Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Adsfvdf54gbb: Closing - tban enacted
Line 304: Line 304:


== User:Adsfvdf54gbb ==
== User:Adsfvdf54gbb ==
{{archive top|1=As the discussion has tapered off, closing this with the result below. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{U|Adsfvdf54gbb}} is, by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from from the subjects of Newington College and its alumni, broadly construed.}}
*{{userlinks|Adsfvdf54gbb}}
*{{userlinks|Adsfvdf54gbb}}
Would appreciate some input on this. {{user|Adsfvdf54gbb}} is an SPA that seems to exist solely to nominate for deletions articles related to [[Newington College]] and its alumni, as well as articles created by {{user|Castlemate}}. To be fair to the operator of the account, many of these articles have indeed been deleted as covering non notable topics. However there are enough quixotic nominations in there to make it clear that no serious review is being undertaken on these articles prior to nomination, for instance:
Would appreciate some input on this. {{user|Adsfvdf54gbb}} is an SPA that seems to exist solely to nominate for deletions articles related to [[Newington College]] and its alumni, as well as articles created by {{user|Castlemate}}. To be fair to the operator of the account, many of these articles have indeed been deleted as covering non notable topics. However there are enough quixotic nominations in there to make it clear that no serious review is being undertaken on these articles prior to nomination, for instance:
Line 346: Line 348:
*'''Support Indefinite Block''' The only thing that stopped me from filing this is because some of the AfDs are justified and indeed deleted. But as already said above the manner he is targeting pages created by {{u|Castlemate}} and certain category of articles is really concerning, as he seems to be here only for Deleting articles. All or 90℅ of his edits so far is creating deletion pages. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/812996344 admitted having another account] but never disclose it till now. This is very serious issue. SP investigation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/813070915 was closed] with no action because no account to check against, but the CheckUser hinting at possibility of socking though no technical data to support that. I don't think topic ban will address anything, since he is clearly not ready to edit articles. Indefinite block is more appropriate until the time he disclose his other accounts and make it clear he will edit Wikipedia in general not only nominating articles for deletion. –[[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support Indefinite Block''' The only thing that stopped me from filing this is because some of the AfDs are justified and indeed deleted. But as already said above the manner he is targeting pages created by {{u|Castlemate}} and certain category of articles is really concerning, as he seems to be here only for Deleting articles. All or 90℅ of his edits so far is creating deletion pages. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/812996344 admitted having another account] but never disclose it till now. This is very serious issue. SP investigation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/813070915 was closed] with no action because no account to check against, but the CheckUser hinting at possibility of socking though no technical data to support that. I don't think topic ban will address anything, since he is clearly not ready to edit articles. Indefinite block is more appropriate until the time he disclose his other accounts and make it clear he will edit Wikipedia in general not only nominating articles for deletion. –[[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban''', but not a block without further evidence of problem. The critical thing in my eyes is the blanket nominations. Of course you'll see some pages deleted if you nominate a whole batch indiscriminately (even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811200374 vandalbots revert some disruptive edits]), but if you're just here to knock out a bunch of articles, not to contribute productively whatsoever, you're really no better than the vandalbot. Supporting only a ban because a ban will (a) cause the user to stop editing entirely, (b) be breached and produce a block, or (c) cause the user to edit in a different area. In the first case, there's no disruption, in the second we have a block anyway, and in the third a block would potentially have prevented us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Remember that having used another account in the past isn't grounds for sanctions unless there's some complicating factor, which I don't see here. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban''', but not a block without further evidence of problem. The critical thing in my eyes is the blanket nominations. Of course you'll see some pages deleted if you nominate a whole batch indiscriminately (even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811200374 vandalbots revert some disruptive edits]), but if you're just here to knock out a bunch of articles, not to contribute productively whatsoever, you're really no better than the vandalbot. Supporting only a ban because a ban will (a) cause the user to stop editing entirely, (b) be breached and produce a block, or (c) cause the user to edit in a different area. In the first case, there's no disruption, in the second we have a block anyway, and in the third a block would potentially have prevented us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Remember that having used another account in the past isn't grounds for sanctions unless there's some complicating factor, which I don't see here. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}


== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava ==
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava ==

Revision as of 08:15, 19 December 2017

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 101 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 81 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 13 73 86
      TfD 0 1 1 4 6
      MfD 0 0 5 0 5
      FfD 0 0 2 0 2
      RfD 0 0 43 40 83
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Counterfeit_consumer_good#Proposed split

      (Initiated 495 days ago on 5 May 2023) The last comment was posted 8 months ago, and the nominator never specified which sections to split off. - Waterard, not water. talk - contribs 01:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per WP:SPLITCLOSE. There is unanimous consent to split. I would ping the other editors who were involved in the discussion and see what they had in mind before performing the split. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

      (Initiated 280 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 129 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 107 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 105 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 95 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

      Report
      Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8380 total) (Purge)
      Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
      Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree
      Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit,move Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee
      Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee
      Koi Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
      Koi... Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
      Sarah McBride 2024-09-11 03:33 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action under GENSEX Daniel Case
      Election denial movement in the United States 2024-09-11 02:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Ad Orientem
      Lisa Cameron 2024-09-11 00:47 2025-09-11 00:47 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
      Virtuous Pedophiles 2024-09-10 23:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Aoidh
      Elisa Hategan 2024-09-10 23:45 2024-09-17 23:45 edit,move Dropping to ecp, edit war is between non-ec accounts ScottishFinnishRadish
      Caleb Alloway 2024-09-10 23:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
      Jaime Macías Alarcón 2024-09-10 23:22 indefinite create Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
      Anomaly detection 2024-09-10 21:36 2024-09-17 21:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      September 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack 2024-09-10 19:29 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Koch people 2024-09-10 18:55 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
      Talk:Болдбаатарын Дамдиндорж 2024-09-10 05:13 2024-09-17 05:13 create Liz
      2024 Masyaf strikes 2024-09-10 01:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Niyogi Brahmin 2024-09-10 01:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
      Amira Hass 2024-09-09 20:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
      Sodhi 2024-09-09 18:59 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Favonian
      Template:WPLA10k 2024-09-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Draft:Ironland 2024-09-09 10:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBES FM Hamburg 2024-09-09 10:44 indefinite edit,move No longer necessary: requested at WP:RPPD Johnuniq
      Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross 2024-09-08 18:46 indefinite edit,move LTA Elli
      Template:Sandbox heading/Navigation 2024-09-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4943 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Rape in Pakistan 2024-09-08 17:16 2024-12-08 17:16 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case
      2024 Allenby Bridge shooting 2024-09-08 17:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi 2024-09-08 05:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Killing of Aysenur Eygi 2024-09-08 05:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Vrishni 2024-09-08 04:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
      Abhira people 2024-09-08 04:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour Party

