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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	3	0	3
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	6	0	6
FfD	0	1	3	10	14
RfD	0	0	0	18	18
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 55 sockpuppet investigations
• 11 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 21 Fully protected edit requests
• 4 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 133 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 8598 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Israeli attack on Ramyah UNIFIL post 2024-10-14 10:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Callanecc 2024 Hadera stabbing attack 2024-10-14 08:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 2024 Hezbollah drone strike on Binyamina 2024-10-14 08:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Al-Aqsa Hospital massacre 2024-10-14 08:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon 2024-10-14 08:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Sheikh Hasina 2024-10-14 02:19 2026-10-14 02:19 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: See the protection log for the history of problems EdJohnston Malayalam 2024-10-13 19:21 2024-11-03 19:20 edit,move ECP needed Daniel Case Portal:Current events/2024 October 11 2024-10-13 05:36 2025-01-13 05:36 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Israeli destruction of the Gaza Strip healthcare system 2024-10-13 00:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling October 2024 Bachoura airstrike 2024-10-12 23:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling No Title as of 13 February 2024 28,340 Dead 2024-10-12 23:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling Esmail Qaani 2024-10-12 03:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IRP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Draft talk:Mahammad Sami Shaik 2024-10-12 02:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Zionism 2024-10-11 19:01 indefinite edit renewing existing protection after interim higher protection Valereee Eklashpur High School 2024-10-11 14:11 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi Theo Gavrielides 2024-10-11 12:20 2025-01-11 12:20 edit Persistent sock puppetry ScottishFinnishRadish Template:History of Palestine 2024-10-11 04:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Wafic Safa 2024-10-11 04:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Pallava dynasty 2024-10-11 04:36 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Vaghela dynasty 2024-10-11 04:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Tokhi 2024-10-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Portal:Current events/2024 January 12 2024-10-11 03:16 2025-04-11 03:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 May 24 2024-10-11 03:16 2025-04-11 03:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 June 6 2024-10-11 03:15 2025-04-11 03:15 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 January 26 2024-10-11 03:14 2025-04-11 03:14 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 January 11 2024-10-11 03:14 2025-04-11 03:14 edit Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 May 28 2024-10-11 03:13 2025-04-11 03:13 edit Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 August 7 2024-10-11 03:13 2025-10-11 03:13 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Portal:Current events/2024 October 10 2024-10-10 22:40 2025-01-10 22:40 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Wade Wilson (criminal) 2024-10-10 22:23 2024-10-17 22:23 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Portal:Current events/2024 October 9 2024-10-10 20:13 2025-01-10 20:13 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic

A message to administrators about UTRS

UTRS is in the process of moving over to UTRS 2.0 of the software. We needed to do this because several users were unable to file proper appeals due to IPv6 IP addresses not being accepted by our severs. Therefore, we made the decision to move over to a rudimentary beta software instead to allow everyone to appeal properly.

Please note:

• In doing this, please understand that there will be bugs and issues. We will try our best to keep up with those issues. You can get assistance at the UTRS talkpage (preferably) or by placing "{{UTRS help me}}" on your talkpage.
• New features are not being considered at this time. Though your idea may have already been thought of and be in development.
• Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0. The only thing that needs to match is your Wikipedia username. You should receive a confirmation email to verify your account within 5 minutes. At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons).
• Temporary tool administrator status can be requested on WT:UTRS, and will be granted liberally at this time to help create templates from the old version. All bans, user management, and other tool administration functions are only available via the database or automated scripts already running on the server at this time.
• More information will be available in the days to come about the features of UTRS.

Please cross-post this message as needed

We appreciate your patience in advance,
For the UTRS Development Team, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Is there a phabricator ticket or project associated with this? Is it looking for volunteers to contribute to the software? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: We are on github. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0 ... At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons)" - that's the end of my contributions to UTRS then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm same question, even ACCtools does not have OAuth and OAuth is much more mature now. There's mwoauth for Python and mwoauthclient-php for PHP clients which are pretty stable, doing most of the work behind the scenes. It's probably more ideal to onboard more people into the development process and do it, if the workload is the issue. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: We've been trying to onboard people since it's inception in 2012 - we've only gained SQL and lost 2 others. No one has expressed an interest - or if they have, it missed my desk. I did not know about the PHP client, but I still struggle to understand OAuth and how to properly integrate it with Laravel as the login system is pre-build in there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I'm not that used to PHP but I can take a look into the OAuth integration. Maybe @DannyS712: can help as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Given the comments below, I'd also be willing to pitch in to at least get OAuth working. Depending on what other tasks need done I may be able to lend a hand elsewhere as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK and Wugapodes: If anyone wishes to pitch in, they can via pull requests, just be aware, we don't just use PHP, we use Laravel on top of it, which is the complicating factor. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: It's not small enough to resolve via pull requests, can you set up a development instance or if you already have one, grant us access. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the Wikimedia Cloud team if I can limit access to one instance I create that would allow you to do that. I think the answer is yes, but I'll have to get back to you - because I can't blanket hand out access because CU data exists on the server. In the mean time, if you don't have one already, you'll need to create a WM Dev account and tell me the name. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have asked the team, and there is no way I can limit access to only one instance. Also, if I understand you correctly, you just want to go in and code on an instance, and then have me integrate it back with whatever changes I've made in the meantime. That's a lot of extra time that a PR can solve while still allowing code review to make sure security remains intact. There is no limit to the size of a PR, in fact ACC has one here. The code is able to be ran on a local computer, and it only requires one install. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I will try but I have no experience with VPS (I work with Toolforge) and even if I could get it to work locally, there's no guarantee it will be usable at all in production. The ACC pull request is still open from 2017, so can you really say it's helping, either way, is it possible to get an instance up at Toolforge, or is it some VPS feature that is required, even a barebones instance is fine as long as we can test the flow in production, just saying it because it's known be finicky. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's something we can't put on toolforge. As far as I understand it, rules 2 & 5 would be violated to put it on toolforge. Beyond that, I would have to request individual pieces of software to be added which would not be guaranteed to be added and would take time. When we created UTRS, we were specifically told to stay away from toolforge (what it was at the time) with it. So the two options left would be that myself or @SQL: could push your changes to a test server when we have the time, that or I have to request (if it gets accepted) a separate wikitech:Help:Cloud VPS project and rebuild everything from ground zero. Speaking to personal development, if you google "how to install a lamp stack", it will tell you how to install all the things needed on a virtual machine that can run off your computer in any flavour of linux. Google is great for how tos on setting these up, and they don't need much resources at all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's always been a struggle to get admins to monitor requests at WP:UTRS. I think the OAuth made it easier for admins to pop in and check requests since it was introduced. I'm worried that adding extra layers for access will really drive down interest in participating and we'll lose any ground gained in this regard. This is absolutely not a criticism of all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in maintaining the system, just a concern from someone who has been active there pretty much since its inception.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with those above that ditching OAuth isn't desirable, I've popped in to UTRS occasionally when asked, but now will be more likely not to. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree on all points with Ponyo. Back when there was a separate UTRS login, there were at least several admins I know who were confused by the faff of having different logins for different bits of admin work (including me). I also had concerns about the security of the UTRS login at the time, and I refused to use it - I don't know what the security of UTRS 2.0 login will be like. When it changed to OAuth and just two clicks to get in and no new password, that made it a lot more accessible. Very easy to click through UTRS notifications on user talk pages, for example, and then perhaps review a couple of others when there. It made it so that every admin could see it easily, not just those who went through setting up a special UTRS account - and I remember a number of "No, it's easy now, just click" discussions I've had with other admins. Going back to a separate login again, I will simply not be bothered with the complication of the extra faff and I'll just give up on it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. (And, as per Ponyo above, that's not criticism of the people working on it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• login difficulty = 1/likelihood of my usage. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Update There are four requests in queue and I couldn't stand it, so I longed in. So much easier than beore! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  How did you do that then? The links still take me via OAuth to version 1.8.5 which says "UTRS is down :(" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

• @DeltaQuad: The registration form at [1] is trying to POST a password to an http:// (insecure) URL. ST47 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And there's no Strict-Transport-Security header set, so passwords are actually going over an unencrypted connection. ST47 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @ST47: Everything should be forced https, unless you specify you http for a page, the next page, you will still get redirected. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks like you fixed it, thanks. ST47 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Here. Though I guess there are still a few problems. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But how do you create the login in the first place? It's OK, I see ST47 has just linked it above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party" is not a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it is all being straightened. And once you are logged in, you can go to individual appeals from the Category:Requests for unblock page w/o bothering with OAuth. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say my first impression is that it's a horrible user interface, with important elements separated by vast areas of white space wasteland, and with enormous pointless icons. A good UI should take your eyes straight to the parts that matter, and this doesn't do that at all (at least, not for me). Anyway, I'll say no more - I'm walking away from it, but I might take a look in the future to see if it's any better. (Various parts of the UI contain spelling and other errors, if anyone fancies fixing those - they should be obvious). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• OAuth definitely made life a lot easier. –xeno^talk 12:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I understand OAuth made life a ton easier for everyone, I poured over the relevant documentation for days, and still couldn't figure out how to get it to work with our system. Some people have offered to try and help above, and if they can do it, i'll put it back in. I just simply don't have the ability to do it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Wish I could help, but it's way over my head. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do have some experience with OAuth (IPCheck uses a very hacky client to accomplish it - the very same that the original UTRS used). I cannot make a firm commitment of when I would be able to look at integration due to off-wiki circumstances at the moment, but I will try to do so in the near term. SQL^{Query me!} 02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've made a pull request to implement OAuth authentication. – Majavah ^(t/c) 07:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sensitive/private information

• @DeltaQuad: Is the new UTRS open to everyone to register an account and not just admins? UTRS is supposed to be used when unblock requests contain sensitive/private information (like IP addresses or real-world identities) and therefore surely needs to be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that the reason I ask is that I just saw a note on a non-admin's talk page denying their request for an account, but only because they don't have a registered email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've just seen at the login/register page, "For users that are here to comment on, process or assist with appeals, please select the button below. Please note that only user accounts over 500 edits are allowed to participate in this form." FFS, come on, there can private and sensitive information in UTRS requests. At WP:UTRS it says "UTRS access is limited to users who have undergone a community vetting process for higher tool access such as sysops, bureaucrats, and stewards in addition to Wikimedia Foundation Community Advocacy staff" and blocked users using it to request unblock will expect confidentiality - not exposure to anyone who's made 500 edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  That bit was inspired by the existence of ECP, wasn't it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  What's the relevance of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I dunno, it just seemed to me that since ECP has been introduced this 500edits thing has been spreading everywhere on Wikipedia, including places where it doesn't belong either because it's too strict or (in this case) too lenient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. Extended confirmed should, of course, have no relevance here, and the ability to view UTRS requests should be restricted to admins, crats etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not to mention that non-admins can't actually unblock them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  And aren't allowed to decline unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  So UTRS does not give out private information nor does it allow non-admins to review requests. In the old system, and still even now, we see multiple people who appeal basic blocks that do not contain private information at all. There is a system in place where the user can flag their appeal as having private information, and have it either just visible to administrators or oversighters. It is then reviewed to make sure it has private information. If not, it's released for public view so appeals that don't need to be hidden aren't. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  And what happens in the situation where the person does not flag it for private review but it contains private information anyway? Is it automatically released to every UTRS user? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes it does, just like it happens here on Wikipedia. There is an option for admins to defer it back to privacy, and other users can still use WP:RFO. -- Amanda (aka DQ)

• I've gone to review a UTRS ticket and been denied access due to "privacy". Is that a bug, or am I just less special than I thought? On the 500 edits issue, I really feel only admins and so forth that have been vetted should be seeing UTRS. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• There's a benefit to admin-only UTRS access that hasn't been mentioned yet: Spam, vandalism and harassment. Users who have been denied even talk page access by the community should not be provided an official new platform for reaching Wikipedia users with advertisements, insults, outing and libel. Not even for the thirty seconds or three hours until someone notices and removes it from public view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this LTA?

