Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 143 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Courtesy ping to Ratnahastin. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 123 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 90 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 52 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read that talk page just afterwards. On second thought, I agree with you. I had mistakenly thought you were involved with the discussion, which coloured my opinion on this. I would have still preferred striking and clearly showing the removed close (given at least one editor disagreed with the revert), but I guess going through Close Challenge just for the sake of it would be pointless bureaucracy.

I still hold to my overall close; that RFC was getting punted to the second discussion no matter which way it closes. Soni (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with the close. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 44 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 18 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	22	24	46
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	3	5
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 19 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 128 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 128 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 119 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I added a script to help me close RMs, but it failed to mark this as a technical move request(?). Is there a manual way to ask for help on "I closed this RM but the UI did not allow me to"? Right now I used CSD G6 to allow for the move, but I suspect there's a more suitable way. Soni (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? I usually use that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Soni (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 109 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 90 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 64 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cumnock (original) railway station#Requested move 14 April 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 26 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 1 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 10 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 7746 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Nemo (rapper) 2024-05-10 01:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case The Eras Tour 2024-05-10 01:48 2025-01-29 23:36 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: raise protection to ECP for duration to cut back on fan edits Daniel Case Kim Jae-joong 2024-05-09 23:16 2024-08-09 23:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Draft:Blue Dream Group 2 2024-05-09 18:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Draft:Blue Dream Group Ymblanter Template:CGNDB URL 2024-05-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hind's Hall 2024-05-09 11:46 indefinite edit,move oops Ymblanter

Draft:Pro:Atria

I have a dispute with @Stas`: about three articles where he added the Draft:Pro:Atria as a link. I have removed those links, citing the argument "removed program without article, deemed not notable" from List of FTP server software (here), Comparison of FTP client software (here and here) and Comparison of SSH servers (here and here)

Since than Stas' is banging at the door to ask for clarity and consistency. I have replied that it would be easier to just write an article. (The draft used was by that that already two times declined) By now, he has reached my annoyance level but I am aware of the fact that I can have acted overly harsh.

So I request more people to weigh in. The Banner talk 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Stas` (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not link from Articles to Drafts. Full stop, end of story. Stas`, please wait until the draft is approved before adding links to the related articles. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, I understand that and I appologised for the initial edits using a draft. The following edits I sent, contained red links. So my question, in fact, was if it is OK to update the relevant pages (where red links are allowed obviously)? As far as I understand, this is allowed in the WP:CSC, and I believe ultimately, that's where the dispute started. Thanks in advance. Stas` (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, if you are going to redlink an article you need to provide a reference and/or indication that the page could be created in the future. However, I have noticed the general consensus on software/technology lists is that only those with articles are included, simply because these programs are a dime-a-dozen and there's rarely an indication that a program is notable until someone writes an article about it. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The changes I've sent were updates to the alternative that exists already in the list. The same goes with the article draft, the intent was to provide up-to-date information and transparency behind a company providing software (in that list) for governmental agencies among others. Stas` (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone just revew the Draft and move it into mainspace if acceptable? It was not resubmitted but a note was posted asking for review. That would solve the back and forth. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The back and forth was about the inclusion in the list, not necessarily the draft being declined. Thank you for submitting it; we shall see how it fares. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still updating the references when I find those relevant to the article. But any feedback is welcome. Stas` (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft was reviewed by myself and still fails the basic inclusion in addition to being fundamentally promotional. The draft is a combination of a Client and Server side, so we have 2 aspects to consider: What makes this software client special? and What makes this software server special? both of which are fundamentally unanswered and unsuitable. Draft has been put up for MFD. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pro:Atria shpuld resolve the issue so this thread can be closed. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Crypto miners

