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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 41 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 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 70 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:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 63 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 45 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 45 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)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 47 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 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 40 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)

Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 20 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)

Talk:Awareness#Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology

(Initiated 0 days ago on 19 June 2024) An editor started an RfC confirmed to be improper by a third opinion. Please close the RfC as an improper RfC. Closetside (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	138	161
TfD	0	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	27	36
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 68 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 67 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 65 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 23 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 17 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 16 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)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 7868 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Noam Chomsky 2024-06-18 20:29 2024-06-21 20:29 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated Muboshgu Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst 2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett

Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence

I would like to propose community sanctions on the Catalan independence topic. These could either be a 1RR restriction on all articles and other pages related to Catalan independence, or a fuller range of remedies, such as those found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ETA: I've created a proposed sanctions page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence, based on the ZG page mentioned above, since this seems to be getting a good deal of community support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support full range of general sanctions 1RR is a blunt tool, and while I think it is a good rule in general, giving uninvolved admins more leeway to deal with the issues surrounding this topic is a good thing, and could prevent editors who might otherwise be blocked and get turned off from Wikipedia leaving. It would not prevent 1RR from being imposed, and would allow more flexibility, which I consider a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, if it was not clear, I would obviously include 1RR as an option within these and would expect it would utilized. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • SarekOfVulcan, it might also be worth spelling out in the proposed sanctions that any uninvolved admin can place page specific sanctions (such as 1RR). I think there is general support for that here, but my reading of the draft would have it apply only to editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Question - SarekOfVulcan Can you point us to examples of disruption to the point that warrants some community sanctions? I would support it (given what I assume is nationalistic and POV editing issues), but I personally am unaware of disruptions surrounding it. Edit: I just saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes_on_Catalonia.2C_please... I'll review that first. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reviewing the ANI post and the pages linked therein. Reminds me of the Crimea stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my suggestion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support full range of general sanctions, with much credence given to 1RR This is as an indefinite emergency procedure to stem the flow of the potential problems ahead, which do include POV editing. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per (Not) Dave above. This is going to be a contentious area for the immediate time being, and we need to be sure that the articles we have stay NPOV as possible. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as it's going to be quite awhile before the waters settle. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Would prefer if these were time limited to something on the order of a year, and reconsideration at that point. But that's just because I'm not a fan of the creep of special rules that make it even more difficult for newer to moderately experienced users to figure out what the standards are and where. GMG^talk 20:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'd prefer not to time-limit this, because we don't know how it's going to play out. I don't think there'd be much of an issue revoking them in the future, once they aren't needed -- WP:SANCTIONS lists obsolete sanctions as well, and the first one I checked needed only about 4 people supporting, and nobody opposing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but it also seems just as likely we get something like WP:GS/BI, which fails to get consensus to revoke, and is still hanging around even though it hasn't been enforced in five years. Anyway, it's probably not worth arguing about. I'm still supporting. GMG^talk 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This is a very high profile sensitive issue which effects users in Catalonia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support although I'd like to see them time-limited with a renewal discussion in six months to a year, to avoid creating another situation like Ancient Egyptian race controversy in which the sanctions are still in place a decade after the editwar in question because nobody's ever bothered to ask that they be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on a time limit. This is very likely to be a contentious subject for some time to come, likely years. Obsolete sanctions don't usually cause much harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If the subject is still contentious and causes problems in six months, it shouldn't be a problem to renew the sanctions by then. But given that removing unlimited yet unneeded sanctions has proven difficult in the past, it's best that we get a consensus on their end date now, as not having sanctions is the natural status to which we should aspire. Having lingering unneeded sanctions is a recipy for arbitrary enforcement, which should worry us deeply. Diego (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Will be very helpful. --Lingveno (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A very good idea. Although not sure how it fits with User:Floquenbeam's anarchic WP:AN/Honeypot proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. It's a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I was alerted to this proposal at a discussion on my talk after I raised the protection on Catalonia from semi to full.

As far as I can see, full protection on that page is working well, and it seems that several related pages are doing fine with semi-protection. Have I missed some outbreak of drama elsewhere?

Unless there is evidence of some problem which is not being addressed by various levels of protection, then this proposal for sanctions is pre-emptive, which is what I oppose.

I agree that there is a non-trivial risk of things getting here. However, I think it's important that we give the community a chance to conduct itself well, rather than rushing directly to sanctions without clear evidence that the community is struggling.