      All wrapped up here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Stealth canvassing has resulted in a group of editors -- most likely more to come -- to influence an AFD that was leaning toward deletion before a recent uptick in voting. I am requesting either more eyes on the discussion or a decision by an experienced admin before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I was not aware of the AFD, let alone the article's creation, before I saw the above tweet. Yair Rosenberg is an uninvolved journalist who is not a Wikipedia editor as far as I can determine, so the canvasing policy does not apply. (I did tweet to Rosenberg in response (one only), and to my followers (once only).) The deletion of articles, among other issues, is a subject of fairly regular media interest as a perusal of items on Google News demonstrates. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      So I can rally a group of people who share my views so long as I have a somewhat popular Twitter handle and it's not canvassing? That is comforting to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, at time of writing I have 117 followers on twitter, only a handful of whom are Wikipedia editors. Yair Rosenberg has many more followers, but is outside any possible sanction from this website. Philip Cross (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      All that means is that there is nobody registered at Wikipedia who could be eligible for sanctions related to canvassing, not that off-wiki canvassing should be ignored in the deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "It's meatpuppetry, then." - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If the canvassing person is not on Wikipedia, the most we can do is ignore !votes which we suspect were made by these meatpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose the problem is kinda mute at this point since the canvassed editors partially succeeded in keeping the POV fork. Can't say "no consensus" was the actual consensus before the canvassing started. Hopefully, a legitimate AFD can take place in a few months without editors feeling inclined to be influenced by a tweet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I hate to be the pedant in the group, but TheGracefulSlick the proper term is a moot point. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC) the more you know[reply]
      I suspect that TGS was perhaps being deliberately funny. But if not: I wonder if there's an entomological (!!) connection between "moot" and "mute", since when a subject is moot, one stands mute about it. Oh boy! Research!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Potentially, but I see it misused often enough I figured I'd say something. Likely a link, though, and now it'll stick in my brain until I can actually look it up........ Primefac (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec)Naw. Looks like "mute" comes from Latin mutus "silent, speechless, dumb," [1] while "moot" comes from a Germanic word meaning "to meet", which became old English "mōt". [2]. Oh well, back to the discussion about mootpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      OED: moot Cognate with Middle Dutch moet (Dutch †moet ), Old High German muot , Old Icelandic mót , Old Swedish mot (Swedish mot (now rare)), Danish regional mod , and (in different stem-classes) Middle Low German mȫte (German regional (Low German) Mööt ), Middle High German muote , muoze , and Norwegian møte , Swedish möte , Danish møde ); perhaps related to the Germanic base of mathel v. Further etymology uncertain. Compare i-moot n. In Old English only in compounds before the 12th cent. Uncompounded use in English is probably partly reinforced by borrowing of the corresponding early Scandinavian word, and also partly aphetic.
      mute Anglo-Norman muet, moet, muwet, etc., and Middle French, French muet (adjective) dumb, mute, silent (early 13th cent. in Old French), refraining from speech (early 13th cent.), (of a letter) not pronounced, silent (1647; compare sense A. 4b), (of wine) stopped in the process of fermentation (1761), (noun) a person who is unable to speak (late 12th cent.), servant of a Turkish sultan (1585) < Anglo-Norman mu , muu , mut and Old French mu , mut dumb, mute (11th cent.; < classical Latin mūtus : see below) + -et -et suffix1. In β forms remodeled after classical Latin mūtus; compare Middle French, French mut (early 16th cent.), and also Occitan mut (c1050), Spanish mudo (1250), Italian muto (a1294), Catalan mut (c1300). Classical Latin mūtus is attested as adjective in the senses dumb, inarticulate, silent, speechless, not accompanied by speech, plosive, and as noun in the sense person who is unable to speak (compare also mūta (neuter plural) dumb creatures, mūta (feminine singular) mute consonant, after ancient Greek ἄϕωνα, neuter plural); it is probably an imitative formation. Apparently attested earlier in surnames from the late 12th cent., as Robertus Mut (1187), Alanus le Mute (1275).
      (whatever aphetic means, sounds like when your roses have been attacked by insects.) EEng 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I live in NYC: What is "roses"? What are "insects"? Is it like when rats attack a piece of pizza on a subway platform? [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (Actually, I live very near to a very beautiful park noted for its gardens, carefully planted so something is blooming in every season, and there are groundhogs and raccoons and skunks and squirrels (of course) and many birds, and an area set aside as a small nature preserve. The skunks used to come to visit us almost every garbage day, until NYC started composting and the compostable material went into critter-proof bins. Now we don't see them -- although we occasionally smell them.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      “The Haven is the name of Mr. Josiah Amberley’s house,” I explained. “I think it would interest you, Holmes. It is like some penurious patrician who has sunk into the company of his inferiors. You know that particular quarter, the monotonous brick streets, the weary suburban highways. Right in the middle of them, a little island of ancient culture and comfort, lies this old home, surrounded by a high sun-baked wall mottled with lichens and topped with moss, the sort of wall—”
      “Cut out the poetry, Watson,” said Holmes severely.
      EEng 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      ChOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      BLP block review

      This feels like it's gone as far as it needs to. --Jayron32 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Posting this as a block review because due to technical issues I cannot presently reply on a page where I'm being pinged; I'm assuming the pings are related to the block.

      I have just blocked nagualdesign, a very experienced user, over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng, a talk page so large that I cannot load it to edit. I was able to load the diff from my watchlist, and in intending to "undo" the edit I inadvertently clicked on rollback (which saves automatically). Then, being unable to edit the page to explain the rollback (as WP:ROLLBACK advises) I posted a note at User talk:nagualdesign advising the editor why I had reverted their edit, and warning that they should not do it again. In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time. While I was doing that they pinged me at EEng's talk, which I still can't load. I've also revdeleted the edits. To be clear: linking to this video is probably not useful to the encyclopedia but I don't see how just linking to it violates the policy, however describing the video in a way which states as fact an unproven criminal accusation certainly violates the policy, in my opinion. If I'm wrong or if I've overstepped with talk revocation, any admins are welcome to revert.