A number of sites are now infested with crypto-mining sideloads, either through compromised web framework plugins, or adverts, or through deliberate action. Bigger sites like YouTube seem to be dealing with this (see [1]), but smaller sites often are not. Normally we blacklist sites with malware, and this is certainly an option for blogs and other sites of no evident authority, but I wonder if we should have some sort of systematic approach to this, and if so what it could be? For example, if a site is identified as having crypto sideloads, we could log it, wait a week to see if it's fixed, and blacklist it if not. I don't know. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be worth exploring the use of archives for sites known to be affected (provided the malware itself isn't displayed by the archive service). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a WT:EL question, not a WP:AN question. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it potentially affects links in references, and not merely external links at the bottom of the article. I swear I saw a research article mirror awhile back doing this, for example. And, really, this isn't ANI; it's appropriate to discuss general administrative concerns here, and this affects how admins respond to people linking to odd websites: Are they merely legitimate users of that particular reference material, or are they someone with a monetary interest in spamming links to those sites? It tees up the question that spamming is not merely an issue of preventing spam, but also a violation of the TOU regarding paid editing (since the people linking out to these sites are surely not doing so out of the kindness of their own hearts). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass G8 deletion of pages created by an IP

I've just deleted around 175 or pages created by 88.105.70.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over the span of an hour or two. They were without fault talk or category talk pages of nonexistent articles and categories, and were mostly of the flora/fauna/biota/flags/symbols of Kashmir/Sindh/Punjab/etc. Some of the titles seems to suggest an agenda? I've saved a list here. The extant posts of the IP are quite related; despite yesterday being the first edits, I've blocked the IP to prevent further such actions. Anyway, given our history of mass-created/deleted pages (I recall an incident with bot-created algae stubs...), I would welcome a secondary review of this action by anybody smarter than I am on the politics of the region and categories in general. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or some other restricted POV-pusher? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If it is, and I'm not sure we are going to be able to tell, that'd definitely be time for an indefinite block on PAKHIGHWAY. It's hard to see this action as anything other than disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It would require a checkuser, obviously. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

CU doesn't connect IPs to accounts, so that'd be useless. ansh666 20:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666:--That's partially wrong.Whilst CUs don't publicly connect IPs with UACs, they can easily do a plain CU block on the abusive account.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. What I meant was that only a CU could do this. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrative error correction

Please can the page Stuttgart Open – Singles be deleted after being moved to 2004 Stuttgart Open – Singles. This is due to a move error on my behalf. Sport and politics (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 15:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to vote in AfDs?

Especially if they have less than 500 contribs, and the AfD has had issues with potential vote canvassing and vote stacking [2]? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

AFD's are not "votes" - IP editor comments are welcome. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Khirurg (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and admins are allowed to include their opinions or not depending on context. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, how come there are no IP admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• No they're not, IPs have to sign up in order for their opinion to mean anything. If only........ –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• IPs with useful things to say are more than welcome at AFDs. Experienced admins know to base closure of discussions on the content of contributions and not on who makes them; if an IP user has evidence to present one way or the other, that evidence is what makes their comments meaningful, not who they are. --Jayron32 04:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• The if they have less than 500 contribs part, however, is relevant to topic areas with sanctions. The I/P area, for instance, prohibits editors with less than 500 edits and six months (I think) of experience.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  Less than 500 edits is meaningless for IP editors. They could have over 500, but only one on their current IP; it could be their first edit ever, but the IP's thousandth. ansh666 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  I’m familiar with several regular IP users with thousands of edits as a person who run into this problem of perception whenever their IP changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  They're allowed to get accounts if the 500 edit restrictions are onerous to them. They of course don't have to get accounts if they don't want, but then they can't do everything at Wikipedia they want to do. That's just how it works. --Jayron32 04:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Until and unless some admin decides that the AfD needs to be protected, any non-blocked IP or account is permitted to express their opinion, and ask their questions; the closing admin will decide, for each comment, how much weight it should be given. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving "Baltic Finns" to "Finnic peoples"

Hi, I'm asking for assistance in renaming the article Baltic Finns to Finnic peoples, as "Finnic peoples" is the most widely used term in both research literature and other encyclopaedias. I could not move it myself, as the page already has a redirect from "Finnic peoples". There is also an associated talk page discussion about this. Thank you. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