I know that one of you knows who this is: [2], [3]. And if you do, maybe you know what else we might could do besides just blocking the IP--is there a range we can do something about? a filter we can introduce? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

See the logs for Special:AbuseFilter/1050 and Special:AbuseFilter/2 where some admins have been working to address this. Yesterday, Enterprisey was blocking IPs that triggered the filter before the LTA could adapt. I'll use the new misses to try and fix the edit filter. Thanks for bringing this up here as more eyes on the problem would be incredibly helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated them, hits on 1050 should be immediately blocked. 2 is used for testing, so it may pick up problems the first one doesn't catch. If other admins see similar postings somewhere, let me know so I can update the filter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No User:Wugapodes, thank you! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ST47, Tks4Fish, you may be interested in this. ST47, you dropped a one-week block on one of the IPs; is there any point in extending the ones I placed? BTW I revdelete this shit as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: assuming you pinged me here so I can globally block the IPs, both are done :). 188.240.208.105's /24 for 3 years as an open proxy, and 114.134.189.16 for 1 month as a possible one. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tks4Fish, actually, I pinged you really just to keep you informed, but yes, that will work! Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Special:Diff/953991014 :/ Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The silver lining is that the filter is preventing human readable rants. Suffusion of Yellow made a wonderful edit that fixes the false positive problem caused by the growing filter, so that was a huge help. I've updated 1050 to account for the issues in the recent diff. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is reason to suspect cross-wiki abuse - (presumably) the same vandal has also been affecting en.wikt. It is probably safe to assume that any IP they are using after their main range got blocked is a proxy. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what I am smelling too. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure who this is, but with this and other recent vandalism, it unfortunately seems that wikipedia is finally facing the dreaded "tea spillers". Mostly teenagers, they've been ravaging social media for the past few years, obsessing over social media based controversies. They mainly congregate around beauty youtubers, and find power in constantly spamming gossip everywhere. Look at the history of James Charles (Internet personality) for examples. Be careful in blocking them, they may cancel you on twitter..... (#Drmiesisoverparty) Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• According to my daughter, that's not trending yet, but she looked up "Drmies" and said "it's not good". #blockedbydrmies apparently is a thing. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Anyone notice any activity on this today? I didn't see anything in the logs or at RFPP like I usually would, and we're past the time they're usually active. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• If someone can set up an LTA page for this user, that would be appreciated. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Everyone discussing this IP hopper, it is not an LTA. I can positively identify the IP hopping as block evasion by User:CGFSH, who got indeffed for posting similar kinds of BLP violations on the Connie Glynn page and for socking JavaHurricane 10:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I meant User:CGSFH, sorry. JavaHurricane 10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• FYI active again today – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wugapodes, [4]. JavaHurricane, what do you mean "not an LTA"? Is it not "L" enough? Ponyo, you blocked that a-hole account; what else can we do? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I had already set up something in filter 2 to catch this, and testing it on those edits shows that it hits, but nothing showed up in the logs? @Enterprisey: Any thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Stranger still, the text on the filter says it matched these edits, but they aren't in the log... — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wugapodes: Revdeleted (and oversighted) edits are always hidden in the EF logs. The logs for disallowed edits can also be oversighted separately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, I meant that this is a relatively new vandal rather than a long-term vandal. JavaHurricane 03:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• In case anyone is watching the logs and thinks I've gone mad, this vandal has started linking to previous revisions that haven't been revdeleted, so I'm trying to track them all down to prevent that. Plus it's for the best anyway per BLP. The good news is that the edit filter is working well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't noticed anything today; has anyone else? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to lift Topic ban

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

---

Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. The main problem was relisting the discussions with no keep votes. Now I am familiar with the policy. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• A couple of questions @SS49:, I'd say you were TBanned for two main reasons (noquorum and relisting bias are extremely common for nacs) - can you identify and then expand upon the second issue? Secondly, do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way), and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose removing TBAN on relisting or closing discussions but sure to removing it for sorting. I would say there's been general consensus at WT:NAC that NAC at AfD is unnecessary except in a few cases including in a discussion spurred by this ANI thread. There is no need to expand our pool of potential closers to someone who has had issues doing this in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear:, My understanding on this area: If all points have been debated with no chance of consensus, the discussion should not be relisted. If new information shows up late in the discussion, relisting is suitable. It is important to participate in the discussion than relisting or closing. If the ban is removed, I will sort the discussions and will relist and close discussions if there is a clear reason to do so. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The other concern I wanted noted was your lack (or hostile) communication to those who tried to raise the issue. Most nacs (including myself in the past) get the issue raised at least occasionally, but so long as they're engaged with it isn't an issue.
• Like Barkeep I support sorting being reallowed, but I am currently neutral on the other aspects, I'll need to think further. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• SS49 I'm all for second chances, but I have a problem with supporting this. Your interests and motivations are none of my business, and I'm certainly not trying to imply anything improper, but I can't understand why someone would be so keen to clerk discussions that they so rarely take part in. I just looked at your contributions to AfD, hoping to find that you were engaging actively with the process, and evidence that you had a good understanding of policy, outcomes etc. What I see is that you have only participated in a dozen or so discussions since your TBan, and all your !votes/nominations are accompanied by a very short 'Non notable X' rationale. The only grounds for lifting the ban would be 'time served' which, when not accompanied by evidence of development of greater understanding, doesn't cut it for me. Can I make a suggestion though? We don't really need more hands on deck to help with closures, but we always need more people willing to review articles, evaluate sourcing, and actively take part in the discussions. Why not do that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, My username in topic ban list really discourages me. I want my username removed from that list. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SS49, I guess I can understand that. Have you actually read through the list though? Yes, some of it is a bit of a rogue's gallery, but you'll also find some very experienced and widely respected editors on there too - you're not in such bad company, it shouldn't feel like a mark of shame. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, Thanks for understanding. Much respect. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Barkeep49. I don't see any community benefit in having another potential closer, and I don't see evidence of SS49 having learnt since the ban was imposed. The communication failures noted by Nosebagbear are a strong red flag for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. The brief statement does not convince me that SS49 understands the problems with their editing. If they urgently want to close AfDs they should run for administrator. Sandstein 13:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wanting your username cleared of a badge of shame listing at WP:EDRC since March of 2019 is good motivation to change your behavior. However, by expressing you want to return to the same arena doing the same or similar things is cringe-worthy to me. If wanting to clear your name is a priority for you, never return to your old haunt ever. Then request the tban is irrelevant because you have moved on. With what you have stated here, I would have to oppose because it seems to be serving its intended purpose of keeping you out of trouble and conserving other editors' efforts. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, I would really want to see a good amount of actual, constructive participation in AfD debates if you want to demonstrate you're now competent to clerk and relist them. AfD needs editors looking at articles and sources closely rather more than it needs more non-admin clerking. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash

Relevant accounts:

• GargAvinash (talk · contribs · count)
• Kumargargavinash (talk · contribs · count)
• ADPS (talk · contribs · count)

Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students, GargAvinash, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, Kumargargavinash and ADPS. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by ToBeFree and Yamla (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Would it be an overreaction to apply WP:G5 and WP:BE where applicable, indefinitely block the sock account and insist on a proper unblock appeal in no less than six months? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  As a very minimum measure I insist on, I have removed the trust-based autopatrolled flag from the account. Ping Swarm who had been tricked into adding it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I mean that the creations appear to have a straightforward "academic" focus and intent, which gives the user the appearance of being credible, benign and here to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. I generally would not grant Autopatrolled to single-purpose stub creators, but a perceived "academic" motivation would make me more likely to trust them. In this case, Garg was focused on academic institutions. In the other, the user was a supposed astronomer who merely wanted to work on the backlog of celestial bodies lacking articles (I don't recall their name, but I will dig up the case if you want me to; they immediately created a promotion piece after being granted Autopatrolled. This was explained to me by someone as being a known sock tactic.) ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Putting aside the rationale for deleting the pair, how do they stand on their own merits? As I view them in their deleted states, they're so amply referenced that they're hard to read; but my impression is that this is conscientious referencing rather than refbombing, that these were worthwhile if unremarkable articles, that their loss is a (minor) misfortune, and that (if we put aside the history for a moment) this is an editor who's an asset to the project. I'm open to being corrected. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't see how blocking the GargAvinash account would be WP:PREVENTATIVE, on the other, blocked users circumventing declined unblocks by creating new accounts is probably not something to be encouraged even if they are entirely good faith and helpful. This isn't the first case of that I've seen on this board, so maybe it's worth looking at broader patterns to resolve this. To this specific request, I'd say let GargAvinash continue editing as GargAvinash, and leave the two previous accounts blocked with a tag stating they are former accounts of GargAvinash. I just struggle to convince myself that blocking Garg would be preventative. I trust Rosguill's judgment, and he's clearly keeping an eye on the account, so I'm not very concerned that disruption will return. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm not sure what to think for this case. On the one hand, I agree that there isn't anything really preventative about blocking now, I have yet to notice any significant issues in their editing since the block was lifted, and the most recent unblock requests seem to be reasonable explanations for past editing behavior, and they seemingly had very little to gain by confessing out of the blue. The argument could also be made that the break between 2018 and 2020 could be taken as "time served" for a standard offer unblock. On the other hand, the unblock requests in 2017 and 2018 strike me as less good faith, in some cases clearly deceptive given more recent confessions, and I'm at a loss as to why they requested an unblock on the old account about a week ago. That the original block was related to promotional editing is further concerning for an editor that's beelined to requesting NPP and autopatrol, even if they haven't done anything to suggest abuse on the new account. The reasons for my not immediately revoking autopatrol were that it seemed like it would be cleaner to just implement whatever decision was made at the end of this discussion, with the knowledge that any attempt to use the permission disruptively in the meantime would be quickly caught and make our decision much more straightforward.