      I'm dropping the advisory note on nagualdesign's page although they're blocked, but as I noted I'm not able to save edits on EEng's talk so I cannot notify them except by pinging. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel that's a really questionable block. Neither is it a good use of WP:CFRD#2, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Not commenting on the block, but isn't there an issue of disruption when people can't even access a user's talk page? I know it's been mentioned a few times and I do think we should allow some flexibility on user page content but not archiving and forum, etc, doesn't really suit the project. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      nagualdesign has submitted a block review request via UTRS, so I guess we'll have to wait to see what the response is. I think it's worth clarifying that they weren't describing the video in that way, they were simply stating the video's actual name (and the video is by a mainstream comic), so the block does seem a bit harsh. As a side note, why is EEng's user talk page not being archived?? Number 57 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if my issue of not being able to load the page is due only to its size or possibly due to some other issue with CSS or something on the page, or just poor connection on my end. Like I said I can load diffs, but the page never finishes loading. I can see in the history that the page size is a little over one megabyte, which is about ten times larger than the point where WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles should be split, although it also notes our largest article is about 1.1MB and the software limit is 2MB. I know EEng likes to have a long talk page and in general a place for editors to joke around, and I've never had problems loading it before today, so I don't know what's up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be a pest, but the longest page according to Special:LongPages is 853k, which is a full 266k smaller than EEng's talk at 1120k. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to note, EEng's talk page is indeed quite long, and takes a few seconds to load on my machine, but it's quite popular, and numerous editors participate there, so it's obviously accessible for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It's being archived, just not very aggressively. I'll take another pass in the next few days. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict × 3) Yeah I just went to that report too; that's the longest article. The longest page according to Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages is a deleted page that's nearly 10MB, which I didn't try to load. But a few lines up that list is User talk:Stuartyeates/Archive 19, a page about twice the size of EEng's page, which I can load it with no problem at all. These sizes don't take into account the size of media files on the page, and I know EEng likes pictures. Maybe that's it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse. Linking to a BLP violation on an external site is itself a BLP violation, and the title of that particular video is certainly a BLP violation. Quoting from the lead of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." That particular allegation is far stronger than those supported by reliable sources. The editor was warned not to repeat the violation. He responded with mild incivility, telling Ivanvector to "get a grip", and then immediately repeated the BLP violation. At that point, a block is warranted. Removing talk page access is warranted as well, as he had just repeated the BLP violation on his talk in response to a very reasonable warning. I am declining the UTRS unblock request. ~ Rob13Talk 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see everything because of revdels, but I gather that Ivanvector's warning [4] to nagualdesign could have been a bit more explicit e.g. by adding, "The video itself is not a BLP problem, being clear satire, but unfortunately the title of the video explicitly refers to an LP as a child molester, and it's probably a bad idea to link to that." I'm not sure, but it's possible that nagualdesign's post, on my talk page, itself quoted that title, and that's even more likely problematic. I'm not even saying Ivanvector is correct in saying that linking to a video like this, from a talk page, is itself technically a BLP violations, but if he'd been clearer as to what he saw as a problem – nagualdesign may have thought the video itself was being objected to – I suspect nagualdesign would have been willing to redact or modify his original post. I know I would have, had the specific problem been drawn to my attention. I suggest an unblock with lessons learned. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is not exactly block-worthy - the line is question is the actual title of the video in question and it's clearly satire (even if possibly true). On the other hand, repeating it after warning is also not the wisest thing to do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      (edit conflict)*Regarding technical issues, in hindsight, looking forward, perhaps in the future when experiencing technical challenges one might consider referring an issue-at-hand to another admin better situated to deftly address things (through one of the relevant notice boards, if not directly). Or wait until one has access to a more capable hardware/network situation etc. ––A Fellow Editor– 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • The revdel was good under RD2, and repeating the content after it had been pointed out to him was an issue that justified a block and TPA revocation as a preventative measure. I would be fine with unblocking if in the next UTRS appeal he agreed to tread carefully around BLPs in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't you think my point above, that perhaps there was confusion about what was specifically the problem (the title of the video, not the video itself) is important in evaluating this? EEng 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, its why I'm open to an unblock on the next UTRS appeal, and don't think that one should be rejected outright. I think it might have been handled better, but I also don't fault Ivanvector for blocking after revdel'd content was repeated. Basically, if the next UTRS comes in and says "I won't post the content in question again.", I think we should unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I accept the criticism, though I don't think my warning was that cryptic. My intent of posting the warning in the first place was to advise an experienced user who should know better by now that they did a thing they shouldn't do, because hey, we all slip up sometimes, right? If they gave me any indication that they understood, then problem solved and we all go back to making an encyclopedia. Their reply (revdeleted), suffice it to say, did not give me that impression. In fact that's part of why I posted here in the first place, to affirm that this was indeed a policy violation and blockable offense, and not just me being an ass as their UTRS appeal implied. As Tony said, if nagualdesign indicates that they've gotten the point, then the block has served its preventive purpose and it's no longer needed. For my part I will try to be more clear if I'm inclined to post this sort of advisory notice again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I'm still guessing you two were talking past each other (you talking about the title of the video without explicitly saying so, he assuming you were talking about its content, which is acceptable) and that this can just be seen as a misunderstanding. Bottom line: when pointing out a BLP vio, one should be very clear as to what bit of content constitutes the violation. EEng 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks to me like everything happened rather quickly, and under conditions where there were technical limitations and some ambiguity about whether the nature of what-not-to-do-again was sufficiently clear, it might have been a hasty block that could have been evaluated better by another admin. I doubt that there is anything more to be prevented by allowing the block to continue: I'm pretty sure the message has been received. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Per Tryptofish and WP:ROPE, I feel comfortable both endorsing the original block as justified, and also saying we should unblock now because I have faith that the now blocked editor has been given the opportunity to understand the gravity of the offense. --Jayron32 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse block, but I think the block will soon serve its purpose, once some more communication with the editor takes place. I disagree with BU Rob13's decision to immediately rejecting UTRS request after 40 minutes, without waiting for a response, especially when there is an ongoing discussion happening here in this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Alex Shih: Any decision I made through UTRS can certainly be reviewed by other administrators and the community. A declined unblock request from a single administrator does not prevent the community from arriving at consensus to unblock. I reviewed the block via UTRS and came to a decision quickly because AN moves slowly. It makes little sense to wait for a result here on a 31 hour block, which would come after the block had expired. The blocked editor deserves to have a neutral review before then. ~ Rob13Talk 00:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      On a side note, I'm 99% sure talkpage size has come up before at AN/ANI, with an outcome to ensure users didn't have massive talkpages. Difficult to search for it though! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Belated response

      Now that the block has ended perhaps I'll be permitted to explain my actions so that people don't get the wrong impression, as some clearly have done already.

      First of all I rather innocently posted a link to a humorous YouTube video on EEng's talk page, writing something like, After more than a month, Sassy Trump is back: [TITLE OF THE VIDEO, LINKED TO THE VIDEO] I also used the title of the video as my edit summary. I can see now how this, taken out of context, was a BLP violation. The next thing I noticed was that the edit had been RevDeleted by Ivanvector, so I posted on his talk page, May I ask why you reverted my edit? At about the same time, Ivan was posting an explanation on my talk page. I'm sure you've all read that. As I understood it he hadn't actually managed to open EEng's talk page or follow the link. My reply was words to the effect of, With all due respect, get a grip, Ivan. I did not add unsourced allegations of criminal activity about a living person, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title; "[TITLE OF THE VIDEO]" I then edited my post to link to the video as proof that that was indeed the title, rather than me making an allegation. In fact, I made 3 edits but I cannot remember every detail. Suffice to say that it was pretty tame. Probably just corrected a typo or something.

      Let's take a moment to think about this. Posting the first link on EEng's talk page was completely innocent. I hope we can all agree on that. I do understand though that without providing any context (notwithstanding the link itself) the video title was potentially libellous, as was the edit summary. My mistake. But when I attempted to discuss the matter on my talk page with Ivan I was quite clear about what I was saying. The title of the video was written verbatim along with the words, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title This is no more libellous than stating on the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, [Beverly Young Nelson] said that when she fought him off, he eventually gave up, but told her, "You're just a child, I'm the district attorney; if you tell anyone about this no one will ever believe you." Beverly Young Nelson did indeed say those things, and the YouTube video I posted does indeed have the title I posted. That is called reportage, and anyone who thinks either of those statements is libellous does not understand the meaning of the word.

      If I naively posted a link to a video of Guy Fawkes with the title, I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament, repeating the title in the edit summary, more fool me. If I then, in an attempt to explain myself, posted, Don't worry, "I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament" is just the title of the video, and you think that is libellous more fool you. More to the point the post I made on my talk page, as I said, consisted of 3 seperate edits. If the link itself was the BLP violation (vicarious libel?) then why didn't Ivan just RevDel that one edit, and leave the rest in place. My guess is because he didn't like me telling him to get a grip. A case of "I warned him and now he's giving me lip?! Bang goes the hammer!"

      I can't remember everything that I wrote in my appeal against the block, nor was I wasn't furnished with a copy, and I neglected to copy/paste the contents to my laptop before sending. Only admins are allowed to look at such things in darkened rooms behind closed doors. The crux of it was something along the lines of asking why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first or engaging in discussion. I don't think it was at all fair. I still don't, despite repeated suggestions for me to 'learn my lesson'. I think it stinks, to be honest. Then along came 'I got your back, buddy' Rob who upheld Ivan's decision and closed the appeal even though, as far as I can make out, Rob didn't really have a clue what had happened.