After looking at the talkpage discussion, I think I'd better leave the assessment of your request to a linguist, SørenKierkegaard. For the next time, please note that there is a special noticeboard dedicated to such requests: Wikipedia:Requested moves. (But it was lovely to meet you — I'm a great admirer of your 19th-century work.) Bishonen | talk 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Haha thanks :) I guess I'll keep waiting for another administrator then... how do you ping a linguist admin? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You could probably do a PetScan to find admins who are in the appropriate language category. But, as stated, RM is really the best way to go on this one. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the move - see my summary at Talk:Baltic Finns#Renaming the article to "Finnic people". — Sebastian 16:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC closure needed

It's listed at the top of this page as well, but it's somewhat time-sensitive and potentially has an impact on nearly every article (it's included in WP:CENT), so... Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word has been open for nearly two months, discussion seems to be finished, but closure is not straightforward (I think). It would be nice if one or more uninvolved admins could take a look and judge consensus and indicate what needs to be done now (if anything). Fram (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a page you can go to, to request Rfc closure. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and then you get listed at the top of this page, with dozens and dozens of others. These also require closing, but the importance overall of a dispute about one article (which is the majority of the above, like "Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Should The Man in the High Castle (TV series) be described as science fiction?") is (in my biased opinion) somewhat less than this specific RfC (and some others). Importance + time sensitive nature = posting here instead of only in the list at the top. If you mean another page still, then a pointer in the right direction would help :-) Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it now. I've been closing some of the oldest RFCs, and am working my way through the backlog. I am finding that if people want their RFCs closed quickly, they need to make them less complicated. This one asks two separate questions, one with six possible options (including, unhelpfully, 'other');, and one with five possible options (again, including 'other'). The more possibly options there are, the more difficult it becomes to easily determine the best close to make. Fish+Karate 12:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There,  Done. Fish+Karate 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request

Requesting indef block from Wikipedia. Some admin block me from this site. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

proxies

Hey, is there anyway of detection an open proxy other than CU? I am incredulous at receiving user space vandalism out of Laos from an IP I never saw before. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You can file a report on WP:OP and have them take a look. There are standard ways to detect open proxies that do not rely on CU or any other admin tools. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

SQL, has been working on some tools to help with this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A WHOIS lookup on the IP in question says it's associated with a SIP trunking company known as Star Telecom. There are multiple Viettel contact addresses, of which UNITEL (ref. in whois) are the Laos operator. Looks like some weird VoIP into Laos. Sounds like proxy, but maybe not open. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked into this at OPP - I can't find any evidence of this IP currently being a proxy. The netblock this one is from is 183.182.96.0/20, so I would keep an eye on those contribs and see if the vandal pops back up on another IP. SQL^{Query me!} 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser isn't really useful in detecting proxies. The tool itself is pretty limited, and I think most people would be quite underwhelmed if they got access to it. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies is useful, and there are a few websites that purport to detect proxies/VPNs, such as ipqualityscore.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge

• Now that I now know of the new way to auto-histmerge pages (Special:Log/merge, Special:MergeHistory, Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Using the MergeHistory special page), I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge, with view of helping there, and I found that the lists of history-merges to be done there, do not seem to have been updated for some years. Where is an up-to-date list of history-merges to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: You could try the contents of Category:Candidates for history merging, which is a list of all the articles tagged with {{Histmerge}}. Fish+Karate 14:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Fish and karate: But that does not lead me to any information about the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge project. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • According to the page in question, the list was maintained by User:AarghBot which in turn was maintained by User:Mikaey. Unfortunately, User:Mikaey hasn't edited in a year and rarely edits anymore according to his contributions. You might leave an inquiry on their talk page asking them to run a new sequence and, if no response, try recruiting a new bot owner at WP:BOTREQ. Hth, Rgrds. --64.85.216.148 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:MergeHistory (the new semi-automatic history-merger)

