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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 122 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)

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)

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)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 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)

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

(Initiated 47 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)

• 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)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JD Vance#RFC: Include "couch" hoax paragraph

(Initiated 21 days ago on 11 September 2024)

This will require a close by an editor experienced on WP:BLP polices. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	5	59	0	64
TfD	0	1	10	0	11
MfD	0	1	7	0	8
FfD	0	1	1	0	2
RfD	0	0	108	0	108
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year

(Initiated 39 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction

(Initiated 33 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Category:1982 Japanese television episodes

(Initiated 28 days ago on 4 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30#Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela

(Initiated 33 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22#National shores of the United States

(Initiated 10 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 128 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)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 116 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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 94 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 87 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)

Talk:Petah_Tikva#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 55 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre🚐 01:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 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)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

(Initiated 51 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 37 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)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move 6 September 2024

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

(Initiated 17 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022#Merge proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

(Initiated 13 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8500 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Panna Dhai 2024-10-02 20:12 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Yadavs in Bihar 2024-10-02 19:16 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Majhraut Ahir 2024-10-02 19:13 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Maratha (caste) 2024-10-02 18:51 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Barua people 2024-10-02 18:19 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Nevatim Airbase 2024-10-02 14:41 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Apollo AR924 2024-10-02 12:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Portal:Current events/2024 October 1 2024-10-02 06:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 29 September 2024 Israeli attacks on Yemen 2024-10-02 05:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Jaffa shooting 2024-10-02 05:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thirty-seventh government of Israel 2024-10-02 03:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel 2024-10-01 23:21 indefinite edit Highly visible page as it's currently on the main page Schwede66 Ein Feshkha 2024-10-01 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Template:Calendar/styles.css 2024-10-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2665 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hezbollah Headquarters 2024-10-01 17:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Third Lebanon War 2024-10-01 17:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli User talk:The Master of Hedgehogs/Fairy piece puzzle 5 2024-10-01 17:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (27 September 2024 – present) 2024-10-01 17:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Fatah Sharif 2024-10-01 15:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian 2024 invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-01 03:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Aspire (Energy) 2024-09-30 23:32 2024-10-08 04:47 move Persistent vandalism Dennis Brown Eduard Dorneanu 2024-09-30 21:08 2024-10-07 21:08 move Liz Template:Use shortened footnotes 2024-09-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Israel–Gaza war 2024-09-30 17:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement PIA Pickersgill-Cunliffe Wanted (2008 film) 2024-09-30 17:28 2024-12-30 17:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects 2024-09-30 17:25 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) 2024-09-30 17:21 indefinite edit Move warring: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Gaza List 2024-09-30 16:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea 2024-09-30 13:53 indefinite create Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Why the sandbox is shutting down 2024-09-30 01:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Siti Zainab 2024-09-29 23:51 indefinite create Target of sockpuppets, been through 3 AFDs Liz Nabil Qaouk 2024-09-29 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Dahieh 2024-09-29 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Abbas Nilforoushan 2024-09-29 01:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Rafa Salama 2024-09-29 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ukrainians 2024-09-29 00:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Costa Rica–Libya relations 2024-09-28 21:32 2024-10-28 21:32 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Faiq Al-Mabhouh 2024-09-28 20:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 20:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page currently on the main page and if this gets moved, it should be done by an admin who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect as per WP:MAINPAGENOREDIRECT Schwede66

Topic ban review request (Joseph2302)

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

---

I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Two questions:

• You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
• There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:

UTRS context, slightly trimmed

Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31: Hello Joseph2302, Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice? While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning. Let me know what you think, Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator ----------------------------------------- Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11: Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped> ----------------------------------------- Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12: Hello Joseph2302, No problem, I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response. Alex Shih English Wikipedia Administrator

--Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

• In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on this? Don't want to see this thread just archived. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.

Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.

Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.

Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.