  Right now, I'm wondering if the best way to handle this would be to allow them to continue editing, but to indefinitely ban them from requesting additional permissions such as NPP or autopatrol. This would allow them to continue editing productively, while also keeping them away from giving them tools that are reserved for trusted editors. These bans could be reviewed down the road in a few years if there's strong evidence of committed good faith editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's all very weird, especially how the COI concerns play in with NPP. I think the ban on permissions other than autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a good idea. To the extent that they may have a COI or are an UPE, obviously we want to limit the damage, and I think the ban would do that effectively without losing potential positive contributions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'll add a {{checkuser needed}} here, as checkuser evidence was used for declining at least one appeal. The user is practically evading a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is  Inconclusive without knowing what I'm looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• We really aren't sure what to do with these as a Community - I've seen longer cases basically just be ignored, while shorter cases are obviously rejected. I don't have a clearcut answer myself - we are currently squashed between "in no way preventative" and "sets a terrible example" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Right then, a clear-cut answer. He did wrong, but he long absented himself (we think), and if he did then in effect he pretty much served his time. He volunteered that he had done the dark deed. He's penitent. Blocking his current ID would not prevent anything that should be prevented. He seems a worthwhile editor; more than that, he seems to be a scrupulous, level-headed editor who understands Indian matters and who can read Hindi; and en:Wikipedia strikes me as terribly short of such people, much needed in the face of energetic and tiresome boosterism. So let his current ID be. No extra permissions for one year, but if he applies any time after that, view the application on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, what? A COI editor who has evaded his block on multiple occasions (no-one seems to have mentioned Gopalagarwal11 here, but that was him too) and we're willing to give him a free pass on that because he can speak Hindi and might contribute to Indian topics? This guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution; I recommend we deal with him the way we always deal with such editors: indef block, standard offer. If this discussion wasn't already underway, I would be implementing that block right now. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've slept over the issue and agree with Yunshui. Eight failed unblock requests, two of which have been made in April 2020 with the intentional omission of the active sockpuppet. In July 2018, the user lied "I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine."; in October 2019, they created their newest sockpuppet; in March 2020, they requested and received a trust-based autopatrol permission; in April 2020, the user requested an unblock twice at User talk:Kumargargavinash, both times including the reason "I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy", as if they had learned from the mistake, not speaking a word about having knowingly repeated it since. Only when two appeals had been declined, the user decided to write Special:Diff/954673728 with their sockpuppet GargAvinash, yet required a very friendly inquiry by Rosguill before actually admitting which accounts this is about. A chronic case of dishonesty, this is. As the user is still blocked, and there is clearly no consensus for an unblock here, WP:CBAN applies. Someone uninvolved should close this after at least 24 hours, per "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'", implementing a site-wide ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I guess this is a bit late now, I wrote it before anyone had replied but because I also wrote a bunch of other stuff and I wasn't sure if I wanted to say it all, I didn't post it. But "If I were Kumargargavinash, I would not wait for a decision or to be blocked on the GargAvinah account. I'd stop using it straight away and wait (at least) 6 months and ask to be unblocked on the Kumargargavinash account." Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I also wrote: This sort of seems to be a case where maybe if Kumargargavinash had tried to get unblocked in January with full honesty, they would have a fair chance of getting unblocked. But even taking WP:CLEANSTART into consideration I don't think we can accept the socking while blocked, especially given the historic problems were both socking and paid editing concerns. No matter that they seem to have been confessed without prompting. Adding now that I've read the other responses, I think it's preventative since it's difficult to trust an editor in these circumstances. While no one has identified any clear problems with their recent editing, it's difficult to be confident they won't re-occur with an editor who feels it's okay to pick and choose what parts of policy they want to obey in a manner way beyond that allowed by IAR i.e. completely ignoring a block. And as others have pointed with the benefit of hindsight, we also see they were misleading us very recently with the April 2020 unblock. They said they understood they weren't allow to sock, but didn't mention they were still socking until confessing to Rosguill later. (I also feel that if we just allow this to pass, this means they and others are more likely to just do the same thing but appreciate some may feel that's not a valid block reason.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm with Yunshui, ToBeFree, and Nil Einne: we shouldn't even give the perception that we will tolerate block evasion. I also vote for GargAvinash to be community banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion; failing that, a indefinite ban of this newest account, and maybe the standard offer. If the editor stays away for at least six months. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• The editor has demonstrated a long-term trend of dishonesty that continued up to this past month. A block is just as preventative here as the policies for WP:SOCK intend. If someone cannot be trusted by the community due to a history of dishonesty and sock puppetry, then they aren’t given editing privileges until they are believed to be trustworthy again as a preventive measure against future dishonest editing.
  In this case, their honesty started yesterday. Whether they weren’t dishonest from July 2018 – January 2020 is irrelevant if they were dishonest from January 2020 to yesterday. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ignore it - I don't see any benefit to blocking him now. Redirect the old accounts to the new account for transparency, but, other than that, this violation of WP:SOCK isn't particularly significant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Allowing a user a free pass encourages them and others to evade blocks/bans. --MrClog (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Regretfully, I think I'm now in the block camp. I'm swayed by comments made here, but the clincher is a comment made by GargAvinash. Following comments from ToBeFree that included rhetorical questions and a specific request that GargAvinash not respond to them [5], GargAvinash responded anyway and among other things, claimed that their block evasion with the current account was due to ignorance [6]. This really stretches the limits of my ability to assume good faith, given that the second account, ADPS, was explicitly blocked due to socking. While I can believe that someone may have simply walked away after getting blocked a second time without reading the relevant policies, coming back with a new account a year and a half later is at best negligence, and less charitably could be seen as contempt. I find it difficult to take someone seriously when in the same comment they say that they didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock [while requesting an unblock for Kumargargavinash] because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry and that they nonetheless never intended to...mislead, deceive...or circumvent a block ban or sanction. I'd be willing to entertain a standard offer further down the line, but at this time even that strikes me as being lenient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK.

  I didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry

  Q: why did you continue to edit with the sockpuppet until yesterday?
  A: I admit my stupidity but please watch my edit history. I haven't done anything that violates COI for which I was blocked.

  — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  (I assume that they started writing their answer before I added the note about the questions being rhetorical, so I wouldn't hold the answering itself against them. It's just the content of the answer that is concerning, as Rosguill and MarkH21 describe in detail. I recommend Kumargargavinash to have a look at this discussion and the whole situation in a few months again.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I still think the ban on advanced permissions is better, on balance, but I will agree that since my last comment here Garg has not been helping their own case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• The section had been archived after 6 days without messages. We need a formal closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Don't take measures against this account - if this user hadn't admitted previous socking, the account wouldn't have been blocked. Admitting it was a good thing, you shouldn't punish for it. 46.117.17.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Amnesty' Made a fresh start-- leave the past in the past. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless of how people feel about the substance of the main question, I feel the bare minimum is an Account restriction indefinitely banning GargAvinash to one account (logged at WP:EDRC). What they have done should not be taken lightly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeh

Per section above and WP:DWG, please remove his all user rights and protect his user page.--GZWDer (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GZWDer, is there confirmation? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: See Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2019#Jamie_Edward_Hanrahan_(Jeh). Reported by @Ed6767:.--GZWDer (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed 2020. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: His reviewer right should be removed too.--GZWDer (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User :أمين moved a page after someone else moved a page after a two year hiatus of another page move

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

---

At, now, Wadi Qana, أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the page on October 22, 2018 calling it the "official" name (which is disputed, considering the river flows through a couple of territories), JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the page on May 5th, 2020 claiming the prior move was made without discussion and no "official" name. أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then moved the page back less than 12 hours later with no edit summary.

I believe the last move was in violation of Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page, specifically the part of

"If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves"

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It was obscure page so no one looked it received few edits before moving back to original title --Shrike (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It needs to go to a requested move, rather than just moving it back and forth. The sources in the article call it Nahal, but they're almost all Israeli sources. Meanwhile there are more Google News hits for Wadi - even excluding those like Electronic Intifada - including sources like [https://www.jewishpress.com/multimedia/photos/bennett-establishes-7-nature-preserves-in-judea-samaria/2020/01/15/ where even the Israeli Defense Minister apparently calls it "Wadi" (though I am aware that my Google News settings aren't picking up Hebrew-only sources). I found two Haaretz sources, where one article calls it Nahal, and the other Wadi. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see the move to Wadi Qana was made as long ago as October 2018, and nobody appears to have disputed that until now. It does appear to be a reasonably obscure article with not many participants, but I think that name should be seen as the status quo ante now. I think the correct thing to do now for anyone who thinks the name should be different is indeed to request a move and seek consensus, and in the short term it doesn't really matter what name it is at. I don't think there's any admin action needed unless there's any further move warring over it (which there won't be now that both movers have been notified, right?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, OK, that's why I brought it here. I'm a Page Mover so I just wanted clarity over this since a move after a move is usually not allowed, especially when it can be seen as controversial, and I don't think anyone would think a 2 year lull as the same thing. I just wanted to get more eyes on this for more input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto to Boing - I don't think there is much admin action required. An WP:RM finding consensus for a particular term is what's required. If things escalate, then things may need to be looked at Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• And this utter bullshit filing is why Sir Joseph needs to be banned from anything related to Israel/Palestine. This was an uncontested move nearly 2 years ago. Uncontested. No one raised an objection. Now two years later its an issue? When Sir Joseph has never made an edit to the article or the talk page? And yet feels the need to threaten to report Nableezy for correctly pointing out that you cant contest a move 2 years down the line? Its more ideological battlegrounding from Sir Joseph in his ongoing pro-Israel POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, I didn't threaten to report Nableezy. There's no need to get all excited. All I did was point out a move less than 12 hours after another move that can be seen as controversial. An almost 2 year space isn't the same thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Dont talk crap. Thats an overt threat. And no, a move less than 12 hours after another move is not "controversial", THATS CONTESTING THE MOVE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, 1. Maybe learn how page move policy works. 2. I suggest you strike your personal attack. 3. Learn how to read, I never threatened to report Nableezy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would suggest you go read WP:RM again but I doubt it will enlighten you. I see you were merely threatening to report someone else in discussion with Nableezy. Fair enough. Since you like to use threats of noticeboards to get your way in discussions, next time I will not be engaging with you directly, I will be going straight to AE looking for a complete ban on all editing in the IP area or a community discussion to ban you from editing any topic even remotely associated with Israel, Palestine or anything related to Jews. I will present evidence of your extended battleground behaviour (which can be easily provided with a bit of tedious edit-history and noticeboard archive searches) in the area, your extensive block log for similar issues, and you are more than aware of the discretionary sanctions that are in place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, 1. You still didn't strike the personal attack. 2. What part of this don't you understand?

  ""If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves"" If you continue to attack me, as you've done here and at prior AN threads, I will seek an IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, regarding this edit. You can not express yourself the way you did, especially not regarding other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply. Please do not repeat such behavior and please strike the offending parts of that post. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. Personal attacks, threats to go to AD, etc., are not helpful. Please stop. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason for admin intervention here. I do have an opinion, based on the fact that 6 out of the 7 sources call it by one of the names, but that is for the talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ideally this is solved by somebody reminding Shrike that pretending something is uncontroversial when they know it isnt shouldnt be done, and hopefully by somebody dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. An RM has been created out of that bogus "uncontroversial request" and I dont think anything else is needed now. nableezy - 17:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Improper closure at NPOVN

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

---

Regarding an NPOVN thread regarding content as Democratic Socialists of America. A user alleged that inclusion of certain material was an "NPOV violation." I believe this user's justifications, which have in large part offered political or personal/subjective reasons rather than ones based on policy, are in fact not in compliance with NPOV, and the material is well-sourced. I brought this to NPOVN for resolution, but I believe the discussion was improperly closed, as it doesn't bring resolution to the issue. I am opening this thread to request the close be re-opened.