• I have used Special:MergeHistory twice. These points arise:-
  • If I am history-merging page X into page Y:-
  • Please also let the user specify the oldest edit in Y to keep. I have already run into a case when Y's history started with a redirect to X, and I went back to the old method. There I have to undelete Y separately afterwards, and in the process I can tell it not to undelete that redirect.
  • Please let the user also specify the oldest edit in X to move. That is useful when X is a sandbox-type file that contains the edit histories of 2 or more successive drafts.
    • (This leads into a query about when ever will we have ability to directly delete or move some edits of a file?, instead of the long-way-round of deleting all the file's edits and then undeleting some of its edits.)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

    From looking at the description, and the interface itself, I'd say that the tool is really meant for dead-simple copy/paste moves with no convoluted histories. As soon as you have to deal with "this edit but not this one" it's probably better to just do it manually. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RIP Admin Bhadani

We have received word that long time administrator Bhadani has passed on. For anyone that was well acquainted with him, an update to Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians would be welcome. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Violations of Five Pillars

• In the past I never had to seek "consensus" but now people of questionable authority are using that guideline as an obstruction technique. I have given up editing several articles because I put in hours of hard work adding knowledge only to have it simply reverted without any explanation, without suggestions, without improvements, without corrections. Those people are following me when I try a minor edit of a few changed words even that is reverted without questions or anything except to be rude and obstructionist. Who are these people? Where have they all come from? There is nothing in the Five Pillars about "consensus". The basic directions are jump in, be bold, assume good faith, build upon previous edits. I can no longer believe anyone who says "consensus" because they simply assume an authoritarian attitude that tells me they are vandals, trolls, or rogue editors. To the management of Wikipedia I plead mercy and ask that you find some way of controlling or removing the obstructionists. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHT863: You have 75 article edits which indicates inexperience with how articles, especially ones that cover controversial topics, are built. Consensus is indeed how content is determined and is explicitly mentioned in WP:5P4. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info but I quit. Its all yours my friend. -- DHT863 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a lengthy discussion of these issues on my talk page with DHT863. Any other administrator is welcome to add their thoughts, either here or there. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@DHT863:: You are correct that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD, but at the same time it wants us to be willing to follow WP:DR when there are disagreements over content. So, if you're bold and make an edit, which is then subsequently undone/modified by another editor, then the next thing for you to do is follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article talk. This means trying to establish a consensus for the changes you want to make; it does not mean posting a message on the talk page and then immediately re-adding the disputed content. WP:SILENCE is often assumed when an edit is made that is not immediately reverted; however, as soon as someone does revert/change (except in the case of WP:VANDAL) the content, then discussion is needed per WP:CONTENTAGE to establish a consensus for inclusion. It's possible that a consensus to not include the content already exists, but a consensus can change which means discussion is still needed. As for your commetn aout other people, the Wikipedia community is made up of people from all over the world, and bascially anyone who want to edit is a WP:WIKIPEDIAN. Certain Wikipedians have been given special "tools" to perform certain tasks because they are considered experienced enough and competent enough by the community to do such things. Adminsitrators are one such type of user, but there are other types as well. Regardless of user type, all Wikipedians are expected to comply with relevant policies and guidelines when they edit, and this sometimes means undoing edits of those who do not. Moreover, checking the contribution histories of editors is not uncommon and it's even considered appropriate to check for other inappropriate edits per WP:HA#NOT. Just a suggestion: If you're being bold and finding a lot of your edits being reverted by others, then maybe it's time to slow down a bit an be a little more WP:CAUTIOUS. Also, you need to be aware how a minor edit is defined by Wikipedia (see WP:MINOR) because that is the definition that matters. Just adding a single sentence to an article might seem minor to you, but might not seem minor to others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to shut something down and send us all to our rooms