If there really is a consensus to proceed with these pre-emptive sanctions, then please time-limit them to a few months, per Iridescent's suggestion. We don't need another set of zombie sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What about good edits that the full protection is locking out? Not everybody finds their way to the talk page. Also, "risk of something happening" is no worse a reason to impose a sanction than as a reason for fully protecting an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus We don't fully protect an article because of a "risk of something happening". We fully protect to stop an ongoing edit war; it is a responsive measure, not a pre-emption. I want the same principle to be applied to sanctions: impose them only when other measures, fail, and apply them for a limited period.

Full protection may lose us a few good edits. However, I'm not persuaded that there will be much value lost, because a highly-scrutinised, contentious topic like this has many eyes on it anyway, not all of which will be deterred. Plus, full protection does drive at least some editors to the talk page, which is a Very Good Thing™; consensus-building complex topics is exactly what we want to encourage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Weak support because it's clear we're going to need to do something, but not full support because I cannot get behind broad-based indefinite sanctions, which will in all likelihood be effectively permanent. This should be revisited, not merely in terms of whether they're still necessary (some form of sanctions probably will be necessary for many years), but also in terms of effectiveness and unintended consequences of specific aspects of the sanctions, and whether the scope can be narrowed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • General sancations require a person (the admin imposing them on a page) to use their discretion, so its not like these are automatic and imposed against editors without thought. I agree with Iri above that we don't want an ancient Egyptian race thing where we still have discretionary sancations a decade later, but the fact that these will likely be needed for years is a good reason not to set a time table for expiry now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Two points in response: First, while you're correct that an admin needs to use his or her independent discretion as to whether the sanctions should result in an action, I believe the existence of sanctions can risk chilling legitimate discussion. I have, for example, seen AC/DS warnings used for apparent intimidation purposes in the past. Basically I'm concerned about more sophisticated POV pushing editors using sanctions to squeeze out less sophisticated newbie editors. Second, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting an auto-expiration date, but something more along the lines of a point at which the community will revisit and reevaluate the sanctions and determine whether they're still necessary. As I say, I do believe some degree of sanction will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but the whole zombie sanctions thing makes me concerned. I really want to see necessity and effectiveness reevaluated because, at a certain point when they're not necessary or are ineffective, I suspect the community will just be so used to their presence that we'll presume they're still necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Pages of notable Catalan figures are targets of vandalism and politically biased edits. --DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the idea. I don't handle this kind of area much at all, so I don't know what kind of implementation would be best. Support a time limit of a year (although I'm open to other time periods), because this ought to be able to sunset if it gets to the point of being forgotten about. (GreenMeansGo makes a good point about British Isles; I expect that requesting reauthorisation at a big community board would have been less likely to succeed.) If the area's still a problem, it will likely be reauthorised before expiration. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both a 1RR restriction and general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, under the general principle of giving admins the tools they need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• weak oppose such measures can only be a proxy for potential outlets of dissatisfaction from both sides and I see it difficult to "police" and reliably identify. Immediate targets will be articles on Catalonia, Spain, Spanish history, etc. but this will proliferate as "steam" in the political debate remains. We will probably see valdalism to articles of Spanish companies, politicians, living and historical people. etc etc. I fear that sanctions will be readily imposed for edits to high profile articles (such as the Catalonia or Spain main articles), while vandalism to more obscure articles may remain unsanctioned. We see similar tendencies with articles in the China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea complex _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Jake Brockman: Are you implying, therefore, that the sanctions will cause lower profile articles to be ignored, in the sense that dubious edits will go unseen with those articles? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: That's sort of my thinking. Sanctions would appear arbitrary if they cannot be (properly) enforced across the spectrum for all potential violations as violations at the fringes will just be part of daily vandalism fighting. This is just a concern because the complex of topics is so vast. I believe Nicotine has heightened sanctions, where I think this would work as the complex of related articles is a lot narrower. Sanctions should IMO always have the effect to a) capture without (too much) discrimination and b) have some kind of learning or lighthouse effect. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• After thinking about this for quite a while, I think I'm actually much more ambivalent than I was at first consideration. There are some good points raised above, and as was pointed out on the ANI thread, we haven't actually tried ECP yet, which seems entirely too simple of a solution on the face of it to not at least try before we look to institute a complicated, and potentially indefinite bureaucratic solution. GMG^talk 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose without aforementioned time limitation. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• No one can really know how long the Catalonian crisis is going to last, so I think it makes more sense to leave things open-ended for now, and when it becomes apparent to an editor or editors that the worst of it has passed, a proposal to end the discretionary sanctions can be made. The community will either agree with that or not. Putting a time limit on them just opens up the possibility of an unnecessary repeat of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, per other similar contentious subject areas (Palestine, ISIS, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2RR I think a 2RR rule is in order, to prevent heated disruptions. 1RR seems over the top, because there could eventually participations which are new to Wp and are not used to 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• General comment. Some editors in this discussion appear to assume some or all of these priciples: a) sanctions should be applied as a preventive measure; b) sanctions come at little cost; c) sanctions should be open-ended by default; d) political controversy is sufficient of itself to justify sanctions.

