Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 83 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 80 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 63 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 59 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 56 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 56 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 51 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 30 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	0	15	15
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	20	20
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors, I drafted a closure at WP:DfD which can be drawn from, Tom B (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 33 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Together_(coalition)#Requested_move_16_June_2024_2

(Initiated 14 days ago on 16 June 2024) A move/rename discussion has taken place here alongside a merge discussion, the merge discussion has reached consensus, and I believe there's a case to be made that there is consensus on the name change, but a third party is required to determine if the discussion should be closed or not. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone is proposing a community ban

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [2].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 03:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia^talk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I was reviewing a draft Draft:Light gap, and noticed that an article, Light gap, already exists, and the draft is clearly meant as an improvement to the article- both have the same lead section for instance. Could we get an admin to history merge the 2? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What seems to male the most sense here is to paste the new version (Draft:Light gap onto the article, referring to the author in the edit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Merged the two. Really need to stop overthinking things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: actually this was a perfect time to perform a history merge, so your thinking was correct. I have now done this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible improper RfC close

I would like to draw attention to a recent RfC at Paul Singer. This was the eighth discussion on this particular subject and all have eneded with the same result. The previous discussions can be found here: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

After an involved editor closed the last RfC, there have been multiple allegations which I don't intend to interpret on here in order to leave this post as neutral as possible so that an uninvolved moderator (also not involved in this related discussion) can examine the situation and determine what course of action (if any) is needed and how to proceed with the article. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand the closure of Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Vulture and what the conclusion is. It's not that the closure is controversial but it doesn't resolve anything. And it is highly unusual for the editor who set up the RfC to be the one who closes it and another editor or admin should have taken that role. I don't have much experience closing RfC but I'd recommend an admin well-versed in discussion closures to look it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

re "doesn't resolve anything" - Yeah. For realz.

What's nice about RfC's that don't resolve anything is that we get to continue to debate the subject........ there's always a silver lining..... NickCT (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: The RfC discussion had decided upon a series of copy edits that were then made to the article, so the closure was made uncontroversially in light of the proposals made. I encourage the reopening of said RfC if the parties involved believe it to have been inappropriate. I also encourage editors to read the discussion section thoroughly and understand we had all agreed to said proposals. If reopening the RfC is the way to move forward, I suggest it is promptly acknowledged and set forth. I also believe it inappropriate that I was not notified of an ANI discussion I was directly involved in. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright Violations that spans 100s of pages

Dear administrators User:Capankajsmilyo has been inserting material from news sources into Wikipedia pages despite many earlier warnings. He should be blocked from editing and stripped of his auto patrolled user right before he causes further damage. 68.104.31.142 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there may be something to this. Going through a few of Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) larger recent edits, he seems to have copied entire sentences (with citation, but without quote marks) from news sources. For example, this edit [13] copying from [14] and this edit [15] copying from [16]. As Capankajsmilyo is citing the source, I would assume this is an issue of not understanding that one is expected to paraphrase from sources rather than copy them exactly (unless indicating the material is a direct quote). I don't have time to follow-up right now, but someone should at least talk to him about it. Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You neglected to inform Capankajsmilyo about this discussion so I posted a notice on their talk page, 68.104.31.142. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Will keep it in mind. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no apostrophe in "100s". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And will you do anything about all the ones you already added? I noticed e.g. Digambara, which you turned into a GA and nominated for DYK: this edit from a few days ago is a literal copy from this. Before continuing with new edits, please go through your older edits and make sure that they comply with our copyright policies. Fram (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try and resolve them. Digambara resoved. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That was only an example, not the full list of all problems with that article. Digambara is not resolved, and already asking for its GA status to be restored is severely disappointing. First go through all your edits (all articles), see which ones are problematic, and correct them, before thinking of GAs, DYK, ... Fram (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanx Fram Dragons flight and Liz and thanku ton's and ton's Lugnuts. so who is gonna remove all the text that has already copied into wikipedia? some random examples [17] [18] [19] [20] go through his contributions. he already received so many warnings for copyright violations [21] earlier so he was doing on purpose thinking noone will notice 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) and warning from Kusma [22] 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have issued Capankajsmilyo a final warning and will monitor his contribs. Any interested persons are welcome to participate in the clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been away for a while but Capankajsmilyo has been warned and educated about copyright problems many times since August of last year, for both copying from external sources and copying within Wikipedia. I had highlighted a lot of problems to him (including copying issues) before we topic banned him from the area for a while. I don't know if anything has changed since then, maybe Bishonen who was helping him out may have something else to add on this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

Unsure where best to ask this so will try here as admin action would be needed.