So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Could we please see the discussion/noticeboard thread that led to the topic ban? And/or who applied it, and how? Also, I think the reason that this thread is "stalled" is because the thread title is too generic. I have therefore added the user's name to the thread. I therefore do not think the thread should be closed yet. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This request has been open for more than 3 weeks, it is not complicated, and all the information you're asking for is in the thread already. Bishonen provided the requested links 25 minutes after the request was made. The ban didn't result from a noticeboard discussion, but was worked out on OTRS as an unblock condition with Alex. @Alex Shih:, as the unblocking admin who placed these restrictions, I really think you can just make this call yourself, based on input from this thread. This is run of the mill stuff. Joseph got out-of-control angry, made some stupid comments about Donald Trump in article space, got blocked, accepted a topic ban to be unblocked, hasn't run into trouble in this area since (and seems to have been trouble-free for 6 months, since April 23), and is asking for a reasonably-explained reduction of the scope of the topic ban, and doesn't mind the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in place. I'm sure he knows that another episode like that will lead to an indef block. I'm not sure why this is apparently annoying me more than it is annoying Joseph, except that this just seems so scream-inducingly typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Wow, Floq, I made a simple, good-faith request, and I get a long-winded lecture instead of the specifics I requested? None of what you stated was clear from a perusal of the thread; in fact none of it was stated at all. Way to AGF. Also, there does not seem to be a consensus for anything yet. There is no consensus the remove the broad TBan, no consensus to retain the TBan, no consensus to narrow the TBan. As for myself I would like the see the noticeboard thread that led to the user's block, so that I could assess what the merits or drawbacks of removing the TBan would be. In the absence of that, I agree with Jytdog's assessment and analysis that the user should retain a broad topic ban on AP2, and wait to request the removal until several months from now. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      • You mean "in addition" to the specifics you requested; everything you asked was answered, and was answered based on info already in the thread (that's where I got it from). The further info I provided that was not in the thread is not what you asked for. There's a clear consensus to remove the broad topic ban. There might not be a consensus about the narrow one, and maybe that's what is hanging this up, but Joseph isn't even asking for that to be lifted so it doesn't matter. There is no noticeboard discussion that lead to the block. It is insane that something as simple as this takes 3 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
        • We can't lift the restriction on the broad topic ban without also lifting the narrow topic ban, because the narrow is a subset of the broad. And there is currently no consensus to remove either the broad or the narrow. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• support Joseph's request for a reduction in his restriction, it's not hard, he has been good, if he falls off the wagon blocks are available Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Govindaharihari are you supporting narrowing the TBan to Trump, or are you supporting removal of the politics TBan altogether? Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi. I am supporting whatever Joseph is requesting, he has been a good user, let us allow him some trust, restrictions are easy to replace if violations occur. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Close?

• I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Can someone please close this? -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• I would, except I opined above. But yeah, this is dragging on for no conceivable reason. Recommend closing per Alex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not yet, as insufficient info has been provided IMO. Please see my question above. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see any consensus for any of the proposals. There are equal numbers supporting and opposing every single proposal. Namely: (1) Narrowing the TBan to Trump: Support = Floq, Cullen, Alex; Oppose = Tony, Power-enwiki, Nyttend, Jytdog. (2) Remove entire TBan: Support = Tony, Power-enwiki; Oppose = Jytdog, Softlavender. (I have omitted the opinions of the recently indeffed user.) Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So 5 people support either full or partial lifting, and only one opposes both full and partial, but because there's a difference on whether it should be full or partial, we just sit here paralyzed for 3 weeks? Fine, I switch to full lifting of the t-ban. That should push it over the edge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • 3 out of 8 commenters is not a consensus. There needs to be a consensus for the specific action taken, and there apparently isn't any (yet). Perhaps a subthread survey on lifting the TBan entirely with only a Support/Oppose option would bring a consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Your do your math in a particularly obstructionist way. You've successfully exhausted me, though. Good luck, Joseph. In the future, never bring stuff here without taking the simpler route of asking the specific admin first; I imagine Alex would have done this himself weeks ago. AN/ANI are where simple ideas go to die. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
        • If you can convince Alex Shih and Cullen328 to agree to a full repeal of the TBan (not just a partial), then that would bring that proposal a consensus. As it is, there is no consensus for either a full or partial repeal of the TBan. Softlavender (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for StreetSign

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Proposed topic ban for StreetSign (moved from AN)

StarForce

I deleted this back in May per CSD g11. There are like 1100 revisions. The deletion has been challenged, and I'm trying to restore so we can search for a non spammy version, but apparently I cannot restore that many revisions. Is there anyone who can?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly not in one go. This is the same problem as in the #Question for admins thread, and T171898, T207530, etc. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I got it. The 1313 revisions were done in six batches: 59 revisions, 164 revisions, 242 revisions, 296 revisions, 307 revisions, and 245 revisions. My initial attempt of 761 revisions failed (so I ended up dividing it into four batches), as did an attempt at 552 (so I divided it into the final two batches). FYI, since this was deleted as spam and since it was undeleted for review purposes, I thought we shouldn't leave it live, so I've temporarily redirected it to your userpage. Please unredirect it when appropriate, of course :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

PS, it currently qualifies for R2 speedy (mainspace redirecting to userspace), but as this is a temporary hack for something that shouldn't be deleted, I've protected the page lest a bot come around and tag it for deletion. (Template protected because it's the lowest level of protection through which most bots can't edit.) Any admin should unprotect it upon request by any (human) user. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: and everyone else: you can also get around these database errors by refreshing the undeletion page until the undeletion goes through (which usually only takes two or three attempts). The error about replication lag has been coming up for a while now; I sometimes notice it when deleting/undeleting pages for history merges. Graham87 01:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Graham87, I've just undeleted the talk page, with 441 revisions. I got the error on the first attempt, but it worked the first time I refreshed the undeletion page. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. I think I was hampered by browser incompatibility at work with tWinkle.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Classification of Japonic languages (bookworm8899 and sock IPs)