      I'd like to know what happens to edits that get RevDeleted. Are they wiped from the system completely? Or if not, who has access to them? And is it possible to reverse RevDels if they can be shown to have been made in error? If any of that's possible then I'd again like to request an uninvolved admin (ie, not one who is sympathetic to Ivan or Rob and believes that admins should stick together) to reassess this whole sorry affair, looking at my actual edits. Ideally I think any edits that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place should be resurrected. In my opinion Ivan and Rob took their power a tad too far and made unsubtantiate allegations about my conduct here. The irony that they were motivated by the spirit of WP:BLP seems to have been lost on them entirely.

      I'll be posting a notice about this on my talk page, being careful not to make the same mistakes. If anybody has a problem with that let me know. nagualdesign 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way, who is UbiSoftDev (talk · contribs)? Thank you, Ivanvector, for reverting his/her good faith edit to my talk page in my absence. I wonder, could it possibly be TheDeliveryGuy (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), back from the beyond? nagualdesign 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      To answer one question specifically: RDs can be undone as simply as they were done. Oversighted edits can't be restored (at least by those who lack the power of GreyskullOversight). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. Thanks. nagualdesign 00:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As an uninvolved admin, I gave my thoughts above that I think the edits in question are within the scope of WP:RD2 because of the title. I'm also friendly with EEng, so I wouldn't consider myself biased in favour of Ivanvector or Rob. I would have personally replied to your email asking that you agree not to post the content in question again and unblocked if you agreed, but I think that the revdel was warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the RevDel of EEng's talk page, but not the one (3 actually) made to my talk page. Which do you mean? And do you think that the statement, "The title of the video is [TITLE OF THE VIDEO]", is libellous, contravenes WP:BLP and should therefore have been RevDeleted, or just the link itself (1 edit)? nagualdesign 00:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) The details that nagualdesign posted here are essentially correct, in case anyone is observing this who can't see the revdeleted edits. I do not have oversight permissions, so these edits are available to any admin. As for the series of three revdeleted edits: the first was when nagualdesign reposted the link with the verbatim description of the video (I considered the description to be the violation, not the video itself), and the next two subsequent edits were copyedits to nagualdesign's original post but which left the description unmodified. Since the [offending] description was visible in all three, RD2 required that all three were hidden. The appeal that nagualdesign refers to that they can't see is on UTRS, which admins can see here; if someone more familiar with UTRS can email a copy, please do. In the clear vision of retrospection I can see that I could have restored the content of these edits with the offending parts removed, so I'll go ahead and do that.
      For what it's worth, I do prefer to discuss things like this with experienced editors, but the "get a grip" response (which included the [offending] description repeated) read to me as "screw you, I'll post whatever I want no matter what the policy says" and as I considered that the edits required revdelete again, I blocked so there would be no third occurrence. I posted here for review not long afterwards. BU Rob13 and I interact frequently at WP:SPI but otherwise I have no particular familiarity with any of the editors (admins and non-admins) who have commented.
      I also have no idea who UbiSoftDev is, but the one-hour-old account was blocked by a checkuser this morning. My assumption is it's either someone that nagualdesign crossed at some point, or much much much more likely it's someone that I pissed off. I try not to put too much thought into why sockpuppets do what they do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I certainly appreciate your honesty, Ivan. I'm sure that if I was allowed to discuss this dispassionately in the first place you probably wouldn't have blocked be. I hope you also understand why I told you to get a grip. It not like I used any sort of pejoratives or foul language, is it? (Rhetorical question.) nagualdesign 00:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      ...I see that you have restored the post on my talk page. Thank you. However, you have redacted the title of the video. Let me ask everyone here if they agree with the following:
      The statement Bob is a rapist!, if unsubstantiated, violates BLP.*
      The statement Alice said, "Bob is a rapist!", if properly sourced, is fine.
      If that is correct then why are we pussyfooting around? The title of the video is the title of the video. Nobody has made any statement at any point in Wikipedia's voice, which as I understand it forms the crux of any libel issue. nagualdesign 01:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      *I hasten to add that Alice and Bob are fictional, in case anyone's got their ban hammer at the ready! nagualdesign 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I deal with BLP issues fairly regularly, and I do not agree with your example above. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      collapsed by nagualdesign
      Then I suggest you start editing Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations. You have a lot of work to do over there. nagualdesign 01:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      We all have a lot to do regarding Wikipedia's poor treatment of living persons. It would be nice if we could deal with it on article pages without having to worry about it appearing on users' "visible from space" talk pages. MPS1992 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep up, MPS1992. I've repeatedly stated that I understand and accept that my edit to EEng's talk page falls into the first example category. But as far as I'm concerned the post on my talk page was a statement of fact that can be easily corroborated, and therefore falls into the second example category. If I'm mistaken then please explain why/how. nagualdesign 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If that was the tone of your UTRS request then I think it's easy to see why it was declined so quickly. MPS1992 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      A typically emotional response. If you haven't read the UTRS request then I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself. If I'm expected to learn my lesson here then please educate me. Posting silly jibes isn't helpful. And if you aren't willing to follow the course of events perhaps you should refrain from commenting here at all, and go do something constructive instead. nagualdesign 02:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. I have given you some pointers (below), but I hope others give you answers more in keeping with what you want to hear. Happy editing. MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Could somebody please provide me with a constructive response here? nagualdesign 02:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, yes, I agree with your "Alice and Bob" statements, but this doesn't support your conclusion. The title of the video is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by a living person, and by describing the video by its title you repeated the unsourced allegation without qualification. The WP:BLP policy allows some license for discussing potentially offending content when the discussion is in the interest of article construction (WP:BLPTALK) but states "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" (emphasis added). In my opinion posting offending comedic videos on user talk pages also fails WP:NOTFORUM but that's not something I would bother anyone about, especially on EEng's page, if not for the BLP-offending description. BLPTALK also gives an example of how one could link to a potentially offending video, if discussing the video were in the interest of writing or maintaining article content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to keep repeating myself but I did not repeat the unsourced allegation without qualification, I explicitly stated on my talk page that that was the title of the video, and I did so deliberately so that there would be no ambiguity, as there was with my original post (on EEng's talk page). It's a shame that along with the "get a grip" you saw that as me posting whatever I want no matter what the policy says, and Rob saw it as me persistently or egregiously violating BLP policy. The fact is, I was just defending myself, as is my right, against the insinuation that a RevDeleted comment was me making unsourced allegations of criminal activity, which I most certainly had not.