Calton read the last sentence of the discussion where I mentioned "content issue," disregarded the entire rest of the discussion, and performed a non-admin closure, saying that "content disagreements are for talk pages." This is obviously ridiculous, because every matter at NPOV is at heart a content dispute. However, this specific disagreement centers on NPOV based on assertions by both sides, which is why I opened the discussion. This was an improper close and should be overturned, as it was unproductive and brings no resolution to the matter. The only two issues this user should've addressed were whether 1) the content was compliant with NPOV and 2) whether the reasoning offered by either side was compliant or non-compliant with NPOV. Instead, this user took personalized accusations made by another editor (which I refused to engage with) at face value and closed the discussion. I request this discussion be re-opened to bring closure to the underlying disagreement, regardless of whether it's the outcome I would've preferred or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Why isn't this on AN/I?
2. As "this user" is me, why wasn't I notified?
3. If you are going to bring attention to your self on an admin noticeboard, perhaps you should strike the WP:PA you made six minutes before posting this.[7]

O3000 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You weren't the one who closed the thread. This is about a thread closure. The closing user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The closer is correct here when they say "the editor perhaps least helpful in resolving anything was you [Wikieditor19920]". Multiple editors in that thread complained about wikieditor19920 repeatedly mischaracterizing their arguments, and the thread quickly devolved into a filibuster which was rightly closed. Based on the thread, the best way to resolve this issue is to remove Wikieditor19920 from the article to prevent bludgeoning, strawmanning, and forum shopping. I'd recommend a temporary ban (~1 month?) from the DSA article or a one-way interaction ban unless the editor agrees to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you not taking bad-faith accusations like "mischaracterizations of arguments" at face value and I reject that I, at least intentionally, mischaracterized anyone's arguments. One user, O3000, repeatedly denied making statements that diffs and quotes prove they made. I have not engaged in any form of "strawmanning" and I resent the accusation. Perhaps I should have disputed these accusations more strongly, but I chose to ignore them and stick to content. It's obvious that I responded directly to users and identified flaws in their arguments based on policy and the sources available, and the responses were typically "Oh, that's not my argument." Why would I participate in a discussion only to misrepresent their arguments? If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. These accusations, and the behavior by these editors, was ridiculous. I'll note that Toa Nidhki observed exactly what I was talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate if the admin above would address the issue at hand: improper closure of the discussion. There were two NPOV issues here: the comments by an editor and 2) the content itself. The closure addressed neither. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that the above admin just accused me of forum-shopping, for seeking input on a single forum, NPOVN, over an NPOV issue. The only other forum I have raised it on is here, to challenge an improper closure that singled me out for criticism with an out-of-context quote and did nothing to address the substantive NPOV dispute. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: Law of holes. No, I'm not being snide. I'm being serious. You were offered an out and doubled with yet another WP:PA. If you continue along this vein, eventually someone will bring up WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the "friendly advice," it'd be better if you would behave with a baseline level of civility, and not make repeat false accusations of personal attacks paired with combative, personalized criticisms (See Golden Rule) in about every one of your posts, including this one above. WP:CIR is basically a roundabout way of name-calling in this context. This is exactly the kind of filibustering that O3000 engaged in at NPOVN—trying throw out bait with combative/insulting posts and taking the conversation hopelessly off-track. If I wanted to deal with that directly, I would've raised a thread at ANI, which I may do at a later time, but I think it's proper to ask for review of this closure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban Appeal

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

---

This is an appeal of the topic ban on Japan-related articles I received in July of 2016: [8] In the topic ban proposal, my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban: [9]​

In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make, and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit.

I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support User has been active since 2016 and hasn't had any other issues. No concerns.--v/r - TP 00:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support no current issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing any issues. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, shows awareness of the issue and commitment to fix it; clean block log and steady activity also indicate the capacity for productive collaboration. Guy (help!) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Daniel Molokele

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

---

Daniel Molokele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I put this user at the COIN Noticeboard but as no one as answering and it seems like he is editing it more I thought I should bring it here. Please see the COIN post I made for more info. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 04:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet investigations needs help

Calling all admins: WP:SPI needs some assistance to work through the backlog which is growing quite quickly. Most of the cases with "open" status are pretty obvious and simple to deal with. Clearing out these SPIs quickly has some of the biggest impact as generally this is the type of socking that is making consensus building hard. Dealing with these simpler cases also allows admins who are more familiar to deal with the difficult ones. There are comprehensive instructions available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions but that level of response probably isn't needed. Just block the accounts appropriately if there's abusive socking occurring, make a note of what you've done and change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|clerk}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The “green cases” where CU has also returned a result and it needs someone to decide how to handle is also chronically backlogged. Also, if someone’s not socking but they’re being disruptive in another way that would lead to a block, block them for the other thing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We need a double link to Commons?

As we know since Wikidata exists the link to Commons appears in the left column. However it happens that some users occasionally roll back if I delete the second old link (useless and unsightly), added to the External links. How should I behave in these cases? --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They're right and you're wrong; removing {{Commonscat}} and its variants from the External Links section is straightforward disruptive editing. Not only do the Wikidata categories not necessarily tally one-to-one with the most appropriate Commons category, by removing the links you're disrupting the experience of anyone using the mobile site and any downstream reuser, neither of whom will see the cross-wiki links in the sidebar without considerable effort. ‑ Iridescent 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well in the articles I create I am sure that the Commons link is appropriate. Ok, thanks for the future I will know how to behave, but if what you say is true it would even be more useful to put a second link in the External links, which is rare to see due to the fact that the links to Wikidata were made later. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if I understand your question as "if an appropriate category at a sister project exists, is it correct to add a link in the EL section?", then yes, absolutely; that's literally the point of these templates. The chapter-and-verse is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects with more details at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder, per chance, if Kasper is refering to this edit? The issue here is this user STILL does not understand WP:CATVER, something that has been raised with them recently. They even brought my reverts to AN, which resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG. Maybe there's a bigger WP:CIR issue here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said, but WP:AGF and all that… ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. My Italian is a bit rusty, but I got the gist of "stato bloccato" and "infinito" before hitting translate! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

w:it:Wikipedia:Check_user/Richieste/Archivio/Utenti/Kasper2006 is the equivalent of their SPI archive, which is not the best of signs. However, it's worth noting that that was a long time ago (2009-2012). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: That is an interesting question. I have been thinking the same for Danish Wikipedia but I have not raised the question yet. My thought is that we should not need to have link 2 places. But if it is better to have link in 2 places then why does that not also apply to interwiki links? Perhaps the long term solution is to make it easier to visit interwiki and sister projects on mobile devices. Good night everyone! I should not be up this late :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block

• 84.13.196.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I blocked this IP for this [10] followed by this [11]. The same approach is visible here [12], repudiating WP:RS, and trolling at talk:Plandemic.

I have no involvement with the Waldman article but an involved at Plandemic, so if anyone wants to modify or undo this, I'm fine with it. A partial block on the Mikovits and Plandemic articles with their talk pages would be OK by me but the Waldman edit indicates a more substantial WP:NOTHERE/trolling issue. Guy (help!) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me and it's also been reviewed by 331dot as part of a declined unblock request. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Squidwerd frequently adding unsourced/poorly sourced content to articles

Squidwerd (talk) has been adding lots of unsourced content to articles such as The Office (American TV series), MrBeast, and others seen in his edit history. When it is sourced, it’s often a bad/primary reference used. They have stated on their talk page "not to send them messages" and he does not respond to or acknowledge any. Thanks SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone mass-rollback Special:Contributions/50.26.172.216 ?

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

---

Block evasion of Hmains (talk · contribs) who's just had AWB priviledges revoked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Which likely means that Hmains (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked too. Will notify soon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: as the blocking admin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I just rolled back the latest 500 contribs of that IP based on the (incorrect) assumption that Hmains was blocked. This may not be as straightforward as it looks - are these {{CatAutoTOC}} additions at all useful? – bradv🍁 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's less that having the templates isn't useful than that they're in the wrong place. Pinging User:BrownHairedGirl, who has been cleaning up the mess (and has forgotten more about categories than I will ever know). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -- Actually no, they're in the wrong place, but they're also for very small categories for which they additions are apparently not useful. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Already a tangential discussion here. She says there was probably no need to roll back. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: basically everything in category space can be reverted. If there's a need for this, bots can do it properly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb the IPs' edits are OK. Possibly un-needed, but well-formed.

It's Hmains's malformed edits which should be rolled back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this IP address, do not know how to use an IP address in lieu my WP user name, and would not even consider any such evasion anyway. Please check it out. Thanks Hmains (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose that this is some sort of framing then? Bradv, do you know of any user who can check into this? (Yes, I know that CUs cannot publicly connect accounts with IPs, but it could be worth checking privately anyways). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have not checked. I believed the block reason as well as the statement at the beginning of this thread, both of which are erroneous. Hmains is not blocked, so this cannot be block evasion, whether or not the IP belongs to them. That is my mistake. – bradv🍁 22:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  If they now check and subsequently block Hmains, the connection is obvious as well. Private checks are useful if the issue hasn't been raised at a public noticeboard before. --MrClog (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Mdaniels5757, the TOC should be placed below all category header elements. It works fine if it's immediately above the parent categories, or below them, or (as with some of this IPs' work), in the middle of them.

The IP has been doing this for 3 or 4 weeks (see e.g. this discussion at User talk:50.26.172.216#Template:CatAutoTOC), and mostly seems to be doing it right, adding them at the bottom of the page. That's different to the Hmains style of consistently adding them at the top.

So I am unsure about the accuracy of Headbomb's assertion that the IP is Hmains. When Hmains was using AWB, they set AWB to add CatAutoTOC at the top of he page, but since the default mode of AWB is to append rather than prepend, it would have required a conscious choice to prepend. It would be odd for Hmains to have switched from doing it properly when editing manually as an IP, then screw it up when logged in and using AWB. So unless there is some other info linking the two, my guess is that Hmains is not the IP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going off the block log. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) PS I have been a long-term critic of Hmains's reckless use of AWB, and glad that their AWB access was revoked again (hopefully permanently). But from all my engagement with Hmains over any years, they seem like a thoroughly nice person, and socking just seems out-of-character.

Plus, as I noted above, the nature of the edits has enough subtle differences to make me doubt that it's the same human.