I changed the structure and corrected some informations in that article but a range of different IPs revert and vandalize thus page now. They push a relation with tai-kadai and do not use the talk page. I created a section on the talk page and this was deleted by thr IP aseell. The IPs probably belong to the blocked user bookworm8899/gutmeister who is known for his tai-nationalism. Could someone stop him or protect the page? Thanks AmurTiger18 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The IPs claim that the topicstarter is a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter. Is somebody here sufficiently familiar with that user?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The article was protected for two days by Dlohcierekim, and the discussions should now move to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 deletions

Scribbles by The Scribbler was blocked as a sockpuppet. They've created a number of categories that duplicate existing categories but with slightly different names (in order to try and prove a point, something the sockmaster was known for). I don't want to go through each one and individually tag them for G5 deletion, please can an admin please delete all of the categories they needlessly created (see [2])? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Tried to mass-rollback as much of their disruption as possible, but based on the cat populations it looks like there are a few pages that will need manual reverting. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I depopulated the deleted categories. That should stop them from showing up at Special:WantedCategories at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help with this matter. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge

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

---

• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count - they have been around since 2009 and have 23,527 edits. Their most-edited pages are:
  • 1,449 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy (contribs there; last was 2013
  • 1,276 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (contribs there)
  • 613 Talk:September 11 attacks
  • 469 September 11 attacks
  • 455 9/11 conspiracy theories
  • 420 Talk:List of common misconceptions

This posting is prompted by this bit of edit-warring

• diff 17:45, 21 October 2018
• diff 17:48, 21 October 2018
• diff 17:51, 21 October 2018

Which they are defending at their talk page here. Their last comment there was this: No need to "pile on". The more pro-racist opposition to my edit, the more I believe that opposing racism is the right thing to to do.

As you can see above, their 2nd-most-common place to contribute is RSN, and scanning diffs there, they seem to understand how we use sources.

The initial edit is a) incompetent and b) tendentious as hell, and there is no excuse under the sun for someone with almost ten years of experience and 23.5K edits, who understands RS, to make that edit at all, much less attempt to force it in, much less defend it.

I don't know what this person's deal is, but they do not seem capable of working on content related to race per the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Why take this to a drama board so soon rather than waiting for a cooling off period? There is obviously no further disruption occurring? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Protected. I've protected the page. AQFK probably needs to dial it back a bit. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I find a Quest for Knowledge's first edit to be really really bad. Technically it doesn't need to be cited as long as what the text says is elsewhere in the article per MOS:LEADCITE. But the text in general was blatantly not a good summary of the article, and an egregious violation of the WP:IMPARTIAL tone we are required to have in articles. Grayfell then reverts without giving any reason at all. Quest for Knowledge's second and third edits are reverts merely requesting some policy rational for getting reverted. Greyfell continues to revert without even citing policy in the edit comment or on the talk page. This was WP:Stonewalling by Grayfell to have continued to revert without citing any policy after requested to do so. So I really don't blame a Quest for Knowledge for their 2nd and 3rd edit. Ideally he would have gone to the talk page first, but it was far more egregious for Grayfell to continue to revert without citing any policy. -Obsidi (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit was so obviously bad that the revert was fine, merely assuming basic competence on AQFN's part. I like to think AQFN was just having a bad day and would refer him to this advice. He hasn't edited in a while so hopefully this will blow over. Otherwise the applicable issue is WP:SOAP. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit was very bad, so I can give a pass to Greyfell for his first revert without an edit summary citing policy. But the 2nd revert by Greyfell after AQFK specifically asked for some policy rational, that wasn't good to revert without at least citing something like WP:NPOV. And the question is, were those 2nd and 3rd edits by AQFK within policy, and I think they were. If someone reverts you without any policy given, a revert (without violating 3RR) to demand some kind of policy cite is not a edit war. If AQFK deserves to be sanctioned, it is for his first edit alone (which was very bad, I agree). -Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with AQFK. It was an atrocious edit. He's smart and experienced enough to know that it was an atrocious edit. The disingenuousness of pretending he doesn't know why is unhelpful.

Usually it's best for all concerned to avoid getting sucked in by someone who gives the impression they may be spoiling for a fight. So I can see why not responding to the request for explanation could have been a reasonable thing to do (or not do). As with others I hope AQFK is just having a bad day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: There is a huge, brightly colored banner across the top of this page requiring you to notify another user of discussion involving them. What part of that didn't you understand? Sheesh.

Having noticed this anyway... The edit was so awful that I needed a few minutes to assess what was going on. I had to browse the users history to make sure this wasn't part of a pattern, or compromised account or similar. I was typing something on the user's page when they reverted me a second time. This edit was factually wrong to an offensive degree, so I reverted again and finished typing my message.

I simply cannot believe that a competent editor wouldn't realize this edit was controversial (to put it mildly). Bad edits need to be addressed, and the most important goal is the articles, not playing games by humoring an editor's supposed confusion. We should deal with editors of course, but c'mon, this was bad.