Have recently moved home and my new IP address has been blocked from creating accounts as it goes through a corporate ip that's got account creation blocked.

Am a member of ACC and as such am a bit stuck. Would IPBE allow me to create accounts through the IP block or would I need to find an alternate route of connection.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Amortias: I've added IPBE to you while we sort this out. Are you comfortable discussing more details of the blocked range on-wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE has allowed me to create an account so thats sorted that. The range is blocked for vandalism and various other unpleasentaries as there are a couple of hundred schools that go through this IP so the blocks a good block I was just new collateral. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

E-mail would be preferable for discussion as id rather not reveal my employer as that would prety much give away my location. Amortias (T)(C) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to email me (or any other arbitrator) and I'll look into it. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Have spoken to Courcelles. Have confirmed IPBE until I can get a workaround in place. The earliest this could be is the 3rd May but I will advise when no longer required. Amortias (T)(C) 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Saib Tabrizi

One of the administrators, judgment about talk:Saib Tabrizi.--Samək^Talk 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Beside giving a false reference for his claim and breaking WP:WAR, this user has illegally used his rollback right against AFG edits (1, 2), please revoke his rollback privilege. -- Kouhi (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My first judgment is that several people there seriously need to learn basic wiki-markup, as the discussion is well-nigh impossible to follow. Beyond that this is a content dispute that falls under AA2, so if you really think there's something requiring intervention go file an AE report. Due to the abuse of rollback I'm removing it from Samak, and further noting that competence is required and Samak isn't filling me with confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think this case is related to WP:AN3 and WP:ANI. Content dispute and edit warring. But one of involved users abused several rules during this edit warring. WP:3RR and using rollback feature in edit war [23], [24], [25], [26]. Personal attacks and stalking on talk page [27], [28]. Don't you think User:Samak deserves a block? He's not a new user but abuses basic wikipedia rules. Who gave this user rollback right?! If you review his contributions, he abused rollback since the day he gained it. User:Kouhi and User:HistoryofIran should submit a new case on WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --24.191.178.196 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this hits on so many different issues is the very reason it belongs at AE. And might I ask exactly how you're so familiar with Samak's editing history? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I just browsed his contribution page and looked at his reverts to check if he did this issue by mistake or not. But it seems he always prefer to edit like that. According to his contributions, he abused wp rules several times and evaded blocks. Anonymous users (ips) did not report him to admins. Now, this WP:BOOMERANG report revealed his behavior. --198.244.109.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical bug or issue

I don't know where to post this. Went on the help channel but couldn't find any admins.
There is some kind of technical glitch in an edit history/edit summary. Please take a look at this edit on Wicked (musical). There seem to several issues:

• The linkage to the user page for Bovineboy looks incorrect. When I hover over that it will give you the wrong editor, instead of Bovineboy I see "User: Wik" (who is blocked).
• The last edit by Bovineboy was in January of this year.

Something's wrong. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The link to User talk:Wik I don't know about but they really did undo a revision by Bovineboy it was just one from last November --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think this would get more eyes at WP:VPT. ansh666 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• The link in the edit summary correctly leads to Bovineboy's contributions page. Also, Bovineboy remains active to this dat, why do you say he hasn't edited since January? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

1. Hover over the linkage to Bovineboy's talk page within Wicked (musical)'s edit history.
2. Does that go to Bovineboy's Talk page? It does not. Instead it links to a blocked user's talk page ->User talk: Wik.
3. By the way, User:Wik has been blocked since 2004.
4. Bovineboy has not edited the Wikipedia article Wicked (musical) since January 2016.
5. Leemleem's edit undoes an edit by Bovineboy from November 2015.