So I don't think there is socking here, and I also don't think that IP should be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, how is the block log connecting the two? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the IP's block log, and the note by Primefac. I think Primefac was mistaken in linking the two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I just went back and checked the IP's contribs for late April. I chose 26 April, and those contribs[13] show the TOC being correctly added at the bottom the the WikiCode, e.g. [14].
Now look at Hmains contribs in the same period[15], e.g. [16], where {{CatAutoTOC}} is added at the top.
It doesn't seem likely to me that when Hmains had set up an unauthorised bot to this, and taken extra steps to misconfigure the bot, they were all manually editing as IP and doing it correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your in-depth look at the situation. I saw an IP editor making similar edits (en-masse and relatively quickly) that had recently gotten Hmains in trouble, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. My apologies to the IP for the block (which I've now lifted) and to Hmains for the assumption that kicked this whole thing off. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Should I be reversing the rollbacks I did? – bradv🍁 23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the conversation here and elsewhere, I think it's best to just leave things be for now. Pages that need the template will (eventually) get them re-added. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with leaving Bradv's rollbacks in situ. And I think that Primefac was right act quickly when they saw what seemed to be disruption. Best to be precautionary, and check the details later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• and will the IP block log be corrected to remove my name, improperly associating me with this IP address. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Hmains: A log entry was placed, (case of mistaken identity) in log entry 107994469. The prior log can not be "edited". — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks anyway. Hmains (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I agree with leaving the roll-back. Most people seem to think the template should not be applied when all the entries total fewer than 100, and the ip was doing lots like the ridiculous case here, where nearly everything begins with the same letter, and the TOC is useless. Do/should we have any formal policy or consensus on when this template is appropriate? Is it more helpful for mobile viewers than desktop? Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod, I dunno where that "most people seem to think" comes from.
    The whole point of CatAutoTOC is that it will generate a TOC if needed, otherwise do nothing. So it is used on lots of categories which don't yet reach the threshold, but might grow, to save editors from manually adding or removing a TOC as categories grow and shrink. The folly of Hmains and the IP was adding it indiscriminately to whole sets of categories which will almost certainly never reach that threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's how the template is set up, and for example here and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't understand your point, and I think you may have misunderstood the way CatAutoTOC operates. (I conceived it and built it).

The template remains as I set it up, to adjust its output to the current state of the category. It does nothing when the category falls below the threshold, but it the category size grows to exceed the threshold, then it will start displaying the TOC.

The whole point of CatAutoTOC is that removes the need for human intervention, which allows it to be added as a one-off action to categories which might reach the threshold. So my rough approach is to:

1. add it to categories which have over about 50-70 items, and which have some potential for growth
2. add it to category header templates, so that any of the cats which used that template will generate a TOC if needed. That's much more maintainable than having an individual entry on every page in the set. Category:Templates using CatAutoTOC contains over 400 such templates.

Any notion of not adding {{CatAutoTOC}} to a category just because it currently has less than 100 pages is missing the point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And where, exactly, has that point been set out by you for me and others to "miss"? You designed a rather dangerous toy, which has attracted puzzlement (template talkpage also) and now abuse. So there's no need to take that tone. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see BHG taking a "tone" here. Might want to just let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I guess, also, that it's testament to Hmains pleasantness as a person (cited above) that they haven't demanded apologies left-right-and-centre for the multiple, repeated assertions that they were/may have been socking, even with 14-years' tenure and a million edits. serial ^# 12:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Revdel IP request

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

---

Hi, Emailed OS but still no answer 2 hours on, Could someone revdel both of my IP addresses at Mercedes-Benz Vario please?, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 23:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate that Enterprisey, Many thanks for your help :), Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, and now they've been oversighted too. Sorry for the slow response on list - usually it's much quicker than this. – bradv🍁 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Bradv, No worries, Tbh I thought it had actually been declined as it was my own stupid fault anyway, Anyway many thanks for oversighting and replying - Both are much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

TFA vandal

As most probably know, there is a person that is vandalising TFAs. I checked a few of today's IPs and they don't seem to be open proxies yet their geolocations are all over the planet. Do we have any idea as to how this user is operating w.r.t. IP addresses? (Pinging zzuuzz, who might be able to help.) --MrClog (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

These are definitely open proxies, with the possible exception of any IPs geolocating to mid New York State, whence this appears to originate. I've seen a mix of obvious colos and some of what I would carefully describe as publicly accessible VPNs on broadband. Some of these may not be open, in the traditional sense, but might belong to some 'app'. At this time I don't know for sure which network this might be - I have some suspicions though tbh it's not going to be that important. Also, while I'm here I'd just recommend to carry on blocking as you've already been blocking, plus whatever else needs doing, picking out the web servers for possibly a longer block if you can. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Their behaviour does indeed suggest that the IPs are open proxies, but some are owned by ISPs like this one, that doesn't seem to be the kind of ISP you'd expect when looking at VPNs (I couldn't find any indication they even sell internet packages for companies). MrClog (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The distribution of IPs suggests to me some P2P thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Makes sense. Hopefully the IP gets bored soon. It's a bit sad that the TFA has to be protected every day; we want to invite new people to edit it. --MrClog (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes, maybe? Enterprisey (talk!) 17:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: That sounds like a smart idea to me; should take the fun away from the vandal while allowing new users to edit. --MrClog (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been advised by Bradv that PC works better for lower-traffic articles, so the current approach of edit filters and semi (if it gets bad) should continue. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We appear to have had an edit-conflict - I PC'd the TFA four minutes before this comment, so (unless anyone wants to revert it which they're welcome to) we now have a forthcoming experiment. TFA is not always heavily edited, although this one might be a bit busier than usual. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, pending changes starts to fall apart once we have edit conflicts, so it works best when the article isn't edited very often and has few watchers. That's not to say it can't be used for articles linked from the main page, but if they start to receive a lot of bad edits then semi-protection is a better defence. – bradv🍁 20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll add the TFA to my watchlist and accept/revert new changes if they appear. --MrClog (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the PC protection worked like a charm. --MrClog (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, however I think they slinked off to do a couple of recent deaths. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The vandal just came back again after PC expired. Page is now semi-protected. --MrClog (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tons of userpages in MFD catagory but no MFD relating to them

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion what should be done 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was down to Template:User campus ambassador being nominated for deletion, the MfD notice was displayed on every page which transcluded the template. I've fixed it so these pages should disappear from the category soon. Hut 8.5 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

I would like for an uninvolved admin or two to keep an eye on this article. There are concerted efforts to include part of the victim's supposed run-ins with the law, as if these things are somehow relevant to him getting shot by these two men. Allegedly shot, of course. I find, and I am not the only one, that such inclusions are distasteful, and I'm putting it mildly. They are BLP violations, because recent deaths fall under the BLP and this information is undue and does not pertain. This is not a biography of a person, it's an account of how an unarmed man was shot by two other men. Allegedly, of course. See also Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Arbery_priors. We can NOT have this article with some tendentious material, which IMO borders on racism. We've seen this before, in the article on Trayvon Martin most particularly, and we should not let this happen again. I have no easy solution here, but I think that some active and proactive administrative oversight might help. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Late at night and I have to sign off. But, these two edits claim that Arbery commited felonies with no source. [17] [18]. Appreciate it if someone would take a look. Even if true, likely a BLP vio. I only spent ten minutes, but couldn’t find a source for a felony conviction. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, claims like this that can't be easily confirmed from RSes in 5-10 minutes need to be removed. The earlier probation about the gun, yes, but the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that. --Masem (t) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:"Arbery was convicted of bringing a handgun to Brunswick High School in 2013, court records show. He was also convicted of stealing a television from Walmart in 2017." I cited that source properly when making an edit, which was summarily undone with no discussion – 90 minutes before you censored my post on the Talk page. Can you please put what I wrote back and remove your "final warning", or should I? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a novice at this, and would also love help understanding the relevance in the "Background" section of things like: the "troubled history" of a police chief who "was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant" (AFTER Arbery's death, no less), or "Attorney Jackie Johnson who was accused of a coverup…" These are living people whose actions are being included to prejudice (fairly, perhaps) their behavior in the instant case. But how is it possible that it's relevant to include unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against living people as "background" while not including the fact that, say, Arbery was previously convicted by a court of law of theft and other crimes? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• The article protection will end today. It needs to be extended. There is enough evidences in the history page and the talk page of POV-pushing IPs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree and have extended. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS

MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.

There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Per your comments below, I also support unblocking. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking – though what we're really talking about here is removing the CBAN imposed by 3STRIKES. Honestly, I sympathize with this user's predicament. They made a mistake, and they were blocked. All of the issues on their admittedly long rap sheet stem from a desire to edit despite the block. Clearly, English is not their first language, but that doesn't mean they can't make effective contributions to the project. I'm looking at their most recent sock from July of last year GoodLife123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I don't see any serious issues with the contributions. The edits they made on that sock are live on the pages to this day. For this user, I subscribe to the WP:ROPE school of thought. Maybe we unban them, and suddenly all of the ban evasion issues are a moot point and they become a useful contributor? Maybe not, and then we just ban them again. They've been good for almost a year. If they're ever going to get another chance, now is the time. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per AlexEng. "WP:ROPE school of thought." starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unblocking per AlexEng. Watch the users contribs and block again if there is problematic behaviour. WP:ROPE! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I believe in second changes but, they seem to not understand what they did was wrong per all the unblock requests on their talk page. Also per all of the opposers. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Welp, the !votes so far are 4-6, and this has been open for ages. Does that mean the unban request is unsuccessful? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that's what it indicates. The user should be informed they could make another unban request where they demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the block in the first place and address the other concerns raised here. That is, this is not the end of the line for them. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - Although they created multiple accounts, I'm not seeing that they used those accounts in an abusive way. For example, User:MagicJulius might be a sock of User:MagicJulius00, but honestly, that's not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. User:WowMagic18 posted a bunch of retired templates on other accounts' user pages [19] - not exactly trying to get away with anything there, either. User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio, and User:Mycadaniellabacar have made zero edits. User:UnitedPhilippines02 made one edit, creating a user page. User:GoodLife123 made 6 edits, none of which seem malicious (or incorrect). I'm not seeing any damage caused by this user. Seems more misguided than malicious, and reading the user talk page, I think their previous requests should have been granted, and more explanation given. Simply repeating "you have not shown that you understand what you did wrong" is ... it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops. I support a second chance because this user has not been given one yet. (I also see that some of the people opposing unblocking have, themselves, gotten into trouble for socking, and were given a second chance. Kinda poor form to deny that to other editors, IMO.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To add: I think one thing we forget is that the people who want to sock, can just sock. It's so trivially easy to sock without being detected, and I mean so fucking easy, that whenever someone who is blocked for socking asks to be unblocked and commits to using one account, we really should lean heavily towards doing that. It's way, way better for a sockmaster to be open and to use one account "publicly", because the alternative is that they use other accounts we don't know about and can't track. I have a hard time believing that anyone who asks to be unblocked from socking has malicious intent; people with malicious intent will just keep socking. And I think setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking as per Levivich, second chances shouldn't be too hard to get, also they have made productive edits in other projects since their block, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking I just looked through Julius' global contributions and they've been contributing constructively to tlwiki and wikidata as they state in the unblock request. I think it's really quite obvious that they want to be unblocked so that they can help build this encyclopedia too. It boggles my mind that this is so controversial, and I agree with Levivich, especially, when they say it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops...people with malicious intent will just keep socking...setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Plus we have CU evidence that the editor hasn't socked recently so unblock seems the best choice for the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng. I read a lot of the unblock requests and it seems that a few of the admins just responded as if they were robots (and also not dealing with someone with English fluency) which didn't help the matter. Perhaps in another place there should be a discussion about unblock requests and how groveling shouldn't be the requirement to get unblocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng - Their unblock requests are pretty atrocious however as noted above English isn't their first language and given they've not actually harmed the project I see no reason to decline this, I'm sure this editor won't mess up the only final chance here, Also supporting per ROPE. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