Can someone uninvolved please just end this. We can't help ourselves, and it's devolved to pettiness. I would have closed it myself, but I predict with near certainty that someone would reopen it and complain because I'm involved. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh. Will this do? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  It will. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say, I laughed at several points in time while skimming through it. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Man with long history of publicity stunts stages publicity stunt. Hold the front page! Guy (Help!) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please unclose close at ANI

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

---

I'm asking that this close be undone, so that discussion can continue; i view it as premature. I asked Guy to unclose here, but he believes it is best to leave it closed. He is aware that I have requested this. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I also believe it best to leave it closed. There does not appear to be developing consensus that POTW acted in bad faith or was behaving disruptively per se, and I'm not sure that venue is appropriate to hold the related policy discussion. If you're interested in formalizing best practices regarding the placement and/or removal of COI tags in general (which is where it seems like the discussion was headed, and what I honestly think is a better use of our time in this direction) then other venues (such as WP:VPP or the talk page at WP:COI) would make better places to have that discussion. --Jayron32 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Le sigh. The thread raised multiple intertwined issues with unclear consensus as to what the actual view of the community might be on the core question of whether Andy is in the right or not. Jytdog is a COI fundamentalist (nothing wrong with that, so am I), Andy is a prolific editor, a tireless advocate for Wikipedia and also, occasionally, a monumental pain in the arse, but the route to resolving this is to get clear consensus via RfC or whatever as to what should be done, and then admins can assess whether it is being done. I seriously doubt if that thread was ever going to yield anything other than bitching by the usual suspects. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am fine with getting the policy issues resolved. As I noted at Guy's talk page, it is clear to me how we got here. What needs to stop, is Andy's campaigning that interferes with COI management. That is very bad for him and for the GLAM program generally. The longer that goes on, the more diffs and badness are going to build up. I filed the ANI to get that to stop. Guy mentioned on his talk page that he is talking to Andy. If that is happening and is fruitful, that is enough for me and I will withdraw this request to unclose. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You think it needs to stop, but we're not going to stop it unless there is evidence that what you think is actually the community's consensus view. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

To take this practically, we're putting the cart before the horse to say that Andy is acting disruptively before we've got firm guidance on how he's supposed to behave here. Let's have the discussion over COI-related best practices, and THEN if he acts against that, we have something. Right now we have no clear firm best practices as to what we should do (when should we tag, when should tags be removed, etc.) If we don't have that clear best practice, then it's just two groups of people bickering over who is right with neither having community consensus behind them. Just because one side or the other is more ascerbic doesn't make their position less or more right. As JzG notes, the personality issues here are not going to get us anywhere useful.--Jayron32 14:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I accept that guidance about how COI tags should be handled is unclear. The aggressive stripping of them, while this is being debated, is not acceptable and POINTY as hell. Two admins said that at ANI, and another admin pointed out the very bad judgement of stripping the tag on one of them, saying clearly that they were not commenting either way on the issue more generally. That is three admins. There was movement toward consensus on the main issue.

That was the purpose of the ANI thread, and I believe it was heading in that direction until it was prematurely closed.

If the close reflected that, it would be acceptable to me.

I am happy to open a new thread more clearly focused on that if that would give you all more comfort that the discussion will be focused.

But again, Guy, if you are talking with Andy offline and it is clear that he will restrain himself, that is enough for me. Please do let me know. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. Please consider that your position is legitimately, and not necessarily agreed upon by those commenting on this issue-that a clean-up tag that allows an editor to make unfounded accusations of COI could be a negative for Wikipedia. Please consider that the editors commenting are commenting because of concerns that editors may do harm rather than protect the encyclopedia and please consider that editors commenting on this have the integrity to comment for the reasons they give rather than jumping into such a discussion because, as you suggest, they are friends. I pulled out of the RfC because I didn't agree with attempts to control the discussions and outcomes, including ad hominem attacks - the wording of the RfC is one aspect of that. I won't bog down Guy's page or this notice board with discussion but wanted to note that what amounts to accusations of a lack of seriousness on this issue is wrong sighted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