So

• as I said below, I see stuff and want to understand what is going on. Taking MSG's idea from below into mind, I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary by fooling around with the code. I've never seen an edit summary like this, it's very tricksy. If Leemleem did not deliberately craft this edit summary then I guess it's a phantom technical glitch... Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I imagine that the edit summary has been manually edited before saving. I won't guess at why this was done. Perhaps you could ask User:Leemleem if he/she edited this and why. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary. I'll ask Leemleem on their talk page if they did anything other than the usual edit/preview/save.. And if Leemleem comes back and says yes, then they deliberately posted a misleading edit summary... If they say they did not, then it's a technical glitch? Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked Leemleem on their talk page. They responded to my query and explained the edit but they do not know why Wik's talk page is appearing within the linkage. Perhaps it's just ghosts within WP's machine... Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. I did revert an edit made by Bovineboy. He removed the sentence because it was cited as being unreferenced but I lacked the ability at the time to reference it. I went back and added a reference to that section. I don't know who User talk: Wik is and don't understand how that user is involved with what I did. I really hope I didn't screw things up by doing this - if I did, I greatly apologize. It was not my intention at all. Leemleem (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just seems to be some kind of a small bizarre glitch in the system. I had never seen an edit summary with this kind of issue so was puzzled and wanted to post about it to see if anyone else had ever seen something like this before. Thanks for your responses. Shearonink (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is some really bizarre error, but it does not mean that you have screwed anything up. I just undid one of User:Bovineboy2008's edits and there was no issue. Unless this happens again I suggest that we don't worry about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  My only thought about this is that perhaps the link to my talk page was accidentally truncated before the edit was saved. Perhaps Leemleem ran out of room in the edit summary so part of the pre-written "Undid revision...." was manually deleted for more room. BOVINEBOY2008 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's technically possible to undo any edit, regardless of how long has passed and how many times the page has been edited since then, provided that the part of the page that edit was done at is the same as it was after the said edit. This restriction is a question of the software being able to figure out how to undo the edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic school shared account?

So there are several issues here. User:USC_GESM

• Appears to be a shared account for a USC class https://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/gesm-120/
• Writing a lot of "book report" style additions with lots of WP:OR WP:NPOV issues (see my talk page comment to them for some problematic examples User_talk:USC_GESM#Neutrality.2C_editorializing.2C_unattributed_opinions

I don't know if this is part of an organized school ambassador/outreach thing (do we do that anymore?), or just a class assigned to write for wikipedia, but it may need some outreach beyond what my (and others') talk page comments can accomplish. In addition to the username issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• There was movement on trying to reestablish the ambassador/outreach program, but it's stalled at the moment because of busy schedules and the like coming together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Are they part of some Wikipedia-organised event, or is the project known to the education noticebard? If so, then there should be a point of contact to speak to. If not, then I guess a warning/softblock about shared account, and an explanation on reliable sources vs original research? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:ENI asking for people familiar with the education program to comment here. ansh666 00:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we've identified the class and instructor. Samantha (Wiki Ed) will reach out to them over email and let them know what's going on. Per Joseph2302, it would be helpful if someone left a plain english message explaining the ROLE account problem on their talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

extending all timed processes by an hour?

Is there a policy or a precedent that says we should put instructions on all RfCs, XfDs, and other timed processes like 31 hour blocks at Wikipedia to extend the time by 30 minutes or an hour due to upcoming scheduled maintenance? Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, as for actual technical issues like blocks - the system will evaluate (is it now later then the block time) - so nothing to do; as for discussions these aren't on any timer - it is just page edits - editors will get to them when ever they get to them. The only people that should be really bothered by this are bot operators that run something a specific times - but really those operators need to deal with their bots and have had plenty of notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of history merges

When someone has a moment, could they look into doing some history merges based on the contributions of this user? I have left a note on their page and assume they are working in good faith, but it would be good to have all of the histories intact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As MSGJ has reverted these edits, someone who knows more about Russian might want to reevaluate whether the moves were appropriate, as I would be willing to change everything on the templates to reflect this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started merging history instead of just reverting, but they can be moved back easily enough if the new titles are not appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer for Technophant

• Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL^{Query me!} 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• ?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:HighInBC User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jusdafax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL^{Query me!} 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In This Moment discography

I do not want to violate WP:3RR, but I have twice reverted unclean edits on In This Moment discography. Where should I post about this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm noticing a distinct blankness at Talk:In This Moment discography. Have you tried discussing it rather than repeatedly editwarring over it? ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you engaged in any discussion so far? It doesn't appear that its blatant vandalism, and your edit summaries don't even really indicate your objection, so you're probably going to want to start with, you know, communication. So probably, in this order:

1. Talk page at discography article. (Notify the editor to discuss there.)
2. If there's no discussion/resolution, try to band's article talk page.
3. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try a music related WikiProject.
4. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try an WP:RFC.

