the non starters for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Phengly Oeung

Hi,

Phengly Oeung (likely https://www.linkedin.com/in/phengly-oeung-a9212a4b/) has copied several times https://cam-ed.com/about on User:Phengly Oeung/sandbox and Draft:CamEd Business School while never declaring his conflict of interest.

Can someone take action?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale 12:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Later today: Twinkle adding notifications for Speedy Deletions

This is the last time I'll post this here, but later today the new Twinkle feature for notifying users when speedy deleting their page creations (that is, not just when tagging) will go live. Barring any bugs this will likely mean numerous additional notifications we previously did not provide, so please go to your Twinkle preferences to curate the CSD for which you want to notify users of deletion (look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria). Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This should now be live; any comments/questions/bugs can be made at WT:TW. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal namespace deletion

Not sure how many editors have noticed but the portal namespace is been reduced by 80% percent since the mass creation of portals incident and there subsequent deletion with a strong effort to eliminate all portals that seems to be going well with little participation over at the deletion noticeboard. At this point I think its clear that portal namespace has failed. I agree that there was a recent RfC about retaining them ....but the effort to update them has not happened with a few editors having a field day deleting portals with zero attempt at fixing problems... that has reduced the namespace to fewer then 1000 portals for 5000+ (that all agree was to much...but no call for mass deletion of non automated portals). I am sure many are aware I am not a fan of deletion over improvement when possible (lazy way out in my view)..but.... since no one is caring at large about thousands of portals deleted in the past few months ....I am proposing again to drop the portal namespace since we have no system in place to notify the community when portals are outdated as we do with ever other namespace (like a page banner-tag) and the fact we cant get far if they are being deleted faster then the community can fix them up....clear not many care anymore!!! --Moxy 🍁 15:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that the lack of any monitoring of portals is a huge problem. As Moxy rightly notes, there has never been any systematic monitoring of quality of portals, nor any way of tagging those which are deficient. Sadly, WikiProject Portals has been more interested in quantity than in quality.

However, the figures which Moxy cites are misleading unless read in context. Here's some numbers:

• Number of portals before the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC: 1500
• Number of portals when TTH's portalspamming was halted: 5705
• Number of portals now: 1018

So we are actually down about 30% from the pre-portalspam total.

So what's actually happened is that a wave of deletions, including the two mass deletions (one, and two) removed nearly all the deprecated automated portals.

Once portals were being scrutinised, I and a number of other editors have continued the scrutiny, and have MFDed many other portals which failed the portal guidelines because they were abandoned, broken, too narrow a scope, etc. This is catching up on backlog of 14 years of neglect, and even now we are still finding portals abandoned in a pitiful state since before 2010, e.g. MFD:Portal:College basketball.

There are currently about 100 portals being discussed at MFD, and I expect that there are probably about another 100 portals which will be deleted in this cleanup phase. That will leave us with about 750–850 portals.

Some of those are highly maintained and do quite a good job. Most are mediocre, exceeding the bare minimums set out in the guidleines, but add little value for readers.

The big issue is that two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that head articles and navboxes now offer most the functionality which portals set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Dhaka, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Dhaka, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. Most existing portals use an outmoded format which displays a preview of the lead of selected articles under a few headings, and an image gallery. These are now redundant, since both previews and image galleries are built into every page.

They are also a maintenance nightmare, because they are built from swarms of sub-pages, each consisting of a content forks of the lead of a selected article. These become outdated (most are now a decade old), and are attack vectors. They need to go.

The question is whether there is a) consensus on a new format for portals which does actually add value for readers, and b) editors with the energy and commitment to build and maintain those portals.

I think that we already have the model for a new format, in the shape of those adapted by Bermicourt from the German-language Wikipedia. They are what one editor recently described as mega-navboxes: e.g. Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. They don't need the forest of sub-pages, and they don't waste time offering previews, because the Wikimedia software now does that already.

That's only my personal preference, but I have so far seen no other proposal which would make portals useful in the face of the new technologies.

We need an RFC to decide what new format to adopt, and then probably another RFC to decide what to do with the hundreds of old-style portals.