The template says "appears to have". The wording of the RfC is perfectly neutral.The proposed language was added to the instructions in this diff (not be me) following this talk page discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We cannot deal with COI issues by commandeering a clean up tag; neutrality is not the issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

It is unclear how using a COI tag when there are likely COI issues is "commandeering" it. Bizarre. In any case this is entirely offtopic for this thread. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that this is not a COI tag; that you are trying to make it a COI tag, that you have started a RfC to try and get consensus to make a tag that deals with potential non -nutrality into a COI tag, and that likely COI damages editors who act in good faith and then are accused of likely COI, an accusation with out proof. I am out of patience with this because it hurts people, Jytdog, that's what the outcome will be. I assume good faith and believe you have the best at heart, but here is a place for COI issues and its not in accusatory drive by tags.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

Anything that is as tl;dr as this needs a close as "no consensus." Guy did the right thing. Let this one die a natural death. Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

"You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts."

Should this warning ever be given, without specifying who the sockmaster is?

What's the point? The socks already know who they are. There's no gain from keeping this secret.

Why is the rest of the editing community excluded here? Socks are a persistent problem, and it's through having lots of editors watching out that we catch them, and catch them early. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the standard message when you use Twinkle to indef block an obvious sock. It serves two purposes: to alert the community should they want to talk to the person who made an edit, and to alert the user when it's a false positive. Do you have examples where it's a problem? Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if you mean, "Would you like to replace the general point you've obviously made deliberately as such, with a specific case so that it can turn into another one-issue pissing match", then no. Do you not think I'd have done that, if I wasn't deliberately avoiding doing so? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm blocking for this (and it's not an IP) I usually put the sockmaster's name in the block log, unless it's blatantly obvious. Either that or use the blockedsock template on the sock's userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope any admin could justify any such block to any relevant person if asked. But there's a few reasons a generic message like this is used: 1) in the vast majority of cases the reasons are blindingly obvious from the edits. 2) It's not always clear who the actual sockmaster is even though the socking is obvious. 3) Revealing accounts and linking IP addresses in some cases such as CU blocks might be potentially privacy-violating for the user involved, so shouldn't necessarily always be made very public. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

...and 4) When the sock is an LTA, sockmaster or meatpuppet group looking to gain recognition and we are wanting to DENY them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In many cases they are obvious at the time. But there's also a historical aspect to it. Sometimes sock hunting means going back over an old trail a year or so later, long after memory has become unreliable. Also in many cases it's not obvious. Nor will some admins even respond to such enquiries, at least not from the plebs. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have examples or is there a particular case in mind where we might be able to assist you?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also an important WP:DENY factor. Some people have a hobby of disruptively socking and are encouraged when they get particular attention. A generic message is much better than splashing the name of an LTA around the project. If evidence of blocks being inappropriately applied is found, the admin has their tools removed after an Arbcom case. That is very rare, although obviously there will be occasional false positives. What is the actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think Andy has a point, here, though it might be better to discuss it at a page more tightly focused on that message and the twinkle implementation of it. I've seen this before with editors who were being problematic before their block, and not knowing anything about who was behind the socking left me with the nagging doubt that I might not immediately recognize the next sock. And: No, I can't give specific examples, either. It's been at least a few weeks since I saw something like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