There's really no call for admin intervention here, other than you're both starting to approach WP:3RR. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter for Weekly Shōnen Jump

With another massive delinking disruption this morning, can we create an edit filter for Weekly Shōnen Jump and any mentions of terrorism, terrorist organization/group, hate group, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and pornography? —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't really do edit filters for 1 article. I have added the new 30/500 protection to the article though. I reviewed the last 10 vandals and it would block all of them.--v/r - TP 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: please modify the protection. The 30/500 protection is currently authorised only in areas where it has been permitted by the Arbitration Committee. BethNaught (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom cannot make policy. Their policy doesn't give them that power.--v/r - TP 18:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the relevant discussion, I'm IAR here. There are accounts on that page that are sleepers. 30/500 is the only protection level that can handle it appropriately.--v/r - TP 18:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, we have no policy for administrators to be able to use the 30/500 protection anywhere. The user right was implemented for enforcing Arbitration, not -presently- for use any place an admin feels. Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then use full protection. This level of protection has not been authorized for everyday use. IAR does not mean you can go against the community consensus decided in the RfC. --Majora (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed would allow 2 of those socks to edit the article - how many other sleepers are out there. Full protection wouldn't allow anyone to edit the article. This is absolutely a case where the policy is going to cause more disruption to the encyclopedia. It is an appropriate use of WP:IAR. If another sysop feels strongly enough about it, feel free to do what you feel is neccessary. But, as far as I'm concerned, the rule is harmful to the encyclopedia in this instance.--v/r - TP 19:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, the one article is not really the problem - it's all the hundreds of other articles affected, which makes protection of any sort not effective, and a good candidate for an edit filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't see all the other articles. Regardless, having taken a closer look, 30/500 wouldn't of helped anyway. 1 of the two account I mentioned would've had extendedconfirmed anyway. I've put it back at autoconfirmed.--v/r - TP 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For those interested this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000/Archive. The edits are kinda wide-ranging for an edit filter, but there's probably something we can do about the types of edits seen recently, in one of the existing LTA filters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If it will work, I'm more in favor of IAR PC2 then ECP - with ECP being so new it may need a bit more development on the use cases. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the latest CC5K sock to base an edit filter around. Adam Durand 2 (talk · contribs), although these are mostly vandalism AFDs, the association of WSJ with terrorism is still there. —Farix (t | c) 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

AN3 backlog

Hello all, the edit-warring noticeboard has quite the backlog. The oldest unhandled case hasn't seen any action in over a week. Also, is archiving maybe not working? There are quite a few old, closed cases taking up space. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK update delayed?

Greetings, all. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the DYK queue update seems to have been delayed by close to two hours right now; could somebody please take a look? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know/Queue/6 is empty, so there is no hooks for the bot to swap-in. Calidum ¤ 02:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Calidum, this is true, but there is a Prep area that has been filled, and also quite a few verified hooks at T:TDYK; so an admin could probably fix it with a little work. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended protection and Anita Sarkeesian

I extended confirmed (30/500) protected Anita Sarkeesian earlier today since I was under understanding that articles related to the Gamergate controversy can be extended confirmed protected. At some point I was asked to provide a link explaining that the article is eligible for extended confirmed protection. I failed to find such link, but, as I repeatedly stated in the past, the arbitration enforcement system is informationwise very unfriendly even to experienced users. Could someone help me and either to point out to the page saying the article is eligible for extended confirmed protection, or to state that it is not eligible. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBGG did not authorise a blanket 30/500 restriction as in WP:ARBPIA. However 30/500 protection was implemented on Brianna Wu as a discretionary sanction (WP:AC/DSL/2016) so you should be able to do it on Anita Sarkeesian – just make sure you formally log it at that link. The committee is currently considering a motion formalising the use of 30/500 protection in discretionary sanctions and the motion is likely to pass. BethNaught (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I should have written WP:ARBPIA3. BethNaught (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to find out how it should be logged properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert edit