But whatever is decided for the future, the removal of hundreds of abandoned or misconceived portals will make the path ahead clearer. One of the perennial problems with portals has been that the number of editors willing to create portals has way exceeded the number of editors willing to do the hard work of building them into something which genuinely adds value for readers, and way exceeded the number of editors committed to maintaining the portals on an ongoing basis.

The Jan–Feb 2019 data on portal pageviews shows that only 52 portals get more than 100 pageviews per day, and only 150 portals get over 50 views.

I think the way ahead is to concentrate efforts on fewer, better portals. So I would support a radical cull ... but I would oppose outright deletion of all portals. That all-or-nothing binary thinking was rejected last year, and it would be folly to delete the portals which get hundreds of pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain to me the intended purpose of portals and how they relate to the "outline of ..."/"index of ..." pages that we have for various things. I've never figured it out.

An aside:One of the perennial problems with portals has been that the number of editors willing to create portals has way exceeded the number of editors willing to do the hard work of building them into something which genuinely adds value for readers, and way exceeded the number of editors committed to maintaining the portals on an ongoing basis The same can be said of the majority of stub creations, notably for villages and schools, unless we are intending to be a basic gazetteer. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I agree about that sort of stub raising similar issues. However, the difference with stubs is that they are actual encyclopedic content, and most of them are capable of expansion into meaningful articles. I think that the bar for stubs is set too low, so that too many of them are simply standalone list entries. We haven't entirely shaken off the heady optimism of the late 2000s expansionist era, when it seemed that any topic would eventually be built on. The reality now is that we have a large collection of permastubs, and some sort of rethink is long overdue. For example, most articles on Irish townlands have been merged to lists, and I would favour a similar approach being more widely adopted.

Portals are a different issue, because they are not content. The are a navigational device and/or a showcase for content, so the case for retention is utilitarian: if they aren't doing that job, we shouldn't waste readers's time with them. They should either be deleted (as we do with superfluous categories or navboxes), or mothballed: unlinked from articles etc, and marked as historical unless and until someone revives them.

I too am unclear on the distinction between portals, outlines and index-ofs. My overall impression is that most portals exist because some editors like making them, rather than because they meet any particular need or add any significant value. Most of them are products of that optimistic era of expansionism, when there was an implicit assumption that any page on anything would eventually attract editors to expand it ... but insofar as there was a purpose, the idea seems to have been that a) portals were a magazine-type way of allowing readers to sample sub-topics in a given field, and b) that they provided some sort of bridge between reading and editing, by indicating areas where work was needed.

In practice, neither role has been served well. The magazine-type approach requires huge amounts of ongoing effort, and while that works reasonably well on the main page, the large active teams working there have been replicated on v few — if any — portals. The result is that most portals are just outdated magazine covers. And I have yet to see any evidence that the theoretical bridge between reading and editing works in practice; even the pages which try to provide it have too few pageviews to make much impact.

The mega-navbox style portals such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern do have a lot of similarities to outlines and indexes, both of which are unloved and little used. I think that all of them function best when used at v high levels, on topic areas spanning tens of of thousands of articles ... but I am unpersuaded that more than a few of them add enough value to enough readers to justify the work involved in crating and maintaining them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support, although I think this needs broader discussion. It's about time we euthanize the portal namespace, which I'm starting to feel is the Esperanza of our times (there are certain parallels; potentially good ideas, initial RFCs/MFDs that resulted in keep/no consensus and spurred on reform that was half-hearted and in portals' case might have actually done more harm than good, and nominal guidelines that neither community actually respected, although portals didn't have bureaucracy). In the ~10-12 years I've read Wikipedia (although my current account is only a year old) I've never once looked at a portal except in light of the controversy. I thought it was just a preference of mine but it appears I'm not the only one. Per WP:PRESERVE, and to preempt a potential pro-portal argument, I say we delete the namespace and move all existing portals from "Portal:X" to "Wikipedia:Portal X" and protect them if the community feels like it's not that much a waste. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The fact that a) there was an ill-conceived portal-creation spree and b) there are unmaintained portals out there is no more reason to delete portal space than mainspace, which suffers from similar problems i.e. mass creation of useless stubs, poor maintenance of thousands of articles and many with low viewing numbers. As the community voted recently against deleting all portals, what is needed is consensus on the role of portals and then standards to be achieved. BHG and I have tried to get this going, but we've just swung from portalmania to anti-portalmania, neither of which is a responsible approach to managing an encyclopaedia. So I agree with a lot of BrownHairedGirl's comments, although I probably wouldn't go quite as far in some ways; nevertheless I think there is a consensus to be had if editors don't swing towards the extremes. And that would bring benefit to Wikipedia with portals being used both as navigational aids alongside categories and as tools to assist projects in achieving coverage, balance and article improvement in their topic areas. Bermicourt (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Can we not have proposals that require community comment at WP:AN unless administrative action is required? If this is really a subject we want to get into again, WP:VPPRO is -> that way. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysopping of Od Mishehu