      Fair enough about BLP:TALK. I wasn't aware that pussyfooting formed part of WP policy, but I'll accept that the video title should remain redacted. I still disagree that I should have been banned blocked though, and no amount of searching for other policies that might be applied retrospectively will change the fact that your reasoning at the time was somewhat flawed. The lesson I've learned from this is probably not the one you intended to teach me, but I think we've both learned something, at least, and I'll leave it at that. In a week or so I'll probably be back in the saddle.
      As for WP:NOTFORUM; I'd spent over 5 hours editing articles and images that day (and made only 1 edit to a talk page, which was apropos) before I hopped over to YouTube for a break. The Sassy Trump video was in my recommendations, I watched it, it made me giggle, then I remembered the section I'd posted on EEng's talk page so I posted the link to the video there to offer a little comic relief. I think we're all entitled to that, given everyone's hard work. If the day ever comes when that sort of thing's seriously frowned upon I'll sell the saddle. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      You weren't banned. You were blocked for 31 hours. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I've amended that. Thank you for that, that's really helpful. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just on the narrow matter of "why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first", no where are admins required to pass on matters to other admins. I see no evidence that Ivan violated WP:INVOLVED in any way, telling you that you shouldn't do something and then blocking when he sees you do it a second time does not make him involved. It is regrettable that this instance got so messy; perhaps some nuance could have been applied and avoided this whole mess, but to have the expectation that every admin on every action needs to get "back up" or that the act of warning an editor of a problem makes that same admin prohibited from then acting every again should not be an expectation. If Ivan screwed up in any way here, that specific narrow issue wasn't it. (Saying all that I am not saying that Ivan could not have handled this better, mind you, just refuting the specific notion that admins are prohibited from blocking people they have previously warned). --Jayron32 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If somebody tells you to "get a grip" and it pricks your emotions, it's probably a good idea to hand the matter over to somebody else at that point, and I don't mean another admin who you frequently interact with, since camaraderie can also result in being vicariously offended (rinse and repeat). I'm not talking about WP:INVOLVED, I'm talking about emotional involvement. nagualdesign 00:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I acknowledge that I certainly could have handled the situation better, but my response was not an emotional response to "get a grip", it was a matter of preventing the [perceived] BLP violation from being repeated a third time. Purely preventative, as blocks should be. "Get a grip" is a pretty mild insult (if it is one at all) in the spectrum of what admins deal with, I'm sure any admin reading this page would agree. I've had at least three different editors threaten to sue me, ruin my life in different ways or just kill my family, just in the last month or so. For what it's worth I do try to hand things off if I'm emotionally conflicted, and I agree that admins probably should step away if our emotions are getting in the way of things, in the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. But this was not that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry that you have to deal with such vile things on a regular basis, Ivan. As I like to put it, the world's full of c**ts. For what it's worth you seem like a very reasonable fellow (aside from the [in my opinion unwarranted] block) and I respect that. I only responded to the part Jayron mentioned about being 'involved' because he brought it up. That said, I'd rather move on and focus on the technicalities. As I've mentioned above, I believe that what I posted on my talk page (about the video title) was a simple statement of fact, and don't see how this violates WP:BLP. If you could answer that specific question (above) perhaps we can all move on from this. nagualdesign 02:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I am all in favor of reining in over-eager administrators, but I feel that nagualdesign is going a little too far here. First, "get a grip" is an indication that you believe the administrator has acted wrongly, and reinforces the impression that you plan to continue to ignore their warning -- as you already did once by re-posting the material that had been revdeleted. So it justifies the block -- you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but at this point it appears from your own comments that you will just restore it again. Second, requiring admins never to refer issues to other admins with whom they "frequently interact" is just never going to fly. Admins can and should take care with that, but admins interact with each other frequently -- especially those who deal with BLP violations or similar problems -- so a blanket ban is not going to work. MPS1992 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      That is factually incorrect. nagualdesign 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      What, precisely, is "factually incorrect"? Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but..." I didn't restore content that had been removed, I asked why it had been removed, then I attempted to explain myself on my own talk page, which was also removed. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      You posted the content on EEng's talkpage, after that was removed, you posted it again on your own talkpage. So what you are saying now is factually incorrect, and what MPS1992 said was correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there something in the water? Perhaps you should stop hanging around the water cooler or start bringing your own drinks. As I'm sure you're aware, restoring means 'reverting a revert'. And I did not post the same content on my own talk page. You can try to construe things all you wish, but the fact of the matter is that the post I left on my talk page was appreciably different from the one I left on EEng's talk page. You could say that one was a comment, the other was a comment about a comment. If the distinction is lost on you then I'm at a loss to help you. Also, the second comment was removed. Nothing that I have said on in this discussion is factually inaccurate. If you're trying to goad me you're wasting your time. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is how Ivanvector described it: "I have just blocked nagualdesign ... over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng. ... In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time." So you did indeed post the BLP violation twice, and therefore what MPS1992 said was indeed correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail; and your reply to him omitting the fact that you posted the BLP violation twice was misleading at best. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Haha! I see you missed the a very experienced user part. Did you think that might flatter me unnecessarily?
      Seriously though, Ivan said that right at the top of this section (about 40 KB ago). I understand what he was saying and why, and considering the rest of the discussion that's happened since then, not least of which my 'Belated response' (this subsection) I think it's been made quite clear that there was in fact a difference between my two offending posts. One was an innocent BLP violation, the other a deliberate not-quite-violation that, coupled with the first, along with some technical issues, resulted in a questionable ban. Sorry, block. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve at this point. Perhaps you're just trying to defend the honour of MPS1992? To be honest, I don't care. Your input to this discussion is tangential. I suggest you find something else to do. nagualdesign 09:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      This a public noticeboard for administrators and experienced editors. You claimed someone's 160-word good-faith post was "factually incorrect" without explanation. I asked for one and you omitted pertinent information. I pressed you and you continued to evade. You have spent 3,000 bytes in this thread evading responsibility, criticizing Ivanvector, and snarking at editors and administrators you disagree with. You could have chosen on this subthread to merely post a brief explanation of your view of the events and a maybe question or two (and maybe even a brief complaint or two), but your prolonged self-justification is looking worse and worse. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      In no particular order, since this discussion is now something of a mess, "reportage" is not something that happens at EEng's talkpage, and I apologize if others have led you to believe that it is. That is on them. And, avoiding libel suits is not the sole purpose of the BLP policy. So arguing about whether something is libel or not, misses the point. MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Streisand effect is an interesting article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't know, we're only at 17,000 bytes in this subsection so far. Surely we can continue until it reaches Featured Article length? Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Hehe... We could, but I think I'm done, to be honest. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Sockpuppet