User Zyma reverts me with dubious reason. Please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.241 (talk)

Comparing your edit to this edit by an identified sock of Tirgil34, and that both IPs geolocats to the same place, its a pretty clear WP:DUCK case. —Farix (t | c) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity anew

The user Finki2014 (talk · contribs), who was blocked some time ago for disruptive editing (please see here), has continued vandalising the article anew by removing well referenced content and making improper changes with poorly referenced content as per WP:QS ([29]). If you make a more thorough review of his contributions, it is evident that the majority of them is subject to a bias about Macedonian politics. I have also noticed that similar changes to the article were made by a user with the IP address 77.29.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([30]), which makes it very suspicious as a possible sock puppetry. That said, I strongly suspect that the user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a neutral way. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection

Hi guys I recently encountered List of social networking websites which under an indefinite full protection, which seems like major overkill given it's history, all the while semi/PC protection doesn't seem like enough of a solution. Looking at the history of the page, it would seem the 30/500 protection is an almost perfect fit for this article, and would go a long way to making it editable by the community. Most problematic edits/edit requests come from users who don't meet this threshold, while the majority that do, meet the threshold.

Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection.

• Support per initial statement.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xeno^talk 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [31] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katie^talk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned Talk page cleanups

Hello AN, A bot request (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 12) is proposed to tag orphaned article talk pages for speedy deletion. I think we would clean out the backlog first so as not to flood CAT:CSD all at once - please provide any feedback about this proposal at the bot request page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1228 pages. Wow! It would be best if we cleaned that up first. SQL^{Query me!} 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Commented on the BOTREQ. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yobot

However, not directly related to this BOTREQ, why does Magioladitis' Yobot add WP:WOMEN WikiProject tags to non-existing articles such as Talk:Adèle Haenelb? That article has never existed as far as I can see (no log entries) and these mistakes are sure to result in a lot more entries for Josvebot 12. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I followed User:Edgars2007/Women tag/Women so @Edgars2007:. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I supposed Talk:Adèle Haenelb was a typo for Talk:Adèle Haenel -- perhaps Magioladitis to avoid being misled by typos Yobot could at least check if an article exists before creating a talk page for a typo'ed title? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew, it wasn't my mistake :D BU Rob13 introduced that typo :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the typo. Based on the way I was designing a bot for this task, the typo would not have caused an error. I did not anticipate another bot operator working off the list, of course. ~ Rob^Talk 16:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It was impossible to avoid the non-existent pages because we tag all pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is good to know it was a single page problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

F5 and F8 CSD backlogs

I hate to hijack the thread, but speaking of CAT:CSD backlogs being flooded, we're already there. There are currently about 2,000 files in the F8 backlog and some 2,400 files in the F5 backlog. The F5 backlog is due to Theo's Little Bot which is necessary but really, really prolific.

The F8 queue takes a bit of time due to the closer evaluation, but if you install the script on the F5 page, that goes pretty quickly. Can everybody pitch in some every day until we get these things done? Katie^talk 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• File CSD queues are always backlogged, because a lot of admins stay away from the file namespace whenever possible (me included). :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim: In the almost half a year I have been working in the "File:" namespace, I have to say that seems to be quite true. I mean, check out WP:FFD's backlog: The only administrator who was closing discussions there during the past few months is currently on a long Wikibreak to take care of RL. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Old-version F5s (not totally orphaned ones, those are mostly straightforward and uncontentious) require more attention than you'd think. Too-large nonfree images, which form the bulk of these, tend to have other problems as well. You get lots of images that that are below the threshold of originality, which should be untagged; invalid non-free use claims, which should be either retagged or deleted outright, depending; slow-motion upload warring to replace already-reduced images with the old too-huge versions (a typical example I saw yesterday); you name it. Somewhere around 1 in 5 of these images needs more than a simple "Rescaled per F5" buttonclick.
  All that said, I'll start putting these in my daily routine again. —Cryptic 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I must learn more about the file namespace and lend a hand there from time to time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)