CheckUser evidence has been presented to the Arbitration Committee indicating that Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has disruptively edited Wikipedia while logged out.  The edits appear to be intentional and were detected over a number of occasions.  The Committee has verified that evidence and has been unable to establish a satisfactory or alternative explanation.  The administrator permissions of Od Mishehu are removed under Level II procedures, effective immediately.

• Support: AGK, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, SilkTork, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: Courcelles
• Inactive: Callanecc, Joe Roe

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 16:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Desysopping of Od Mishehu

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

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

• For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Copyright revdels backlog

Resolved

Could we have some admin eyes on Category:Requested RD1 redactions please? Currently 36 open requests, some days old. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that part of the problem is that our policies on proper handling of copyvio revels are unclear and inconsistent. Apparently, we're now doing revdels routinely for copyvios, but not all pages reflect that; there is a problem with attribution of the lost edits that is difficult to solve. I've looked through the backlog and many of these are complex requests where it is unclear exactly what should be done. UninvitedCompany 16:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've done a number of them, there are still about a dozen left. Some of them are especially complex or large, such as The Hot Zone (miniseries) where most of the article's history would be deleted all to hide a relatively short synopsis, or Tejaswini Ananth Kumar, where there already have been several revdels, and where I don't believe the revision ids provided in the template are correct. ST47 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Currently back to normal.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016 ban review request

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

---

SlitherioFan2016 has requested a review of their community site ban and has asked for it to be posted here. The following is from User talk:SlitherioFan2016#June 2019...

I, SlitherioFan2016, would like to review my site ban.

• I have reviewed every single policy on Wikipedia thoroughly.
• I now completely understand what edit warring is.
• I now completely understand why I got so many blocks.
• I was told to leave Wikipedia and never to create any new accounts and not to edit as an IP for at least 6 to 12 months. I have stayed away from the project for 24 months, and am older and have a better understanding of the project works. I was in 6th grade at the time of my first block, and now I am in 9th grade.
• Please unblock my original account so that I can have another chance to be useful on the English Wikipedia.
• If unblocked, I would stay away from content ratings articles and start off by fixing off JR East fleet totals, such as the removal of 209 series trains on the Chūō-Sōbu Line.
• I really do promise not to edit war ever again. If there are disagreements over editing I would seek dispute resolution instead.
• I have made some useful edits on FANDOM. The FANDOM account I used is called SlitherioFan2016
• I did edit as User:Mali1702 as well as all the other accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlitherioFan2016 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlitherioFan2016.
• I understand that seeking forgiveness is especially difficult for sockpuppeteers because the act of sockpuppetry is perceived as dishonest, even if the sockpuppeteer in question is not inherently malevolent. However, I also understand that sockpuppeteers aren’t necessarily “never” unblocked. Rather, sockpuppeteers are rarely unblocked.
• As I am currently sitebanned I would request that this review be posted to the relevant notice board where possible. --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