      TPH, in the future either report here first, or directly to SPI. AIV is for blatant vandalism, not socks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Could someone please block EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)? It's patently obvious they're a sockpuppet of SuperPassword (talk · contribs).

      Genre-warring, inserting false claims that Alan Jackson covered a Wiz Khalifa song using setlist.fm as a source. Clearly has a vendetta against Alan Jackson.

      Evidence: [5] [6] [7] [8][9]

      This was reported to AIV, but somehow the admin did not find it severe enough. It's completely blatant. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeffed sock. Also changed the 31 hour block of master to indef. --NeilN talk to me 03:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As a note - AIV is a shortcut to "Administrator intervention against vandalism", not sockpuppetry. SQLQuery me! 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks like it could be a sock of Peterpansshadow (SPI case). If you see further disruption related to bro-country, that would be a good place to start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      This can't be allowable...

      This appears to be a technical issue over an "administrative" issue (they're not actively attempting to keep their page from being edited). User should be engaged with and encouraged to change their DISPLAYTITLE to something less <big>. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I went to drop a line on the user talk page of Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs) about their sending to AfD a page they had merged content from, and how you don't do that, and...WOW that header is both hideous and breaks the ability to do things like 1. select their talk page or 2. edit their talk page. I'm pretty sure this isn't permissible for a user page somehow. (I'll try to manually notify them, but-) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't cause any problems for me on a normal PC. I can select, navigate and add new sections fine. Are you behind a particularly restrictive firewall perhaps that restricts scripts etc? Or a mobile device? I tried on a mobile and its doing some odd stuff with re-sizing that might cause issues. But its not like EEng's page which actively crashes (not due to the size I might add) due to some script problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, Win7 and Firefox, normal internet connection. I do have NoScript, but it's not blocking any scripts on the page. On his user page only the far-left "User page" tab is visible behind overlapping massive colored words; on his user-talk page, "User page" and "Talk" are as the words are smaller (and don't overlap each other) but the rest of the tabs are behind them. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's what his code is: - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      {{DISPLAYTITLE:<small>User:</small><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><code>''{{color|red|Some}} {{color|green|Gadget}} {{color|blue|Geek}}''</code></big></big></big></big></big></big></big>}}
      That's doing exactly what (I think) it is meant to be for me on IE, big coloured text but its not obscuring anything (on either the user or the talkpage). I only get over-run if I resize the browser window to something quite small. Have you tried with a different browser? It might be Firefox handling the code differently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I've tried viewing the page in both Monobook and Vector in Chrome, Safari, Firefox and even Tor Browser (which is good for this kind of test as every conceivable script is blocked), and been unable to replicate the issue (other than by resizing the browser window to the size of a postage stamp, and even then the edit etc tabs don't disappear, just migrate onto the "More" menu as they're supposed to in MediaWiki when something happens to obscure direct access to them). Having that crap at the top of the userpage looks incredibly amateurish and means nobody is going to take SGG seriously, but I can't see anything actually actionable. ‑ Iridescent 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it does rather suggest that they're likely to be disappointed one day... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not too happy with it either. It kind of makes pages like EEng's TP, and TPs of users who have suppressed the TOC but whose TP is endless (I'm not naming names, but you know who you are), look kind of tame and user-friendly. By the way, the userpage (as opposed to the TP) is much worse than the TP -- I'd like to clarify that you're specifically talking about the TP? Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        Follow-up: The Bushranger, you're citing the code on his userpage, which has 7 levels of "big". The TP only has 4 levels of "big". Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Part deux: I'm actually wondering why someone doesn't just pull his coat and ask him politely on his talk page (to dial down the sizes), or let him know it's causing problems for some users and makes him look bad to boot. That has got to be simpler and less drama-filled than asking him to come to AN. (PS: No foul on BR, I'm just thinking of what's best for the user and the community; it would serve him as well as us for him to do this voluntarily rather than being railroaded into it.) Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Hear, hear. And if bigger text is needed, use {{big}}, as <big> was deprecated in HTML5. See also MOS:DEVIATIONS. Sam Sailor 11:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Confirmed that I don't see any problems (other than the obvious aesthetic ones) on Chrome / Ubuntu 17.04. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly- and I too don't have a particular issue with the screen- if there is an issue, it's communication, what with having 88% of the last hundred user talk edits made via automated tools. it doesn't bode well that they see personal commmunication as particularly relevant, but still, nothing to do with this plaint. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you prefer people not use Twinkle?—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Bagumba: I don't beat my wife. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      There is a problem. It covers over tabs, making them inaccessible in Monobook/Chrome but not in Vector/Chrome for me. I don't think some of us should have to change skins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I've just tried in vector/monobook on a different PC and its still not doing it for me. Its either not a skin issue, or its something specific in the personal settings. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Monobook/Chrome here too and I see what Bushranger means. On the other hand, if it were me I'd probably use keyboard shortcuts (Alt + shift + t for the talk page, Alt + shift + "+" for a new section) and roll my eyes. Still, seven layers of bigness is a little excessive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW I don't have any issues and I'm using a 1280x800 laptop, There doesn't seem to be issues on mobile wikipedia (probably because of my screen res?) but for those that use an Apple Iphone 5 this is apparently how it looks, Personally I dislike it and as noted by Iridescent it does make the editor look amateurish ..... anyway if it's actually causing issues for various editors then they should be made to change the displaytitle as well as their page layout. –Davey2010Talk 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • My display on a ZTE Android smartphone (a custom manufacturer phone about the same age as iPhone 5) looks pretty much the same as Davey's iPhone, using desktop view because the mobile view is basically unusable (separate issues). All the boxes are floating in a weird angry fruit salad at the top of the page, but everything below (the actual talk content) is coming up just fine. Or, as well as it does on any other user talk. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I get the same issue as Bushranger with Firefox/OSX and Safari/iOS. My skin is Monobook. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      For one thing, when I moused over the locations of the "edit this page" button on both the userpage and the talk page, the button showed up and I could click it like normal, even though it wasn't really visible beforehand. I'm running Monobook in Internet Explorer on a computer using Windows 10. For another, why do you have to click the buttons to edit? I almost never use the mouse to click "edit this page": that's why we have Alt+E. You can always add &section=new to the URL, or if you're not familiar with that, nobody's going to complain at you for putting a message in a less convenient location. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm still distressed that we are talking about this innocent good-faith user as if he were a non-entity, or something outside of Wikipedia. He is part of the Wikipedia community and deserves to be treated with kindness and respect -- the sort of kindness and respect that would entail letting him know when he is doing something inappropriate and rather foolish, as one would tell a friend that. Will someone not drop a note on his talkpage explaining the issue in a kind way? I would do that myself but I don't want to step on anyone's toes or override the AN notice. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Who Let the Dogs Out?

      Clearly not an ANI issue, but as it was discussed here, a courtesy FYI: I have now removed this display title as it was my opinion that it was not allowed per WP:SMI and "may be removed or remedied by any user". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      As a footnote, the reason I brought it up here was because I was pretty sure the user page rules somewhere said something about that sort of thing, but couldn't remember where, and I wanted to be sure (by having input from others) before dropping a "yo dawg" on his userpage. Thanks everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      WP:ACC could use your help

      Just a quick note, some admins (or other experienced editors) may be interesting in volunteering a bit of spare time to the ACC project (https://accounts.wmflabs.org) as there is currently over 1000 requests in the queue.

      Ideal volunteers are:

      • Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation or are willing and able to identify,
      • In good standing with no recent blocks or other sanctions,
      • Able to apply the username policy,

      Please see the full list of requirements for more information and details on how to sign up. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Invitation to Blocking tools consultation

      Hello all,

      The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

      Other ways that you can help

      • Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
      • If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

      If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

      For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Agashopmarket

      Deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Would an admin be willing to delete this userpage as spam? Thanks. 188.48.178.80 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Done - in the future you can just place {{db-spam}} on the page. Thanks, ansh666 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The IP can't do that because userspace is now protected against IP edits. A demonstration of why that was a bad idea... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I didn't know that...that's unfortunate. ansh666 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Pernicious IPv6 hopper

      Hi all, anyone have any suggestions for dealing with a pernicious IPv6 hopper? Here are some examples:

      2405:204:730d:678:3218:9c44:5222:1a03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
      2405:204:730e:7a9:6fdc:8d1a:7c51:24a1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
      2405:204:72c3:55f6:a9e6:3d97:b71b:30f4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
      2405:204:72c4:2db4:2f41:4338:ea54:dec4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
      • Financial vandalism.
      • Editorial content. "The film gained overall positive reviews from both critics and audience."
      • Editorial content. "Ravi has appeared in mostly in successful movies and established him self as a leading actor of kollywood.and his fans gave him a nickname for his acting ilampuyal (young storm) jayam ravi also enjoyed Mega box office collection."

      Though a common article of interest is Thani Oruvan, I'm a bit reticent to protect that yet. Seems easier to treat it like a honeypot so I spot other vandalism. He's being fairly persistent in recent days. I've reverted him a couple of times today, and he's just come back with a new IP. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      All within 2405:204:7000::/36. Note that if you block that, you block the entire provider. Unfortunately dynamic IP ranges are quite common these days, so very little you can do, without having lots of collateral. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Asian ISP's are known for bad practices like this. This fragmentation of address space is not in their best interests and yet they keep doing it, so users' dynamic addresses are scattered across their whole range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Adsfvdf54gbb

      As the discussion has tapered off, closing this with the result below. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adsfvdf54gbb is, by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, topic banned from from the subjects of Newington College and its alumni, broadly construed.