However, I contest all those assumptions.

a) we don't pre-emptively protect pages, or pre-emptively restrict users. On the contrary, for example, today's featured article is unprotected, even tho we know that it definitely will be vandalised. We encourage potential editors to learn and to try, and we accept a degree of disruption as a price worth paying for encouraging participation.
Here we have a topic which we know will attract new editors keen to contribute ... so why is there a rush to restrict them unless we are sure that restriction is needed?

b) sanctions have a chilling effect on new editors. We know that potential new editors are deterred by a (partly true) perception that en.wp has become a bureaucratic maze of rules and jargon. Sanctions escalate that fear by accompanying the rules and jargon with the en.wp equivalent of martial law: stern warnings and summary punishment. I know we are all keen to avoid the disruption of POV-pushing edit wars, but scaring off newbies from the topic-du-jour is also something to avoid if possible. We try to encourage newbies, rather than bite them. We warn before sanctioning, and give a lot more leeway to inappropriate good-faith edits than to intentional disruption. We readily forgive editors who repent of misconduct. So when newbies come to contribute on Catalonia, shouldn't we do as much as is possible in the circumstances to avoid deterring them?

c) the presumption of open-endedness to avoid a repeat discussion is bizarre. Protection policy for individual articles is based on entirely the opposite presumption: we try to apply the lowest level of protection for the shortest possible time, and when that expires we watch what happens before reinstating protection. Countless pages are routinely reviewed in this way, with no great drama. Yet here we have some editors insisting that it is too burdensome to apply similar caution when sanctioning a whole topic area. That's perverse. Surely all sanctioned topics should go through a similar process of periodic review on an exponential backoff timer, with a default presumption of a trial period of re-opening before we eventually adopt indefinite restrictions?

d) there are plenty of deeply controversial topics where we survive without general sanctions. AFAICS there are no topic-specific sanctions on long-term POV-magnets such as homosexuality, vaccine, Islam, Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum (organisation), Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, or Black Lives Matter. If such bitter controversies as Black Lives Matter — which is on the front line of one the US's most bitter faultlines — can settle down with only semi-protection, why do some editors assume that this long-running clash of Iberian nationalisms has suddenly turned into a permanently unmanageable POV-warzone? Why not wait and see? And if sanctions do seem needed right now, why apply them for a short trial period, keeping open the possibility that like BLM this may be a controversy with brief and intermittent flashpoints which can be handled through much lighter and more transient measures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support a 1 year DS, extendable if in next October (or even late September) the need still seems to exist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support general sanctions, including the ability to place 1RR, for 1 year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Move to close

As this hasn't attracted comments in 5 days and has been opened over a week with what appears to be some sort of consensus, I'd move that an uninvolved admin close this proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to do so, would there be a lot of bureaucratic steps to follow? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, you just close this discussion and, if there are sanctions imposed as a result, make an appropriate entry in the table at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. It would probably be best to place notices at the village pump, interested wikiprojects and some of the main articles, though that would be a courtesy rather than a requirement, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence page I created as a sample, it needs to be tweaked with diffs in a couple of places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Something else to consider here re: using that page is whether there is also a consensus for 1RR, which is not explicitly mentioned on the draft general sanctions page (not suggesting one way or another on how to close on that point. Just noting it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors is already in there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So it does. I misread it earlier. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, would you hypothetically speaking be interested in closing? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, the fact that we had an international crisis and a laundry list of variously protected articles when this discussion started, and we've now reached the point where semi protection on Catalonia seems to be working just fine, just mucks this entire discussion up completely to my mind, and is probably a good example of why discussions like these shouldn't be opened hours after breaking news. GMG^talk 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Point taken, Green, but considering the exact same thing is going to happen at some point down the line, it would be good to have the protection mechanism in place in advance. After all, Catalonia still wants independence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reaching a bit to say that we can predict with intuition alone, situations where there will be enough disruption in the future to warrant, what are at this point, probably purely preemptive discretionary sanctions. That's part of why I tried requesting at least a downgrade to ECP while the discussion was ongoing, to prevent things from solidifying out of adrenaline, and no one caring enough later to come back and reassess the situation. I think if this discussion had been opened today, instead of two weeks ago, it would have gone down a very different line of questioning and argument.