There's nothing to be done here as far as I'm concerned. Not yet. A Quest For Knowledge knows how to post to Talk:White privilege, and they know that edit wars end badly. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't start this discussion (that would be Jytdog), and I have not proposed (nor has anyone else) any sanction against you. I have merely commented to explain AQFK's actions. (At least as to the last two edits.) -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That's weak. Jytdog started a discussion about AQFK, who was notified. You started a discussion about me in the same section without telling me. If you can't just own it, at least don't try and game the system with flimsy technicalities. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You specifically accused Grayfell of "stonewalling." Doing something like that and not notifying the editor in question is uncool. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A request for an explanation ought to be made on the talk page; no edit/revert to the article is required. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the request for a policy rational should have been made on the talk page rather than via edit summary by reversion, and so no revert was required. But that doesn't mean that such a revert was itself in violation of policy. -Obsidi (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As no revert was required, re-adding the change again was in essence an edit war (whether or not a sanction is warranted is a separate question). It's not, as you said, a request for a policy citation. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment at first glance there do seem to be some long-term issues here; it would take me at least a half-hour to look at the edit history to come up with an informed opinion. If this lingers I'll try to do so in a few days. power~enwiki (π, ν) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think a block is necessary, though some form of admonishment is needed for their insistence here that anyone who disagrees with their edits is a racist. They primarily edit controversial topics, and I doubt they are truly following WP:NPOV with their edits related to Kash Jackson, but overall I don't see a pattern of behavior that justifies a block. I would very strongly encourage them to try their hand at editing articles that aren't related to current political events; editing Sarah Jeong, "Polish death camp" controversy, Unite the Right rally, etc. is not a great way to develop good editing patterns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Slow deleting / undeleting / moving

• In the last several days, deleting or undeleting or moving a page has taken much longer than formerly, even if the page has only a few edits. Is there a reason for this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:VPT#Deleting pages. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for this - just noticed it myself when moving a page, but thought it was our crappy work's server. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

DS template needed

Will an admin please (re-)install {{American politics AE}} at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, out of curiosity, where is the policy that says only admins can add that template? Just for my own education. zchrykng (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the information here and read the template more carefully. zchrykng (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Do you feel the discretionary sanctions are necessary on this new article? It looks like it is only a few hours old with a dozen edits. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of heading off potential edit wars vs. hampering development of a new article with the tedious "consensus required" sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say that as a rule of thumb, any article connected to the subject of Trump is very likely to be the locus of conflicts and should be labelled with the DS notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: On a subject like this, edit wars are not "potential", they are a flat-out certainty. I don't know how much productive development can happen under those conditions. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the article over the next few days and will be ready to place the template if it looks like things start getting out of hand. (Or any other admin can place it whenever if they think it's necessary.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I personally kind of expect newer articles to be a bit more "wild west" than established old articles. I would further argue that the "consensus required" provision strongly favors the status quo, which makes sense on old articles with tens of thousands of edits, but not so much on brand new stubs. ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel that 1RR or "Consensus Required" would be beneficial, but the "discretionary sanctions notice" from {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} might be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that to the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Change to Arbitration Committee mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has recently switched from using the Mailman software for our mailing list to Google Groups. Google Groups has been used internally by the Wikimedia Foundation for some time, and it contains several modern features that will improve the Arbitration Committee's workflow.

As part of this change, the mailing list address is now arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Please send all future mail intended for the Committee to this address. The -b and -c lists have similarly moved to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org and arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.

Messages sent to the previous email addresses will be forwarded to the new addresses for a time. Other lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee, including funtionaries-en, clerks-l, and oversight-l, remain unchanged.

For the Arbitration Committee,

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to Arbitration Committee mailing list

Signature of User:RecentEdits

RecentEdits has a very similar signature with User:Figfires in this page. Considering this, I have given him a notice on his talk page on October 16. But then he did nothing, and this edit showed that he want to hide his confusing signature, rather than fixing it. Since this problem aroused Figfires and other editors' concern in User talk:Figfires#Re: 2018 European windstorm season. We want to seek administrator's attention. I know that blocking is the final action that we have to take, so I hope RecentEdits can come here and solve this issue. --B dash (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand that both signatures use the same color scheme and look similar (in that they are both green with a glowing green background). But is it really that hard to tell which is which (they both have different names in the signatures)? Your signature and mine both have the same color scheme too! As far as I can tell, he has no edits to talk talkspace, only 22 edits in usertalkspace (of which most were unsigned). And I wouldn't neccessary say he wanted to "hide" the signature, but maybe he wanted to remove what you had just told him was a policy violating signature. -Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi and B dash: That much is true; however, this is a clear case of RecentEdits attempting to copy Figfires' signature, so perhaps this case is different. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 04:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not the confusion, it is the trolling factor. Someone might check the contributions of RecentEdits (talk · contribs) and work out whether they do not understand common courtesy or whether trolling is likely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is certainly concerning; hopefully RecentEdits will change their signature voluntarily before replying here. I suspect this is more likely to be a new user unaware of site rules rather than a sock who is deliberately trolling. But even still: the signature-style-copying is not acceptable, and they must now be aware of that. While it is minimally acceptable not to sign comments on one's own talk page, that is strongly discouraged as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@RecentEdits: - just change the colours, that would be sufficient. A lovely blue, perhaps; try this: [[User:RecentEdits|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000092 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#000092 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#000092"><b>RecentEdits</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RecentEdits|<span style="color:#990000"><b>Send me a message!</b></span>]]</sup>. Fish+Karate 08:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@B dash:@Obsidi:@Power~enwiki:@Fish and Karate:I understand my mistake, and I deeply regret it. I will make sure to not make this blunder again, and no, it wasn't purposefully. Thank you! RecentEdits^{Message me here.}