Hello all, it looks like there is a backlog over at WP:AIV. Some bot-reported requests have been there for more than 12 hours. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now cleared. ~ mazca ^talk 00:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

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

---

Hi there, I just wanted to bring attention to this edit in which I removed copyrighted content, and I noticed that it was kind of standard for admins to make the previous edit unavailable for viewing. I already warned the editor here, by the way, so I don't think there should be any more warnings addressed to the editor about this situation. lullabying (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done DrKay (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lullabying, for future reference what you are referring to is called Revision deletion; more information about requesting {{revdel}} is available there, and there is a script that can assist in such requests. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Needs closing

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Singh. All the best! serial ^# 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Requests for permissions/Rollback - High backlog

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback has a high backlog (14 unreviewed requests with the earliest dated May 3). Thanks! Juliette Han (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on pages

Hi,

Recently found disruptive editing as editing contents without proper source happened in some pages.Tried rollback but the user Aneesh sreemangalam (talk · contribs) keeps changing contents again and again.Suspecting sock puppetry edits.Please look into his edit history and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlander07 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at a random sampling of edits from that editor. I don't see anything that meets the definition of vandalism. Can you please explain the problem; also please do not EVER use the word vandalism unless it is clear that the person in question is editing in bad faith, or trying to harm or damage Wikipedia with intent. Which is not to say there are not other behavior issues such as sockpuppetry or edit warring, but I don't see any actual vandalism from that account. If there is a problem other than vandalism, can you please provide some details so we can help solve the problem? Also, you are required to notify users when you mention them here. Can you please do so, post haste? Thank you. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Apology from my part for using the word 'vandal' so loosely. Just informed user Aneesh sreemangalam (talk · contribs) to stop disruptive edit on pages by sending warn message on his talk page. He blatantly removing contents which are cited and replacing with some other. This is what happened. Outlander07 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges.

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

---

User:Drmies suggested[20] that I come here after he taunted and insulted me, and then locked the page down so that I couldn't respond.

This is part of a part of a pattern of abuse, starting when he threatened to block me[21] for a completely legitimate edit, while falsely accusing me of vandalism and trolling.

It turns out that he had mistaken[22] me for some other editor who also happened to have an IP instead of an account, which is why he thought I was edit-warring. In fact, I made a single change[23] and then immediately[24] opened a discussion about it. While not everyone is going to agree with the merit of the change, it was based on three reliable sources that directly supported it, so it would be unreasonable to call it vandalism.

On that talk page, Drmies accused me of trolling and of being a sock puppet[25][26]. Ironically, he sided with User:Nigel Abe, an actual sock puppet troll who was subsequently blocked.

So, the short version is that Drmies abused his power to WP:BITE me by being extremely hostile, insulting, and threatening at every turn. He was mistaken about my identity because he couldn't tell two completely different IP's apart, and instead of acknowledging his error and backing down, he doubled down with more threats.

In my opinion, this is not acceptable behavior for someone who represents this project. I would like him censured for this and demand a public apology. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I just attempted to serve notice on his talk page, as the instructions require, but he's locked it down so that I can't! This is just more of the same indifference to the rules he's supposed to be enforcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You're taking things out of order. He started off with the assumption of good faith but then noticed you sounded like the other IP he just blocked. Whether you were lying or mistaken, such a screw up gives little reason to bother with the rest of your report. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not great behavior all around, but nothing actionable here. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I'm looking, but I can't see any edits of the IP that are troublesome. I do see several edits of Drmies that aren't very nice. Also, accusing an editor of being a sock is not within policy. If you suspect someone is a sock, either do an CU open an SPI, etc. Also, the tone of the edits is not the way an admin should act. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP's edits to the referenced user talk page seem to me to have a sharply negative tone - beginning with "don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking". BD2412 T 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, he's talking to a sock. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As it turns out, but he clearly didn't know that at the time. BD2412 T 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about context, but I did know that he came to my talk page and falsely accused me of having "been reverted multiple times and have not yet come to the talk page". I think that explains my unhappy reaction.

Now how do you explain the abusive behavior by Drmies, which is actually what's under discussion here? No amount of blaming me can make Drmies' behavior more acceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect to the limited protection of the user talk page, I can see no legitimate reason for an IP to be editing the talk page of an indef-blocked sock. If there is a dispute with respect to an article, the discussion should take place on the talk page of that article, and not spread to numerous other pages. BD2412 T 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, That doesn't sound like a great AGF to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't even protect his talk page himself. Regardless, I served him a notice of this discussion. Do note that if you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. With regards to the accusation of sock puppetry, I would say that the location of both IPs here - for privacy purposes I won't list the locations - are sort of similar, though still a reasonable distance. You also became active after about a month of near radio-silence - just one edit - two days after the other IP (72.86.138.120) was blocked. I can see where Drmies suspicion was coming from. MrClog (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see his talk page protected for over two years.[27] Isn't that against Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages? PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, if you ever run for admin and you get those magic glasses, you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, still goes against the blocking policy though. I don't see any exception there for admin pages being allowed to have indef protection. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

God help us all if I ever think that is a good idea. I have seen the crap your kind has to put up with. PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'd make a better admin, and I know I'm an asshole. HalfShadow 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, his first two comments on the Brothers of Italy talk page preceded the threat on my talk page by a few minutes, but they were already hostile. He hinted at equating me with a blocked troll ("I don't think you're the same person as the IP I just blocked, but I could be wrong.") and then falsely accused me outright ("drop it: it's trolling. Funny--you write just like that other IP editor. Y'all related?") Seven minutes later, he came to my talk page to threaten me.

As Sir Joseph pointed out, none of this looked like assuming good faith. For that matter, neither is insisting that I was "lying or mistaken" and therefore we should ignore what Drmies did.

In response to BD2412, I suggest that my behavior cannot rise to the credible threat of blocking because I don't have that ability. With more power comes more responsibility, so we should hold Drmies to a higher standard. In addition, my "sharply negative tone" was in direct response to his abusive behavior addressed at a now-blocked troll, yet never rose to the level of abuse, so you're blaming the victim for being angry about being victimized. He falsely accused me, insulted me, and threatened me. How is that ok? Why is my anger the problem here and not his behavior?

MrClog, we've seen that Drmies completely failed to notice an actual sock puppet right in front of him but loudly accused me of the same without any evidence. If he really thought I was a sock puppet, I'm sure he knows procedures to verify this. (BTW, please feel free to apply whatever procedures you want; I'm not anyone but myself.) So his accusations served only to intimidate. That's not acceptable and it's entirely actionable.

Also, MrClog, Drmies did protect the talk page of that sock puppet[28], as I said. I don't know if he's the one who protected his own, but that's also unacceptable. How can someone be an administrator while making it impossible for people to contact him on his own talk page? What is going on here?! 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

One more correction: the comment about not darkening my doorstep was not made to Drmies. It was on the talk page of the sock puppet that Drmies backed and was not addressed at Drmies. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I did really think the IP was a sock puppet, and I do know turned out not to be the case. And yet I think anyone will see the resemblances between the sockhopping edit warrior and this IP, who picked the matter up so quickly and in the same passive-aggressive tone and with the exact same argument. That I "failed to notice" this other sock--meh, I'm not familiar with the master. There's hundreds of socks editing these pages every day, and some of them are sometimes right, as this one was in this case. The meat of the argument is very simple anyway: the IP sock and the IP editor want a general statement in the article that proclaims something as fact, whereas the provided source clearly marks the supposed fact as one person's opinion--maybe a very worthy opinion--and thus it should be properly ascribed in the proper place in the article--not dropped as a fact in the infobox, which is the essence of POV pushing. And Sir Joseph, if someone is POV pushing, it's silly to continue to apply AGF. Not a death pact.

If anyone wants to unprotect Nigel Abe's talk page, that's fine with me, but the IP will turn it into a soapbox to taunt me and to discuss things with a sock editor who has no interest in responding and is probably back with a new account already. It's all very useless. And here we are, wasting more time with an editor whose edits may have displayed an intent to improve the project, but by now it's just trolling. Someone should tell them to stop pinging me; I'm feeling harassed, and that's harassment by ping. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, was it acceptable for you to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me, given that all I did was make a single change that you happened to disagree with? Was it ok to publicly call me out as a sock puppet just because I also happen not to have an account? Was it ok to block edits to your own talk page for two years? Was any of this ok?

Do you intend to accept any responsibility for your actions? Do you have any regret at all, except at the inconvenience that this has caused you? Are you going to do this all over again to someone else the next time you have the opportunity?

Those are the questions I'd like answers to; from you, or from those who are responsible for punishing abusive behavior by fellow administrators. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional request: I would like Drmies' talk page to be immediately unprotected unless there is actual, ongoing vandalism. This is what policy demands, and it's especially egregious for an administrator to use their power to silence those who would respond to them. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, he did not protect his own talk page. Please stop casting aspersions w.r.t. to the protection of his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

He protected the sock puppet's talk page, which is what led to this. He also kept his own page protected. I don't know if he's the one who first protected it, but there's no reason it should be protected now. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Clear boomerang. The issue starts from here when an IP (72.86.137.151 ) added controversial content, which was reverted here by User:Checco. The IP then reverted Checco with this edit summary Checco being Checco, edit warring because he is always in the right. The IP was reverted again but this time by User:Nigel Abe. The IP was blocked later for personal attacks e.g ([29],[30],[31]) and editwarring. Just 2 hours later Nigel gets reverted by a new IP 68.197.116.79 who is the OP. Then Nigel reverts the IP/OP here. Nigel then made a warning to the IP/OP saying Hello, your edits at Brothers of Italy are becoming disruptive. You’ve been reverted multiple times...[32] the IP/OP responded by saying That turns out not to be the case. I edited that article exactly once... and You owe me a retraction and an apology, good sir..[33] then made a post in Nigel's talk page asking him to apologize saying You slandered me on my talk page.[34]. A warning by Drmies was sent to the IP. IP accused Drmies of "threatening him" The IP 72.86.136.17 shows up the next day and reverts Nigel here, the IP gets reverted by Drmies. Recently Nigal was blocked and the IP/OP started telling Drmies that he sided with a sockpupppet and that Drmies should apologize which is IMO stupid, no one knew that Nigel was a sockpuppet and no one actually sided with the sockpuppet himself but with the correct content. There was no threatening and I suggest that the IP should stop demanding an apology from other editors with that attitude. Also, when there is a disputed content you should not reinstate the content unless there is consensus read WP:BRD.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a definite case of blame-the-victim. Whatever you think of me, Drmies' actions are still unacceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong. This isn't just blaming the victim; it's blaming the victim by bringing up irrelevant stuff. I'm not responsible for the behavior of User:72.86.137.151 and nothing they did is any excuse for Drmies to threaten to block me for "vandalism" when it was a good-faith edit.

Nothing I did excuses Drmies' actions. Nothing you brought up, no matter how irrelevant, excuses Drmies' actions. He abused his administrative privileges and he abused me. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your behaviour has been disruptive, you are treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Instead of playing the victim card and demanding an apology, consider... apologising yourself? --MrClog (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As much as you might like otherwise, my behavior is not at issue here. Nothing I did forced Drmies to abuse their administrative privileges.