• Oppose. This user appears to be saying the right things, if perhaps not going into specific detail. But we've heard promises like this before from this user, over and over again. See for example, their user page from early 2017. SlitherioFan2016 was banned back in 2017 and immediately engaged in at least two more instances of evasion. Note, though, this was back in 2017. They were always a substantial drain on the project and nothing here convinces me otherwise. Counting in this user's favour is the apparent 24 month period with no evasion (note this hasn't been verified at this time) and the claim they are now in 9th grade. It's not enough for me, but should be considered by others. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – as sockpuppetry is involved, perhaps a CU can advise whether there has been any recent socking or block evasion? Thanks! –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question. Would it be possible to hear from IAKenny? It was disclosed on-wiki that IAKenny was SlitherioFan2016's real life teacher in a conversation with Tarage, Yamla, and Bbb23. It might be good to get some insight from them as it relates to this request. Side note. Slitherio, why do you want to edit Wikipedia? Can you share what you enjoy about editing besides vandalism? I've watchlisted your talk page if you care to respond. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

   Support. This response seems to be about right for a Wikipedian. Thus, I'm willing to cast a !vote in their favor. It says Yes right now _{pending my edit request.} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm leaning towards support per WP:ROPE pending a CheckUser. He seems to have not done anything malicious or otherwise contra-policy since 2017, and while he might have done such things before if he does it again he can be promptly reblocked. (Also, as an aside, the Fandom edits are irrelevant one way or another.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment SlitherioFan2016 caused a lot of problems for the project and consumed a lot of its time. That said I believe in the philosophy of the standard offer. However, there should first be a check-user and then we can advance with this discussion. If there has been no sock-puppetry then we should discuss how we can facilitate the editor's return, but with a view of avoiding the previous problems. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I find no evidence of socking in the last 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm leaning Support too. Yes there was a lot of trouble, but 2 years is a very long time for someone of that age and should bring a significant improvement in maturity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!, it is worth giving them a chance as they are now more mature, and they seem to understand what they did wrong.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John M Wolfson and Betty Logan. A difference in maturity between a sixth-grader and a ninth-grader is natural and expected. If they prove themselves wrong, they will be re-blocked very quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll give unblocking a try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:AGF (with WP:ROPE as a backup :-)). Miniapolis 22:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support – per Boing!, Ivan and PK3. Two years can make a huge difference at a young age. – Levivich 07:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support - The user seems to have matured and in my opinion, they are less likely to be unconstructive than a new user. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support, per WP:ROPE. I'm always willing to give people another chance, due to my past. This person's situation is quite similar to mine. Two years matured me greatly, and I do not deny for one second that the same time frame has matured them too. If I'm wrong, they can be re-blocked, but for now. Now since the CheckUser stuff has been cleared up. Give them another chance. You can change greatly in two years. The Duke 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support giving them another chance. Two years is a long time. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Users can reform, and this user has went out of their way of show that they deserve another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support They are acting more mature, and the fact there hasn't been any evidence of socking shows me that they are genuine about their request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I do believe indeed that 2 years especially at this age can change someone a lot and the CU check came clean, so if they are willing to be constructive here, why not. I would see a 1 account restriction for a year and a topic ban on content rating systems, indefinite with the right to appeal in six months after the actions are taken. --Kostas20142 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support: A second chance never hurt, per Miniapolis, Levivich, Ivanvector et al. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have been asked to comment by MJL. SlitherioFan2016 is currently a student in Year 9 - roughly equivalent to American 9th grade. I am still tutoring him at his school once a week, having started in February 2017. To the best of my knowledge he has fully obeyed the ban on editing Wikipedia for the last 24 months, including the absolute ban on creating sockpuppets. He is two years older now and is (as you would expect) more mature in his behaviour. He began editing Wikipedia while he was still in our equivalent of elementary school (Year 6 or earlier), but he is now an adolescent. My suggestion would be for him to be allowed to edit with restrictions (on parole?). I enjoy working with him in real life, but I am also aware that his time on Wikipedia has been difficult for you. IAKenny (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  @IAKenny: Thank you for responding! This is incredibly valuable insight, and your work is ever so appreciated. I believe that the unbanning of Slitherio's account comes with the understanding that they will be closely monitored for a while.
  Yamla, I hope this at least partially satisfies your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support Two years is a very long time at this age. He is trying to follow the rules; many of us are likely to be keeping an eye on him. --valereee (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