@B dash, Power~enwiki, Fish and karate, and RecentEdits: Great that this was resolved successfully. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Journalist wants to see article history

Hi! I was wondering - I was contacted by a journalist who is researching the Warren Chaney case from back in 2015 and wanted to see the (now deleted) articles and the edit history. Would this be something she should go through WMF for or are we able to send her this information and/or restore the articles to a userspace for her? (If restored they would certainly be restricted to where only admins could edit the page, similar to how the hoax museum's pages are locked.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Do they have a company email address from a reputable news source? If so I would be inclined to assume good faith, but check the history for abuse before providing. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If the journalist works for a Kentucky newspaper -- especially the Kentucky New Era -- I would be VERY cautious. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the bias against Kentucky newspapers, whether Christian County or otherwise? Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Web search shows that a bunch of the stuff in the Chaney "biography" was "sourced" to the Kentucky New Era. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Among the citations to the New Era were [3] from 1987 and [4] from 1978. Yes, as news reports they're primary sources on those events, but how are they one bit different from any other news reports, which by definition are always primary sources on the news events they're reporting? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing much abuse potential given that the info (or at least what looks like an intact revision of the Cheney biography) is out there anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me there are 2 sets of articles to consider here. The articles on the alleged movies are not likely to have much info that is of concern (albeit I never saw them and am not an admin). This probably applies to the articles on the book and organisation. The articles on the people would need to be treated with greater care considering the possibility for BLPvios. Whatever happens, it should IMO be made clear that we don't (I assume) know for sure who is behind these articles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the edit history could do, however. A list of IPs and usernames with timestamps doesn't seem to present much of a BLP risk to me... --Jayron32 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

IPs are classed as personal data. But really should we be providing copies of deleted articles anyway? Unless we also provide the entire edit history doesn't it fail attribution under the license? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no requirement to provide the entire edit history. Simply providing a list of the all contributors should be sufficient. It's what we say at Wikipedia:Userfication#Cut-and-paste_userfication for example. I don't really see why IPs from edit histories should be considered personal data. If someone had asked for their IP to be deleted and that was honoured, we shouldn't reveal it. But it's accepted that if they chose to edit, their IP is shown. There's warnings about it and all that. In fact, there's a clear contradiction if our free licence requires a list of contributors, but we can't do so because of contributors privacy. Effectively it means the free licence isn't actually free since editors able to object to people reusing their work because doing so would require also including 'private info'. No, all editors can do is ask is we delete their IP from the list with the understanding that by doing so they're giving up their right to be identified as a contributor in that way, and while we would normally honour such requests we aren't required to. And yes, editors should be aware that deletion of an article doesn't mean it's gone, since articles can be undeleted for a variety of reasons and anyone can copy it in accordance with the licence terms which requires a list of contributor. Remember also we have Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and userficiation of jokes etc (maybe not hoaxes) is accepted practice. While the text for the category is a little confusing, my understanding is a number of admins are willing to provide the text by email or similar of articles provided there aren't reasons they shouldn't (like BLP or copyvio). Hopefully they also provided the list of contributors, although I suspect some do screw up. That said, while we are not required to provide edit histories, it sounds like this is something the requestor wants. This is likely to be more difficult to do unless we can agree to userfication which seems unlikely. This would probably need to be done via Help:Export and the requestor will need to have a way to be able to use it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I meant providing copies of the articles, as per the original request, could be a problem for the 2 or so biographies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a ton of mirrors that don't have full history (including the one where I found the Chaney bio), and nobody has complained about license afaik. I do have to wonder what present-day journalistic interest there might be in a years-old lame wikipedia hoax. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The complaint about the Warren Chaney article was that it contained made-up information. See WP:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. At least one participant in the AfD used the term 'deceitful'. This wasn't just the common problem that good references are hard to find. See also User:ReaderofthePack/Warren Chaney. The creation of Wikipedia's article on Warren Chaney and the related ones happened in 2011. There was a lot of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't favor releasing either the deleted article or the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Re the IP's comment, other people violating licences does not excuse us violation licences. Definitely people do complain here when they find someone has violated their licence, unfortunately a lot of sites don't care and it's not something that's easy for us to do anything about. I believe some contributors have contemplated DMCA complaints or similar. EdJohnston's comments re-enforce my view we shouldn't provide the biography articles but I still don't see a reason why we can provide the other ones unless they also made significant claims about living people. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, it seems that some of the film articles did claim people were involved who probably weren't. I have to admit, to me if they are being provided privately to someone, with the understanding the articles may be hoaxes and the info totally unreliable and since it seems like the people named were famous people, I wouldn't consider this to raise BLP concerns. But I understand others may disagree. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• ReaderofthePack, is the journalist only covering the Wikipedia saga around that user? Or are they pursuing some other angle (as well)? Given EdJohnson's comment above about how deceitful and inaccurate the article(s) was/were, I would be very hesitant to provide copy(s) to a journalist without being clear, because it could cause that misinformation to be further promulgated and perpetuated. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection needed?