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

      Would appreciate some input on this. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk · contribs) is an SPA that seems to exist solely to nominate for deletions articles related to Newington College and its alumni, as well as articles created by Castlemate (talk · contribs). To be fair to the operator of the account, many of these articles have indeed been deleted as covering non notable topics. However there are enough quixotic nominations in there to make it clear that no serious review is being undertaken on these articles prior to nomination, for instance:

      I'm also concerned about the assumptions of bad faith contained in some of the nominations, such as this one where they opine that the article is "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people". There might also be WP:UNCONF issues with the account name itself. For some further background on this:

      Some editors in the above discussions seem to think a block for general disruption is in order, but given that the account's disruption is limited to one topic, I'd first like to see whether there is support for a topic ban from the subjects of Newington College and its alumni, broadly construed for this editor. Such a ban would explicitly include any activity related to the deletion of pages within this topic area. It would also explicitly permit the review of articles on these topics for notability, if carried out by editors in good standing, as some of them are indeed of questionable notability. Thoughts and opinions on this are welcomed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

      Paging previous participants in the discussions, @Longhair, The Drover's Wife, Frickeg, Jacknstock, SunChaser, AussieLegend, Kb.au, Kerry Raymond, and ScottDavis: Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      Support It definitely appears to be an SPA determined to delete articles relating to alumni of Newington College. In the AfD I took a closer look at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Fletcher), it was very clear that the AfD was launched without any regard for checking the notability by undertaking a reasonably thorough search for sources. On the contrary, I found many newspaper references with a simple search of Trove's digitised historic (pre-1955 newspapers) and it is the obvious resource to search for an Australian in that time frame. This nomination went "Non-notable priest/headmaster. While he was a professor, no achievements are disclosed. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor)" made it very clear that no effort was being made to follow our guidelines in relation to launching an AfD and that the nomination was based on a dislike for user Castlemate and/or Newington College alumni. While the use of such prejorative language has been toned down in the nominations of the more recent AfDs, nonetheless the two-days-ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cook is an example of nominating somone who is a household name in Australia (and unsurprising everyone is saying Keep). I would support a block for general disruption, as this user persists in launching AfDs on these alumni despite being told by many people that the behaviour is inappropriate. It is a huge waste of volunteer users' time to have to conduct the notability investigations that User:Adsfvdf54gbb is not doing before the AfD nomination and I have great respect for those like User:Frickeg who have made the effort to undertake the notability checks in order to respond to these AfDs. Kerry (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you sure the AfD's are that bad. Patrick cook's supposedly a household name - yet I can't find much of anything on him (not even a news article as far as I can see), and no one has actually produced sources. Similarly, while he should've figured out that a historical figure would need a little more digging, I've never heard of Trove, and I don't see too much in the way of in-depth coverage in that trove search - just mostly mentions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Though he should've googled australian newspaper archives and looked there, the minimum search is google, google books, google news and google news archive all of which don't seem to have much of anything. I haven't examined the other AfDs, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC) The ones I have examined seem to mostly have keep arguments that are essentially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. They don't seem slam dunk utterly idiotic noms to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm actually !voting delete on Patrick Cook. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I, too, have found some of Castlemate's articles about Newington alumni to be fairly light on notability, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for AFD without due checks on every article before nominating it. A few of them have been notable people who should have already had articles, and Castlemate could have been congratulated for starting their articles. Castlemate could make it easier for us by providing better claims and evidence of notability, but that does not justify Adsfvdf54gbb nominating the articles for deletion without doing his/her own checks. WP:BEFORE sets some minimum checks and actions, and who the original author was is not one of them. --Scott Davis Talk 12:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support some form of intervention. Yes a lot of the AfDs are valid. Some could even be speedy deletes. Some, too many in my view, however, have shown a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE. While mostly, but not all, are essentially technically correct in terms of deletion policy, the tone of the AfDs seems tendentious, assumes bad faith, and seems personally directed. I would suggest a formal warning first, requesting their constructive participation in an "off-AfD" review (others have suggested a review) of the Newington articles. If that fails than perhaps a topic ban. They do seem to be an experinced editor. At the moment their activity is not helping to build better articles. And is taking up too many other editors time in an unconstructive manner. There is also too the sudden emergence of Publicschoolboy (talk · contribs) SPA into all this with their completely unhelpful contributions. Aoziwe (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I've looked through the examples given above, and while the AfDs quoted above have huge keep to delete !vote ratios, the keep !votes are not very convincing despite the number, or in one case it turned out to be notable for being a heritage house, but not for being a school. The tone of the AfDs are bit of a problem - it feels a bit personal - however the closest to an attack I've seen quoted is "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people" which is more of a statement on the articles than on Castlemate. I'd say nominating for deletion non-notable articles is hardly "unconstructive", and Castlemate creating so many non-notable articles is also a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC) 6 out of the 9 closed nominations he's made so far have been closed as delete. That's a bit on the lower end (and I think I even disagree with one of the keeps..), but decent proportion for noms. Perhaps he needs to do a little more before, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Castlemate seems to be wasting far more time with creating what seems a huge proportion of non-notable people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes the "main author" also needs some redirection, and some attempts in this direction have also been made. See User talk:Castlemate, and my own talk page, for example. I would much prefer the Newington issue to be taken out of AfD, which always tends to be adversarial, and have an Australian sub project to review the articles and tidy up in a more constructive manner. There is a lot of cruft in the articles but also a lot of encyclopedic content, while not notability material, could still be valueably added to the List of Old Newingtonians article perhaps. We have two experienced but under-constructive editors. Aoziwe (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say that a lot of the accusations of not doing BEFORE seem to miss D2 of it - just because a lot of mentions are there doesn't mean it shouldn't be nominated. I'm not sure why Ads..gbb is getting so much more flak than Castlemate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes both editors have their faults. I suggest the key difference is that Castlemate is trying to add to and build the encyclopedia, whereas Adsfvdf54gbb (talk · contribs) seems to be only interested in deleting items rather than improving them. Aoziwe (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As I have been deemed to be under-constructive and to have been wasting people's time over the last decade I would appreciate it if I could be blocked from editing. On this page alone there is little consensus and there is often little more in AfDs. Block me immediately and save me the discomfort of reading any more of this pompous drivel. Castlemate (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Under-constructive doesn't mean you can't be helpful. You just need to learn and understand notability, and I think if you focused on adding material to articles than creating them, you would be a good asset to the project. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur. Castlemate. I would like you to stay. Your general approach seems good and contributive. The problem is simply but importantly with notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I suspect Adsfvdf54gbb is a sockpuppet "burner" username. It's a regular user on vacation or otherwise accessing the internet from a different location than their usual location. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that Australian-based Wikipedians aren't responding by improving the articles. If you google "Patrick Cook" cartoonist or use Trove, there is at least enough to get started. As for Mowbray House School, it was very obvious at a glance that the property was going to be heritage listed (anywhere that Gough Whitlam set foot is sacred ground to many Australians, it's like JFK or Ronald Reagan to some Americans). I consider the mass AfD nominations to be disruptive, as it creates a lot of work that could better be used improving the Wikipedia, and there are so many that notable topics are sure to be deleted with the current deletionist trend. Actually reviewing articles and looking for sources is time consuming, so those of us who do the work don't have time to review all of these, so they tend to gather delete votes from people who just like to vote that way and make no effort. This can be frustrating, and I'm sure we lose many worker bees through this sort of nonsense. This is not far above vandalism, it's people who get joy out of disruption and destruction. If they attack enough they are sure to get some satisfaction out of it because there aren't enough responsible and knowledgeable Wikipedians to review everything. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Jacknstock, good point; apparently nothing will save the SPA. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Maintain the rage! Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose – It looks ugly, but it's difficult to say that Adsfvdf54gbb is doing anything wrong. Most of their AfD noms are correct, and there is nothing inherently wrong with having an SPA account. Whether it's a sock or not is a question that should be directed towards a checkuser rather than simply speculating. Kb.au (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who told you he does nothing wrong? He admitted owning undisclosed account, this is one the most serious offece you can do here. Just because Check user didn't find any thing due to technical limitation doesn't mean he should be left to wander around with their suspicious activity with no content and any other main space work. If he is blocked he will then explain to us the former account that he edited with and it is then we will know weather he does nothing wrong or otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kb.au: Do you think that the AFDs that are successful are the result of good process though, or just dumb luck? As I said, I have no objection to someone looking into this, but it should be someone who isn't just dropping drive-by nominations onto articles all created by a single editor without looking at the articles themselves. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      • @Lankiveil: I feel like it's more than dumb luck. Even if the nominations are in bad faith as they appear to be, Castlemate has created around 270+ new articles and only a small fraction of those have been nominated for deletion. Without going through all those 270 articles myself, I can only assume that Adsfvdf54gbb is actually nominating articles which they do believe don't meet the notability guidelines, have no available RSs, or fit some other criteria for deletion, even if their adherence to WP:BEFORE is less than ideal. Kb.au (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Aoziwe's reasons. Although the other user's articles were in obvious need of a general review (I even AfDd a couple myself), it would have been better dealt with by a consensus community response rather than creating a SPA to nominate most of a long-standing user's articles for AfD in quite an aggressive and disruptive manner. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban, evidence is compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Indefinite Block The only thing that stopped me from filing this is because some of the AfDs are justified and indeed deleted. But as already said above the manner he is targeting pages created by Castlemate and certain category of articles is really concerning, as he seems to be here only for Deleting articles. All or 90℅ of his edits so far is creating deletion pages. He admitted having another account but never disclose it till now. This is very serious issue. SP investigation was closed with no action because no account to check against, but the CheckUser hinting at possibility of socking though no technical data to support that. I don't think topic ban will address anything, since he is clearly not ready to edit articles. Indefinite block is more appropriate until the time he disclose his other accounts and make it clear he will edit Wikipedia in general not only nominating articles for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban, but not a block without further evidence of problem. The critical thing in my eyes is the blanket nominations. Of course you'll see some pages deleted if you nominate a whole batch indiscriminately (even vandalbots revert some disruptive edits), but if you're just here to knock out a bunch of articles, not to contribute productively whatsoever, you're really no better than the vandalbot. Supporting only a ban because a ban will (a) cause the user to stop editing entirely, (b) be breached and produce a block, or (c) cause the user to edit in a different area. In the first case, there's no disruption, in the second we have a block anyway, and in the third a block would potentially have prevented us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Remember that having used another account in the past isn't grounds for sanctions unless there's some complicating factor, which I don't see here. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava

      There seems to be an attempt to change consensus by unfair means at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpan Srivastava - the last two votes in particular. The account Indianath was created at 06:16 and its second edit at 06:29 was a vote to the aforementioned AfD. The other account, Gurubram was created at 06:31 and its first edit at 06:38 was the vote at the AfD. There is a noticeable similarity in the pattern of voting, primarily the emboldened part (ie, "Don't Delete" and "Article Should Not Be Deleted" followed closely by text without leaving a space). A thing to note is that the creator of the article, Iamincollege, was paid for the creation of the article per their user page. What is the right course of action here? Jiten talk contribs 10:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      I'd list at WP:SPI, although this looks like a case that isn't going to require checkuser to crack. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      @Jiten D: If you believe their edit pattern shows strong possibility they are sock accounts then file Sock puppet investigation for CheckUser to find out. Also I don't think these votes can alter the course of AfD if closed appropriately since AfD is not closed according to vote count, and the only reference they point to cannot establish notability –Ammarpad (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lankiveil and Ammarpad: Thank you for the response. I've started the SPI here. In hindsight, I should've directly done so without coming to WP:AN. My primary concern wasn't the alteration of the course of the AfD (which as Ammarpad stated, isn't likely to happen), but rather the unfair means of voting. Once a link can be established between the accounts, striking out the votes would then be justified. Speaking of which, there is now a third SPA. Jiten talk contribs 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Jiten D, the other option in the future is if you see an SPA voting on a discussion (be it MEATing or SOCKing) tag them with {{spa}} and the closing admin will know to potentially discount their !vote. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Primefac: That's perfect! It's more convenient than filing an SPI and has almost the same impact on the AfD. I suppose an SPI wouldn't be warranted if the tag has been placed (since the throwaway accounts are unlikely to cause damage in the future)? Jiten talk contribs 17:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If they're obvious socks, it's probably better to do both still. ansh666 00:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for a second opinion on decision not to semi-protect Barbara Lerner Spectre

      Yesterday I requested on WP:RFPP that the BLP of Barbara Lerner Spectre be indef semi-protected. The reason I made this request was due to long term efforts by IPs to add fringe anti-semitic sources to the page. This includes the "white identity" blog Occidental Observer and a book talking about the "Jewish Agenda." My request was rejected by User:Samsara who gave their reasons here. I discussed the issue with Samsara on their talk page, where my reasons for wanting the page protected and Samsara's reasons for declining are set out in more detail. I have come to AN to ask for a second admin opinion on the matter. Brustopher (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • In my opinion – and I'm pretty good at the RFPP thing – Samsara is correct. There are two real choices here: the first is to fully protect it to force discussion, and the second is to block you for long-term edit warring. (I would lean toward the first, not the second.) In any case, this is not disruption by an IP or a BLP problem, but rather an attempt to insert a well-sourced quote. If you don't like the source, that's fine and dandy. Find another one, and it seems there are plenty in this case. Katietalk 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Katie and Samsara. I would likely have full protected to prevent edit warring, but declining semi-protection is fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:ACE2017

      The 2017 ArbCom election results are posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017#Results, partially certified. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Now three certifiers, I think that means it's now certified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Country data templates

      Discussion has been started here. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Can someone remove the CIA WFB flags in the country data templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.52.87 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      This is not an AN issue, and should really be discussed on the talk page(s) of the template(s) involved. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      History merge needed

      Doing, doing, done. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The DuPont train derailment article was cut and paste moved into 2017 Washington train derailment. A history merge is needed please. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... — xaosflux Talk 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
       Done — xaosflux Talk 20:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Obvious sock

      Can anyone please block Mucusslide544 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of SuperPassword (talk · contribs)? It's blatantly obvious that it's the same user, as they keep vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson and keep using #AlanJacksonKilledCountry in their edit summaries. This is a blatant WP:DUCK, and it's ridiculous that no one is willing to indef anyone who keeps doing this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      That's a pretty big net being cast there. Not everyone is aware of previous incidents when they come across blatant vandalism. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=816101877"