Simple question: When they accused me of vandalism and of being a sock puppet, was that acceptable? Yes or no? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is quite posibly one of the greatest WP:BOOMERANG moments I've ever seen. Ed6767 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

RfPP is backlogged

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

---

Again. I am going to start at the top. If someone wants to start at the bottom and work up maybe we can knock this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we met in the middle. El_C 02:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

My original account

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

---

Dear Meta-wiki administrators, I am requesting any of you to unlock my original account Bishal Khan which is globally locked, please unlock it, I am a Bengali and primarily I edit in Bengali-Wiki articles. ফেমিন টি. (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. If this account is indeed Bishal Khan, they are evading the WMF ban. If it isn't, they are lying and impersonating a WMF-banned account. Imma notify the WMF folks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request

Hi! Can someone undelete:

• File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar)
• File:Coord1b.png is used in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas

So I can move to Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg restored when there's an exact copy at ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: because the original should be moved to Commons and not the copy to make sure we keep the trail intact and attribute the right author. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: you also work on Commons. Perhaps you wanna comment? Do you agree that the original is better than a copy from another project? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've transferred File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg to Commons. Not done for File:Coord1b.png, because it is missing a source, making it eligible for deletion both here and on Commons. -FASTILY 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fastily. No source? I think the standard action for that is slapping the uploader with a trout? ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior in the Ritual (film) article

Wikipedia administrators,I tried to insert the name of the second screenwriter (Joe is the first) , but another person (Juliete) blatantly deleted it. There is a link after her name , totally fine and clickable. Please tell Juliete that this is not OK to delete names of people , who worked hard on this film. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_(2017_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• OP has been repeatedly reverted and asked to provide a source. I protected the page with a note that they discuss. I have given them a warning for edit warring. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would have thought, Deepfriedokra, that when two editors, one registered and confirmed, and one unregistere4d, are reverting back and forth, that protection to mrequire auto-confirmed, which stops one but not the other from editing, was not the best tactic. Is that what other admins would do? I posted to the article talk page, pinging the registered editor, and was about to warn the non-registered editor, when I saw your protection edit. I would add that the IP did not notify the registered editor of this thread, as should have been done. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's appropriate to stop the edit warring. It's not like one side loses and the other side wins. They can now discuss on the talk page. ALso, I think SP is the least restrictive action. WOuld it be better to allow the disruption to continue? WOuld it be better to prevent anyone from editing? Also, I believe it was more than one editor they were warring with. Please feel free to remove protection if you think it inappropriate. What would you have done? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra If it is a true edit war, then you have advantaged one party by your choice of protection. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators particularly Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I left a message in response to DESiegel's comment on the relevant Talk page. Since you protected this article and left a note, I would be glad to hear your opinion on my explanations of why I don't believe it was an edit warring case on my end. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Inviting Izno and other interested administrators to express their opinion. Thanks. Juliette Han (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Deepfriedokra, I would have warned both editors, first on the article talk page (with a ping to the registered editor), and then on the IP's talk page, threatening a block if the reverts did not stop. Thew history looks to me like only two editors involved. The registered editor has already responded at the article talk page, BTW, and says that the edits were hoax-vandalism, and so, reverts were not edit warring. I tend to disagree, but no more reverts are happening, so ... DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  This looks clearly to me like disruptive editing by an IP who is adding false information into articles and citing sources that do not support the content. The IP is now also doing the same with Midsommar (film), and probably needs to be blocked soon if they continue with this vandalism. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Normally I'm opposed to semi-protection when there is an edit war between confirmed editors and non confirmed ones or IPs. As said, it effectively favours the non confirmed ones in the dispute whereas per WP:WRONGVERSION etc, neither side should be intentionally favoured or both should be sanctioned. However I have a hard time caring when a said below, the editor is adding info in manner worse than without providing a source. They are providing a source but it doesn't support what they are adding. Such editing is IMO far worse then your run of the mill addition of unsourced information, since I think we all know that when there is a source provided, often editors will just assume it's correct. At least the editor seems to insist on drawing our attention to the fact they are doing this but still..... Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention that the other problem is semi protection disadvantages all non confirmed editors even over edits which aren't in conflict and where it may not be needed because those who are actually causing the problems could simply be blocked. Anyway as I said considering the major problems with the IP's edits combined with the fact the article is fairly obscure so there probably wasn't any other non confirmed editor likely to edit, it's not worth worrying too much about what happened.

  But it is worth remembering that in a case that is more of a wash where it's clearer both sides are edit warring over a change which is arguable either way, semi protection only stops edit warring because it ensure one side "wins" rather than stopping it partly randomly. (Although it is true that despite WRONGVERSION, in reality even just protecting whatever you encounter can mean you are more likely to favour the editor who is faster on the draw and therefore potentially more aggressive in the edit war.)

  I mean I guess if you visit an article and find it's currently at the version preferred by the confirmed editor, functionality it's fairly similar to full protection or just blocking everyone (or semi protecting where both sides are non confirmed). But if you visit an article and it's currently at the non-confirmed preference version and semi-protect then what may easily happen is the confirmed editor reverts one more time then it ends since the non-confirmed can no longer edit war. If you plan to block the confirmed editor if they do that, then I guess that is okay but in practice I think the confirmed editor simply gets their last edit in without consequence.

  I agree with DES that in the general case, the best bet is probably just to warn both editors and block anyone of them who continues. In most cases a partial block for the article will likely be sufficient ensuring they can take part in the discussing the dispute while not being able to edit war.

  Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was AGFing and hoping OP would discuss their proposed changes on the talk page. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User wallyfromdilbert threatens me and actively deletes my contributions without any reason

Wikipedia administrators,I’m sorry to bother you again ,but now user wallyfromdilbert says that I vandalize Wikipedia , threatens me with blocking from editing and deletes my contributions without giving a reason. I didn’t vandalize Wikipedia , I mentioned a proving link. I ask you to open the previous page- I want to re-add the screenwriter with a new link. Why didn’t wallyfromdilbert give me a reason to delete my good quality contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been explained on your talk page. You must provide a reliable source that supports the added material. Unsourced material or material that is not supported by the source can be removed. The material you're adding is not in the sources you've provided. It can therefore be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Are you bored because of some lock down and trolling or something? I don't see why else you'd make such of an effort (2 AN threads and one help desk one) to draw attention to the fact you are going around adding names to the article [35] which were mentioned no where in the ref you provided [36] and warned because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It must be some sort of trolling because I cannot find any evidence of the name being added ever writing anything or even existing. The fact that the IP has started multiple threads about it leads to be believe they are just trying to waste our time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is free ,and everyone can participate. This screenwriter (Eve) is simply shadowed by other people , involved in her films. I want to add her credits , but Juliete and Wallyfromdilbert are deleting everything good I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. All material added to wikipedia must be verifiable in a published source. This content cannot be added unless it is verifiable by looking in a published source that states she is the screenwriter. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, I would suggest that the WP:BOOMERANG should come full circle, and this IP should be blocked. They are either willfully trolling, or lack the WP:COMPETENCE to meaningfully participate. BD2412 T 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Edit warring to promote a supposed writer, with refs that don't even mention her, and then complaining at the Help desk and AN. CIR or trolling. Either way block and move on. Meters (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• OP Blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Balkan matters at Bookocide in Croatia

Those of you active in Balkan matters, and experienced with WP:BALKANS, please have a look at Talk:Bookocide_in_Croatia#This_is_trolling. That section title is already ridiculous, and the first post, "...obscure enough, or simply invented completely, and nobody suspect that such junk could exist in the project at all... referenced claptrap...", indicates that we are dealing with a problematic issue. That the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough, even in that discussion (look at the sourcing provided by Antidiskriminator), and the editor who started it just posted a very long screed whose purpose (and, frankly, content) is just not clear to me. But it's not helpful. I have a few things to do right now and frankly I don't know what to do with this editor--I'm actually thinking that a partial block from that article is a possible outcome, if the editor thinks that what they're doing is OK. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, what certainly should be an outcome here is banning the author of the article in question, User:Antidiskriminator. The person who complained about the article may well have missed the mark, but it's obvious that the article as it stands is a ridiculously POV-laden piece of junk editing, full of unreliable or blatantly distorted sourcing. The title alone is a crime against the English language (needless to say, it's a complete invention by the article's author). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not my area of knowledge, but a two minute Google search easily established that the title is not "a complete invention by the article's author". The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. An example of an RS discussing the topic in English:[37] Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it "would" literally translate as that, if English worked that way, which it doesn't, and none of the reliable sources use this (included the one you just cited, which is just another review of the single Serbocroatian study that has dealt with the issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Image

Yes hi i am trying to make a image for Lauren London for her Wikipedia page can you assist me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahshion1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ahshion1: Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. The best places to ask for help with things like this is at the help desk or the teahouse. Try reposting your question there. Ed6767 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of E-Stylus

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

---

E-Stylus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Per their request, I am copying the appeal of E-Stylus to this board. I offer no opinion about the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I am seeking your input regarding my unblock request. My account was blocked for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing services nor is there any evidence to the contrary. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable by prospective clients when submitting a proposal to a job posting. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (1, 2) and I have never misrepresented my Wikipedia account.

After my account's block, the WP:PAID policy was expanded to require link disclosure for external accounts outside the scope of advertising. The amended policy was implemented by the proposer with 3 votes and 1 comment. It was then retroactively unfairly applied to support the blockage of my account. As the amended policy now requires disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not already public, I am asking that the community review this policy change with a standard of participation that meets the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Also, I am asking that the resulting PAID policy be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's alternative disclosure page with the other local community policies that "strengthen or reduce" the paid disclosure requirements of the Terms of Use. While these procedures may not remedy the questionable blocking of my account, they would at least offer wider consideration and documentation in line with community policies and the Terms of Use. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that E-Stylus is saying that their information is not public, because their profile is not publicly viewable. On Upwork, if you set your profile to private you don't advertise your services and no one can see your details. When you apply for a job the person you applied to can see your details, but you have to make the application.