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask for long term extended confirmed or pending changes protection for Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. The article is a frequent victim of Hoggerdhigh, usually through IP or newly made accounts. Sario528 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the page has no history of protection, I have applied a week's semi-protection to address the immediate disruption and a year's PC protection, which theoretically will keep it in check. Sario528: In the future, please post requests for protection to WP:RFPP. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Major changes to talk page archive assistant script

When using Archy McArchFace to archive talk page threads, selecting a level n header will now select all of the sub-headers that it contains. You no longer have to select those headers yourself. Happy archiving! →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RT story on Wikipedia

Did you know, according to Chris Hedges, some Wikipedia editors are unpaid? It must be true, it was on Russia Today, where we learn how "Wikipedia has become a tool to propagate the reigning ideologies and biases of the ruling elites". See also Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Interview_on_Russia_Today for more quotes. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I'm supposed to get paid? Where the heck are my checks? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede of Russia Today article, quite correctly, states that "RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet ..." I do not see why we should take anything they publish in any way seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You should take it seriously, because in every pile of propaganda, there may well be a grain of truth. RT is rubbish, but don't let them co-opt such a critique of Wikipedia. In many ways, Wikipedia is such a tool... RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's just that, 'RT says, 'you are a tool of the ruling elite' ', sounds like comedy. Is it 'takes one to know one'? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by necessity based on reliable 'mainstream' sources. There is no choice in this regard, as otherwise it would be impossible to create a coherent work. However, this means that Wikipedia reproduces the bias and prejudices of those sources, which are controlled by the capitalist 'ruling elite', and therefore propagates their ideology. It's worthwhile to be conscious of this fact, whilst also understanding that the age-old mantra 'verifiability, not truth' (even if that phrase itself has passed into history) is a necessary form of bricolage. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What tool are you? I call dibbs on needle nose pliers of the ruling elites. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"The ball peen hammer of the ruling elite" has a nice ring to it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly one optimal answer: the ruler of the ruling elite. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

But a little disturbing? Theodore Streleski and [5] Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a tool of the elite? AWESOME Drmies (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I see myself as the screwdriver of the ruling elite, although I could be the margarita of the ruling elite if required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Where's my money, Jimbo?! - Alexis Jazz 04:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Controversial" media, and how best to filter it ....

This is going to be a tricky posting (and likely a heated disscussion), so please bear with me.

Recently I was doing some image patrol work, trying to find media which needed updating in anticipation of structured data at Commons. This was done using a query on Quarry ( https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892 )

However, amongst the filenames returned were filneames for media the filename suggests that the content of that media may be either controversial (at best) or illegal in some Non-US jurisdictions (at worst), and thus would be content that contributors shouldn't edit (for legal reasons in their jurisdiction), or which they would be uncomfortable with editing. This is also a concern that some jurisdiction such as the UK, have penalties for "viewing" certain types of content which whilst merely controversial in the US, may be illegal in the respective Non-US jurisdiction. (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45842161 for one such instance).

Fully filtering content has been proposed many times before and as I understood it would not be possible currently.

Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, currently follow US law (and thus only censor to the extent that US law requires them to), it would be appreciated if there was a better mechanism for admins and uploaders to mark "controversial" media, so it can be explicitly dropped out of queries or searches compiled by contributors in jurisdictions with different (legal) standards, especially as it would for various reasons not always be possible to use a filename to know if content was going to be "controversial" without nominally viewing the content.

I'm aware that there is a badimage list, but it was my understanding this was only used reactively.

I'm posting this to the Administrators Noticeboard, so that someone more experienced can work out a solution and post an RFC in the appropriate manner.