A request to see deleted edits of files

• I have received a request by a non-admin, to see deleted edits of 13 files, at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Can you help?. The piece of Chinese text in it (已刪除版本和已刪除的內容) Google-translates as "Deleted version and deleted content". What should I do? Is this request legitimate? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: perhaps there is a compounding language barrier here? None of those appear to be links to files at all, just pages. As far as the deleted page versions go, I'd decline this massive fishing expedition without some good reasons from the requester. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: Sorry, by "file" I meant "page" :: word usage persistence from older computers. I will ask him what he needs this information for. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Back in January, MCC214 filed some an WP:SPI against 0格格不入 (see the bottom section of User talk:0格格不入 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthingsgo/Archive), and most of the others appear to have some sort of sockpuppetry connection. Note that NumCinq, ET4Eva, Advogato4, and 格格不入 were included in the same filing, and CometQ and Advo2 appear on the same page in earlier investigations. (All of these accounts' userspaces are linked in the list of pages.) I suspect that MCC214 is trying to prove sockpuppetry by someone. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A non-admin wants to see deleted edits

• Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Can you help? and advise me and User:MCC214 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I've combined this with the section you already opened here, see responses above. If they want a SPI, send them to WP:SPI where admins can investigate. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

permissions requirements no longer met

Hello!

Since I have been inactive for quite a lot, I have been removed from the arbitation commitee clerks. That being said, I do no longer have the requirements or the demonstrated need for the templateeditor flag. Therefore you may remove the flag. Should I join the clerks team again, I can file a new application.

Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Putting errors into articles - productive?

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

---

Should administrators ever deliberately put grammatical errors or spelling mistake into articles? It seems to me that the answer is obviously: no, not under any circumstances. But I know of several administrators who frequently do this. If you think such behaviour benefits Wikipedia, can you explain why? 82.132.241.118 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't believe I know what you're talking about. Maybe you're mistaken on certain aspects of the Manual of Style. Perhaps this can be put in WP:BJAODN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the manual of style have to do with spelling and grammar? I will post diffs later on when I have time.82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Community-banned Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I high dudgeon today; see e.g. 80.106.73.199, recently blocked by resident expert Number 57. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I got the feeling it was him. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird conclusion. I've certainly never encountered John M Wolfson before, so if they think I am someone they know, they are wrong.82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is sometimes "yes"; that's why we have {{sic}} and {{Notatypo}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about errors. If those templates apply, it wasn't an error. But I frequently see a group of administrators deliberately putting errors into articles. Should this ever happen? If so, why?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @82.132.233.35: Could you please give actual examples instead of vague comments? creffett (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is one: Special:Diff/866187992. How did the encyclopaedia benefit from having "escalator" spelled "escalotor"?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another: Special: Diff/868965217. How did the encyclopaedia benefit from including nonsensical text like "it is fast accessible"?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that both of those are tagged "rollback" and have a comment to the effect of "revert sock," it would appear to be a mass revert of sockpuppet edits, and presumably a couple of those reverts undid sock-based grammar fixes. I'd call that an honest mistake and try a little WP:AGF. Also, considering how deeply you seem to have dug to find these...you wouldn't happen to be related to those socks, would you? creffett (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Page move system jam

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=900928021 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Since we're only able to move up to 100 subpages, I suspect the system sees 145 subpages and doesn't know which ones to move. I've left a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Mass_page_move; hopefully someone can move some or all of the subpages individually, and then the rest of the work will be easy. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done by GreenC. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could someone who is active in SPI and an OTRS agent take a look at: ticket:2019061010006591

Based upon this WP:SPI, it appears they should also be a CUS Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, would you be best transferring the ticket to checkuser-en-wp? It could be transferred back afterwards. AGK ■ 17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

AGK, Good idea  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram banned by WMF office

Cross-post for those who haven't seen yet: Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)