I realize this is off-topic but I wonder if an admin could look into this. I recently noticed something that I find surprising. This User was blocked as being a sock puppet. This looks like a productive editor to me. This User initiated many articles on individual works of art, including the now popular Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary, the artist's birthday having just passed. Could the blocking of that User have been a mistake? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a mistake. This was a sock of User:Slowking4 who was a productive editor but was indefblocked for (a) persistent copyright problems and (b) persistent abuse of anyone who cautioned them about their copyright problems. You can't see their deleted contributions, but it consists of hundreds upon hundreds of deleted images that were uploaded as fair use - but weren't. His user page still has a "Say Yes to Fair Use" banner - scroll to the bottom. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, thank you. I just thought I would point out that the charges are disputed. I am unfamiliar with the case. I think I just know good work when I see it. Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that most of his work here was good, unfortunately however when you're unable to adhere to a core policy the inevitable result is being blocked. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite and Bus stop, I'm the one who levied Slowking's indefinite block, but I don't remember the incident, so please take this as a general statement. When your problem is serial copyright infringement (whether abuse of fair use, or outright false claims of authorship), we have to clamp down hard (and be unforgiving on sockpuppetry), even harder than with community-damaging activities such as persistent abuse of people who caution you about your problems. Usenet didn't get in trouble with outsiders for its flame wars, and we won't get in trouble with outsiders if we permit personal attacks, but copyright ignoring will definitely be a problem. I'm inclined to be lenient toward a productive account that turns out to be a sockpuppet, and if you get blocked for vandalism and register a sockpuppet that creates a good article, I won't G5 delete it (if the article's good, why trash it), but if you get blocked for copyright-related reasons, hardblocking and deletion (unless the status can be verified, like this one as a translation of a WP article) are the only safe course for the project. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend—veteran editors in the visual arts have opposed what amounts to unfair treatment of the visual arts (my words, not theirs) concerning notability requirements for such entities as works of art and art galleries and, getting to the point in this discussion, the justification for inclusion of images of works of art. A problem is that "Fair use" should be loosened for works of art. They are essentially visual. Art education calls for seeing works of art. Any commentary is almost of secondary importance. Blocking an editor that abuses the current guidelines on inclusion of images should be tempered by an understanding of their underlying motives. In short, perhaps they should be given a second chance, if they explain that they understand the serious risk to the project that may be posed by the unthinking inclusion of too many such images. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to wait for a proper response, since I don't remember anything of this block's circumstances, but I'm looking into it now. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've spotchecked a bunch of images, and all of them were photographs; maybe you'd find a little art in there if you checked everything, but if there's any there, it's not much. File:Delia Akeley.jpg was particularly egregious: it was deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because the nominator found a free image (okay, we all can overlook a free image), but then it was again deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 8#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because Slowking uploaded another nonfree image (rationale: no demonstration that a free photo exists; rather your flights of fancy doubt that one doesn't. prove a free photo exists by uploading one. as we can see in this photo, family photos can exist that remain in copyright; prove that the existing photos in books are free and not under copyright.) instead of uploading the free image. When you're having a large number of images deleted for improper fair-use claims, the only appropriate responses are "I'll be much more careful" (and complying) or "I'll stop uploading nonfree images". But when you make this kind of argument, and you keep going and uploading more such images despite warnings and a block, there's no reason to believe that you'll stop unless you are stopped. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt your justification for blocking. I'm trying to explain factors that have not been addressed yet, factors particular to the place of visual images in visual arts, and and that particular editor's attempt to build good quality articles in that area. It takes a degree of good sense to initiate on the English Wikipedia an article on Paula Modersohn-Becker especially the painting called Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary. (To be clear, the article "Paula Modersohn-Becker" was not initiated by the editor we are discussing.) When I saw that article I looked to see who initiated it. When I saw that the editor was a blocked editor I was quite surprised, and even further surprised when I looked at their editing contributions. The sensibility there impressed me. I personally have a liking for articles on individual works of art. Check out Portrait of the Artist's Father. I'm sure many don't share my interest. But that is a worthy article that we probably wouldn't have if not for that editor's contributions. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I thought you were politely uestioning whether this user's block were perhps becuse the fir use policy ws being pplied too strictly to rtworks, such s pintings. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand guilty of being too polite. I will try harder not to let politeness get in the way of arguing a larger point. I apologize and I promise never to do it again. Please accept my contrition as sincerely bleating out of the heart. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise :-) Sorry for the partial legibility of the previous note; my new computer's "a" and "q" keys are malfunctioning (intermittently...ugg) so I have to copy/paste the letter "a" if I want to type it, and I forgot. I'll be glad when the warranty shipping box arrives in the mail. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)