(I will note that in a related aspect of the UK issue, I'd already put forward an informal proposal here about External Links Wikipedia_talk:External_links#WP:ELNEVER/_WP:ELNO_Should_explicitly_indicate_not_to_link_sites_which_contain_'illegal'_content. ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like exactly the sort of thing structured data is eventually supposed to be for. Such that things can be tagged as various categories of things that users might want to filter out themselves, without it actually doing anything by default without the users choosing to do this filtering... (thus avoiding issues with actual project-wide censorship while allowing users to filter things on their own and also allowing location-based filtering too if there does wind up being consensus/legal need for it). So my random recommendation at this point might be to look into if any of the existing categories might be candidates for creating flags (or whatever the hell you call it) in the structured data that will then be filterable by for such a use case? -— Isarra ༆ 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

For various reasons, I'd feel exceptionally uncomfortable going anywhere near "controversial" media (let alone editing/tagging), but if other admins want to review/tag images so they don't appear in a query like the one I mentioned ( or suggest a tweak to it), I have no objection.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

SO Request for SirEdimon

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

---

• SirEdimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Request: I'm trying to do a "Standard offer". I was blocked about six months ago. Since my block I've been collaborating heavily in the Portuguese Wikipedia and I helped to improve significantly articles about movies and women's soccer. I helped to improve the NWSL's article in Portuguese and the articles of all NWSL's teams. I helped to improve several film's articles and I created many others. I've been very active in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I'll keep my activities there because they need more collaborators, but I also want to be able to edit in the English Wikipedia. I'm fully aware that I broke the community trust and I deeply regret it. I promise I'll never do it again. I kindly ask the admin (or admins) reviewing my case to consider all the "good things" I did before my wrongdoing. Regards.

• SirEdimon was blocked for Sockpuppetry (SPI)

In my opinion, they do appear to have been editing constructively on pt.wikipedia since the block: [6], and they appear to understand why they were blocked. Bbb23 indicated that they are OK with unblocking, [7]

Due to the extent of the socking, I think it's best to discuss this at AN. SQL^{Query me!} 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd have been fine with Bbb23 and SQL agreeing, and not bringing it here at all, tbh. Sure, let's give it a shot. Seems pretty much a textbook WP:SO case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Seems to be fine, let us give them a chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'd have been happy with just the reviewing (User:SQL) and blocking (User:Bbb23) admins agreeing between themselves. But seeing as it's here, I'm fine with an SO unblock too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

RFPP backlog

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

---

It does not happen too often, but now we are backlogged at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with 25 open requests. A bit of help will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cleared. Fish+Karate 09:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to those who helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:6Packs/User:If2020/User:Ohmy45 sent me an email requesting an appeal for the block

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

---

6Packs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ohmy45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was sent an email from this user requesting an appeal for the block, so I am copying and pasting this email below. I am not sure what to do with it, so I am quoting the email below, errors included:

Dear Jesse,

I write this in reference to my Wikipedia account user:6 Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/6Packs. I was blocked on 5 October for a sockpuppert, see account. I sent this to one Admin who had blocked me but he hasn't edited since I sent the email.

I know its really wrong to have created more than one account and it honestly really pains me that I now just have to watch comments on Teahouse and never able to help. My mistakes and punishment dearly affect me everyday because I live a lonely old man life and Editing Wikipedia used to take me off the loneliness and feel like living among a community of human beings.

Due to my mistfortunate acts, I am not allowed to participate in the one thing I have fallen in love with and this has been a tough pill to swallow these past weeks since my block. My life really feels lonely and empty because I spent all my day - time editing 24/7 on my account 6Packs as I am an unemployed retired old fellow who only spends time trying to improve the enclopedia and try as much to enjoy every minute of it. I am very very sorry and ashamed that my decision to create more than one account led to me being banned and not allowed to participate any longer.

On my account, I had created about 50 good articles prior to my block and contributed mostly to preventing vandalism and did not cause any harm to Wikipedia despite my mistake of having previously had another accounts which I stopped using having crea ting the 6Parks one. Presently, I can't edit that anymore and my actions feel like I cut myself further away from the world without my Wikipedia participation. To relieve my stress, I tried creating a Facebook account but I just don't feel part of that as I don't get any knowledge or interest in the posts of people there. Additionally i tried Watching soccer every weekend but after the game, i return to the loniliness and feed my loneliness by reading the posts and comments on Teahouse and Help desks. Wikipedia has become such an addiction and a hobby of mine and it hurts that I made mistakes that I now have to live with by facing the consequences of my mistakes.

I could have posted this on my account talk page but I am currently locked out of the account. I ask of you to kindly see if you can assist me or post this plea on the Admin Notice Board so that maybe the Wikipedia community can decide if I deserve another chance with my account or still remain blocked as I am very lonely affected by this and wish to, should the community see fit, be given another chance. If there is more punishment i can be given before being accepted back or to clean up even 1000 articles that need help in a day, I am more than willing to do it in order that I can be allowed again into the Wikipedia community.