So in this case, what we are asking is that E-Stylus out their personal details in order to engage in paid editing, which creates a bit of a conflict between WP:Harassment and WP:Paid. In a more typical case the profile is public, so they are only linking to information they have already chosen to publicise, but according to E-Stylus that is not the case here. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock this is not an unblock request. More of a manifesto or a complaint. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

rationale update per Yunshui et alia. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock. If people are unwilling to declare their paid editing accounts publicly, they can not edit Wikipedia - at least, that's the way I read WP:PAID policy. It says "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services." Even if having a private Upwork account does not amount to advertising, it is still being used to "solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services". It might not have been a requirement in the past, but it is a requirement now. And an unblock request is not an appropriate venue for requesting changes to policy or to policy documentation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, E-Stylus' concern is that this wasn't the case until two weeks ago. They were editing under the older rules, which only refered to advertising. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. Even then, what constitutes advertising is still open to debate. Is contacting a client to offer a service in response to an Upwork request advertising that service? I think it is, and I see the recent change as really just clarifying the original intent (and trying to head off exactly this kind of Wikilawyering). It's clear to me from numerous previous cases that the Community requires paid editors to disclose their Upwork accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I always disagreed with that decision. While I'm not objecting to the block, and informed E-Stylus that they had to link to their account, what we've done is made it more and more favourable for paid editors to sock rather than try to be upfront. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I wanted to clarify things here, but we still don't have a handle on the problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the conflict between controlling undeclared paid editing and driving paid editors underground, but that's not an issue for this unblock request. All that's relevant here is current policy (and its intent), and concerns regarding the effectiveness of that policy belong elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If that was the case, then this would be simple - E-Stylus couldn't link to a profile, because there was no profile. But instead we're looking at intent. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is simple - E-Stylus makes their Upwork account public and links to it, or they don't do any paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I said as much, but it is unfortunate. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify the timeline: E-Stylus was originally blocked under the old wording of the page; I subsequently opened a discussion about changing the wording to avoid the Wikilawyering taking place on E-Stylus talkpage in the future, and since there was no objection after a reasonable length of time, I updated the policy accordingly. E-Stylus was blocked before either the discussion or the change took place, however, and so it is largely irrelevant to the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock User who edit for pay effectively waive their right to anonymity, since such anonymity makes it impossible to check that they are in fact operating under the rules. You can make fat stacks, or you can be anonymous, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock per Yunshui. A paid editor follows the letter of the disclosure policy while undermining its intent by having a Upwork private account, just like they follow the letter of our content policies but undermine the nature of Wikipedia as a volunteer curated encyclopedia. No. MER-C 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock Just because he's advertising his services in a private manner on a freelancing platform doesn't make it less WP:PAID. The fact that much of his work is negotiated privately makes it unaccountable even if he provides off-wiki details. The community will never know which edits are the result of paid services and which ones represent a genuine interest in a subject. That creates a difficult situation in policy making because it means that providing personal details doesn't ensure transparency.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: As my block has been called "questionable", I'd like to share my reasoning. The profile that a PE has on Upwork is their 'advertisement', and that is what they are required to link to. If they choose to use software settings so that only certain people can see it at certain times, that simply has the effect of attempting to circumvent the version of WP:PAID that was previously in force. However, I don't accept that hiding an advert until you want to use it makes it any less of an advert. As I said on E-Stylus' talk page, if I were to put an advert in the entrance hall of my house, so that it could only be seen by people that I invited into my house, would it then stop being an advert? I believe not. In my opinion, the defining nature of an advertisement is in its form, not in its visibility at any particular time. --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - good block with sound reasoning, RexxS. --MrClog (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTTHEM. serial ^# 18:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The acceptable options are: editing for free, as almost all of us do; or full transparency. Choose one. Guy (help!) 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock per everything I said at User_talk:E-Stylus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock per the points raised above, WP:PAID is being infringed upon. The editor in question openly disclosed they were paid via Upwork to edit Wikipedia articles. Upwork's system works by having a client post contracts that are then bid on ("proposals" in Upwork terminology) by prospective freelancers. The client then interviews these bidders and decides which applicant(s) the contract will be extended to. In my view, any freelancer who bids on a contract to edit Wikipedia for pay is unambiguously advertising their ability to edit Wikipedia, and as such those who refuse to make their Upwork accounts publicly visible are in violation of WP:PAID. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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

another LTA whose name I keep forgetting...

...this went on for 12 minutes, with none of the usual "vandal fighters" noticing, apparently. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is the culprit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. It's Angela Criss.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I know, but that wasn't really the reason I posted. We got dozens of editors hitting "rollback" with every IP edit, but this, with all the obviously stupid edit summaries, goes unnoticed. BTW I just dropped a little rangeblock. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no filters that work for this? And isn't this one of the cases for the WMF could take some action. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: is my go-to for edit filters.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I created Special:AbuseFilter/1058, log-only for now until it is tweaked more. I'll be monitoring. This gave me an idea for a nifty long-term filter, too! See the notes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal, you get an extra cookie with your coffee. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, On that idea for a nifty filter, I note the existance of 364 . Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle misuse

I know this comes up periodically, but the archives are a pain to navigate. Is there a way to block an editor from using Twinkle without blocking the editor themselves? Or, alternatively, can admins or the community topic ban an editor from using Twinkle? JTZegers (talk · contribs) has been using Twinkle to post inappropriate warning templates, they've started incorrect AfD nominations, including nominating the Main Page for deletion yesterday, and has now reported the user warning sandbox to the edit warring noticeboard. I've asked JTZegers to seek a mentor as they seem determined to dive in to all areas of editing regardless of their ability to do so, but in the meantime it would be helpful to restrict their use of Twinkle entirely until they can demonstrate they've gained the competence required to use it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that it's a gadget, I don't think there's a blacklist anymore. Just block them for IDHT and incompetence if they use Twinkle inappropriately after being told by - what, 4 different people? - to slow down and be more careful. This is a common path that a lot of young new editors go down, and I've noticed that many do not understand that they actually have to back off until they get blocked. I think they've had enough notes and warnings. Block on the next screw-up. I wish new editors couldn't turn on the Twinkle gadget for a month or two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong, because this is ancient history, but I remember there being a Twinkle blacklist back in 2010 as I recall helping mentor an editor (whose name I can't remember) who had been Twinkle blacklisted for similar reasons, and I also vaguely recall being able to turn on Twinkle through preferences back then which would imply it was a gadget. I may just be misremembering, feel free to disregard. CJK09 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Twinkle could be tied to extended-confirmed status? I've seen this over and over again even in just the last few days. CJK09 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd be happy to mentor JTZegers. I was an overeager new editor a long time back and I feel I can offer good advice. Feel free to look for someone more experienced though. CJK09 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I say take CJK09 up on their offer; for what it's worth, there's a danger in getting someone too experienced because they'll either be old and grumpy or just teach 'em bad habits  :) and CJK09 strikes me as neither. Of course, you may wish to block while the mentoring is in place, to avoid temptation; can it be enforced via the WP:PB mechanism? serial ^# 18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've made an offer on their user talk page. CJK09 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: what say ye? Although I support the mentoring (since we have a lucky volunteer for the job), but as the whole point of this thread was to save volunteer's time rather than add to it, perhaps it may be best if they do so without the tool. That way, they learn with their mentor while avoid tying up those who may follow. serial ^# 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the mentorship and definitely thank CJK09 for taking it on, but this is pretty much a last shot. I'm not convinced that JTZegers will be able to resist the lure of Twinkle due to an unfortunate mix of over-enthusiasm and lack of editing competence, which was why I was hoping for a way to restrict access to the gadget entirely. We shall see.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How does a new editor start using Twinkle very early on in their wiki-career? I know WP:AGF and all that, but the flags being raised suggests they've been here a while, and this isn't their first account. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: They could've just screwed around with their settings. It should be pretty clear that they don't know what their doing with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Community obviously could TBAN someone from Twinkle, but in 99% cases where there'd be evidence for that, we'd already have acted, probably via a block as mentioned above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

History merge needed?

Resolved

One of the articles I moved to draft space as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2 is Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel. That draft contains some deleted revisions that apparently are an artefact of a deletion by User:Anthony Bradbury on 26 April and restoration by User:Primefac on 27 April. There are, however, other, interspersed revisions that were made on those dates that remain in the draft's regular history. I admit, I can't figure out what exactly went on there. Not being conversant with history merges, I'm afraid I'll mess something up by simply pressing Restore at the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Would that be the right thing to do, or is some more-complicated action needed to ensure that the deleted revisions are restored in the proper chronological positions in the draft's history? Deor (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not wait until it is time to move Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel to main space? Then you could file a WP:RMTR and leave a note in your request that a history merge with the deleted Phoenix Park Hotel is needed. WP:Requests for history merge is available but WP:RMTR is simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed because when I moved the article to draft I deleted an existing draft at that title to complete the move. What I can't figure out is why some folks were editing both the draft (as the deleted revisions indicate) and the article at the same time. I'm not sure whether restoring the deleted revisions is even needed here, since all the revisions to the actual article I draftified are apparently in the current draft's history. I'm getting too old for this shit. Deor (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In my view the main concern is that all substantive contributions ought to be saved in the history to the degree possible, whichever place they were made originally and wherever the resulting article ends up. If things get too confusing you may be able to satisfy the attribution needs by leaving some note on the article talk page to list the contributors. If there is anything worse than a history merge, it is having to undo a history merge. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Deor, if the only thing you did was delete Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel before moving Phoenix Park Hotel to its place, then you're all set and you don't need to do anything; the draft was (more or less) a duplicate of the article anyway. Everything that needed to be dealt with prior to the draftification was dealt with (long story short, there were parallel histories, a histmerge, a page split, an improper G7, and a whole bunch of other nonsense). Thanks for checking though! Primefac (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As an additional note, and I'm only saying this because it's the third or fourth time I've seen it in as many days, NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A HISTMERGE. I've seen a few editors who will ask for it any time there's even close to shared history, and (worse still) I've seen in the past a few admins who will blindly jump into a histmerge whether or not it makes sense. If there are parallel histories then the pages should not be merged. </high horse> Primefac (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. It's good to know that I didn't screw things up in a major way. Deor (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

New SPA publishing false biographical information

• Qwerty3141592654 (talk · contribs · count) is publishing false biographical information on Nassim Nicholas Taleb page and being reverted. The statements do not match the source. Looks patently like an account created to put negative information. I reverted and asked to discuss on talk page. He also violated the 3RR. Limit-theorem (talk)

Template:Limit-theorem is deleting a section that includes well-sourced news articles. The section may be amended, but suppressing the evidence is outright misleading. I understand that Template:Limit-theorem has an economic interest is protecting Taleb's reputation, but facts should prevail. Qwerty3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The comments posted do not reflect the sources. This is the problem for me, not the subject of the biography. Further User:Qwerty3141592654 explicitly created the account to post the strange information. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified Qwerty3141592654 about our edit warring policy. Qπ, you've been reverted by two other editors, please follow WP:BRD. Patient discussion at the article talk page, and following WP:DR if that doesn't work, are the way to address the disagreement. Also, don't cavalierly throw around accusations of having an "economic interest in protecting Taleb's reputation". You can't just assume stuff like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Floquenbeam Qwerty3141592654 keeps reverting all changes (in spite of your warning) although what he intends is now mentioned in the article with correct reference to the source. He violated the 3RR even 5RR after your warning. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lift bans

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

---

Please can I ask for the following bans to be lifted: TBAN covering the ARBPIA; TBAN covering Zionism; TBAN covering the Western Wall. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• More likely to be successful if you:
  1. Link to the discussion where they were imposed
  2. Explain how you are going to approach the subjects differently

This contextless one-sentence request is almost guaranteed to be rejected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know where to find the relevant links. I do not recall why these bans were given. Chesdovi (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to WP:AE section where the tobic bans were imposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=711870151#Chesdovi. That thread contains a link to the original ARBPIA topic ban. You may also want to check your block log to refresh your memory on what the problem was. Sir Joseph is correct below; simply not editing for 4 years, and then asking to have the topic bans lifted on your return, is hardly ever successful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Chesdovi, as I told you on your talk page, you need to ask at WP:AE, and I did suggest that for someone to reappear from a long hiatus, it might be worthwhile to edit in another area for a little while and then ask. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Sir Joseph and Floquenbeam. Would need a period of time editing w/o difficulties to show readiness for end of TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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