Kind regards 6Parks

-- This email was sent by user "If2020" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jesse Viviano". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

If I have broken any rules, please let me know. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the extensive checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry, we should probably note that the user is banned rather than blocked, under WP:3X. There's nothing in the unblock request that gives me even the faintest hope we can trust they'll stick to a single account, especially given they've been violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK in the past week. I count 16 sockpuppet accounts. The most I'd advocate is that we'd consider unbanning them roughly under the terms of WP:SO which require six months with zero edits and zero further sockpuppetry. I don't object if others wish to look on this more favourably. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Per WP:NOTTHERAPY, the editor's need to edit wikipedia is not something which makes a difference to us. If the editor has the problems they outline, I strongly suggest they try and seek some sort of help elsewhere to deal with them. As for an unblock, my first thought was that editor is clearly missing out a big chunk of the story. Sockpuppets may be indefed, but the master is not unless they either keep creating socks or do something else majorly wrong. A quick look suggests that this has been going on since at least June, not October and is still ongoing. Beyond the sockpuppetry, it seems like there is some fixation with creating an article on some Zambian author. There has also been a global lock, possibly because the same thing is going on at simple and/or commons. I suspect there may be more, either way other than needing to stop socking probably for at least 6 months the editor would need to be more honest if they want to convince the community to give them another chance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I received this email aswell. This is impressive[8] Looks like undisclosed paid editing to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I received an identical email as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Me too. I got the same email but did not feel comfortable in responding to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a standard offer situation, and it's been far less than 6 months without sock-puppetry (the most recent block was this month, and 16 sockpuppet accounts is a lot). I'm not sure if they're formally banned from other Wikimedia sites (such Wikisource); that may offer them an opportunity to contribute in the meantime. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was sympathetic to the request but with multiple admins saying he emailed them and socking as recent as few days ago that has taken me aback. Not sure how many more they emailed. Since there's new socking as recent as 19 October this account should not be unblocked. But the standard offer can start now. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• The account main account is globally locked, and another was locked 22 days ago, so I suspect there is more here than meets the eye. We are unable to consider the request for an en.wiki unblock due to the global lock: any unblock here would have no impact on the situation. They must appeal to the stewards for an unlock first and then make a request on their talk page for the purposes of transparency among other reasons. This also means it is explicitly not a standard offer situation since it doesn't really matter if we welcome them back if they don't have the technical ability to even log into their account, and meta/global does not have the concept of a standard offer, which is an en.wiki specific practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's still a standard offer as per as enwiki is concerned. Yes, G-lock is a separate issue, but if they convinced stewards to unlock them today, that's just part of it as they wouldn't be unblocked here because of that --they have to follow standard offer. So now, they have to try to convince stewards to unlock them before the earliest time when their standard offer unblock can be considered here, that's in six months time from now. If the time elapses, and due to failure to convince stewards, remain locked, then there's nothing that can be done from enwiki part, since unblock is meaningless. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, its often abused to mean “we should mindlessly unblock after 6 months” before even considering the lock factor, so I’d prefer we not further this idea with blocked users, especially in situations where there’s a good chance the WP:SO essay is meaningless because of a global lock. It’s not a policy, and waiting 6 months guarantees nothing if there isn’t reassurance the disruption is likely to stop, especially in cases where we literally will not even consider unblocking because of the lock. Anyway, someone should likely close this thread as there is nothing to do now. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Incidentally, regrding the reposting of an email in its entirety, it's worth checking this section of WP:EMAIL. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 07:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sender explicitly asked for it to be posted here, so there's no any breach in reposting it in its entirety. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Who mentioned a breach? ——SerialNumber54129 08:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That section you linked to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that this user is considered a cross-wiki long-term abuse case and a local unblock discussion (if successful) will not stop them from being locked globally. See the list of socks on my home wiki. Vermont (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Last socking on enwiki alone was last week, I'm not inclined to even consider unlock. — regards, Revi 14:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Two-way disruption on ANI

Would an uninvolved admin please put a stop to this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at timestamps. They stopped bickering at ANI 2 days ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Closure needed for Requested move for Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

Can someone please close the Requested move discussion for Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Requested_move_20_October_2018. 7 days are over and the discussion has drawn opinions from all sides. We can wait but posting here since the article is currently listed on the Main page so a faster response will be appreciated. I have voted myself, so I am unwilling to close. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban

Please refer [9], regarding my topic ban on FGM. I have voluntary accepted the ban as I didn't complied to self restricted FGM editing without discussing on respective talk pages. Although there were not even one 1R issue, my editing was felt interruptive to some editors as citation provided by me were not termed as proper RS.

My further editing since then had no further similar issues and had tried to further learn on selection of proper RS.

I request for lifting topic ban on the subject. I voluntarily further restrict myself to put my views on respective talk pages only, till it is well discussed there.Md iet (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For convenience — FGM = female genital mutilation. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin opened a complaint on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44#User:Md iet, in April 2018, which led to me to impose this ban. The general issue (now, and in the past) is concern about 'whitewashing' of FGM which is a practice of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect centered in South Asia and East Africa. For that sect, FGM appears to have status as a religious practice. UN bodies regard Female genital mutilation as a human rights violation. Though User:Md iet's ban was set up as a voluntary ban, the topic of Female genital mutilation is now understood to fall under WP:ARBGG, per this October 2018 ban of Muffizainu. In that AE thread, the closing admin decided that FGM is a 'gender-related dispute or controversy'. I haven't yet decided whether to support the lifting of Md iet's ban; I suppose he should explain why the problem won't occur again. If his views are similar to those that Muffizainu expressed in his own AE discussion, it doesn't seem very promising. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)