At the very least, I think we all probably deserve a slap on the wrist for authorizing the use of force 72 hours after a crisis, because there's no way that could ever go badly. GMG^talk 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • I think GMG is absolutely right, and the sanctions supported above are no longer needed. They should have probably been in place for the last week of October / early November, but right now it is not clear that editing restrictions will be particularly helpful in the next couple of weeks. There is no reason to believe that this will become an Israel/Palestine type conflict. —Kusma (t·c) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, 1RR is always a good practice anyway, so authorizing it when we know that this situation is unstable is not bad, nor is authorizing the placement of sanctions knowing that at some point in the near future, there is likely to be drama here again. This would give us much more flexibility in dealing with future situations like we already have in the discretionary sanctions system for other topics that are unstable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course 1RR is always a good practice, but we usually don't always enforce it. Sanctions are for topics where there is both ongoing disruption across a large set of articles, and where milder measures such as protecting a few articles has proven insufficient.

None of those criteria apply here. The disruption was small, localised and short-lived. Even the head article Catalonia has now been doing fine under semi-protection for the last 10½ days, since Callanecc applied it at 05:58, 4 November 2017, after full protection had expired the previous day.

It seems to me that some admins are basing their judgements on the nature of the topic, which seems to me to be a sadly POV approach. Some admins presume that a topic involving an independence movement or a clash of nationalisms is inherently worthy of sanctions, regardless of whether there is actual disruption. They seem to presume that editors working on such topics are inherently less able than others to work collaboratively than those who edit in other topic areas, but that is demonstrably not the case. As Kusma noted above there is no reason to believe this will become another Israel/Palestine type conflict, so no need for special measures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

BHG, for me, it was more a question of the dozen or more interrelated/POVforking articles that were being affected in the same way. It seemed to me that community sanctions would be more effective than arguing the same points in multiple locations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: it was a short-lived spat which settled down very quickly. Despite the continued drama in the real world, editors seem to have found ways of developing en.wp's coverage without drama. Whatever you thought the merits were of your original proposal, surely it is now time to withdraw it as moot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not sure it's settled down quite yet - see RFPP today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean... that's just disruptive editing by drive-by IPs. That's not the kind of thing we would use DS for anyway, and isn't the kind of thing that would be effective even if we tried. It's just one of the 10k members of CAT:SEMI. GMG^talk 19:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GMG. The remedy for drive-by IPs is semi-protection. Community sanctions are useless against drive-by IPs, and I'm surprised that SarekOfVulcan pointed to that RFPP as evidence in support of them :(

It reinforces my impression that some editors are approaching this as a type of topic which should be sanctioned, rather than examining whether the conduct of established editors requires sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the thread seems to be reviving a bit... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour over a KIA soldier article

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

---

• Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AbdulQahaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Admins, AbdulQahaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some issue with the word killed for a soldier who was KIA in article Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The editor insists that using the word killed is offensive to Muslims and is currently edit warring. He was replaced two instances of the word killed in the article. One he replace with the word commanded here ([4]) when there is no reference of the fact that the person in question was the commander of the operation since he was a Captain. Second, he removed it again in another paragraph ([5]) and replaced it with shahadat. Subsequently, he replaced this with a quote "Capt Asfandyar embraced shahadat while fighting valiantly and leading his troops from the front" and the sentence "Captain Asfandyar was among the casualities" here ([6]). I tried to have discussion with the editor here (User_talk:Adamgerber80 since the editor did not discuss this on the article talk page even after being told to do so). But the editor first argued how only someone ISIS would object to the word shaheed then changed the argument that it is a concept non-muslims do not understand and is not insinuating that my edits are motivated by my Nationality and that using the word killed is offensive to the Muslim faith. I personally do not see how this could be offensive as the word has been used in other Pakistani articles as well (Rashid_Minhas,Nishan-e-Haider). As a result of this edit warring behavior, I filed a report on the Edit-war Notice board. I was redirected here by MSGJ as this seemed a better venue for this discussion. I had also added a COI template on the page which was removed by the editor([7]). The editor claims to have no COI over the article but I suspect otherwise. This is because their entire edit history on Wikipedia (about a year with 110 odd edits) have been about the same person (Asfandyar Bukhari) across different pages(Tamgha-i-Jurat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Attock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),2015 Camp Badaber attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),List of people from Attock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), PAF Camp Badaber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Cadet College Hasan Abdal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The editors only image uploads are related to the article and have been subsequently deleted for copy-right violations. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour over a KIA soldier article Hi admins, The word "killed" is used as a propaganda tool by terrorists like isis and ttp for muslims soldiers who lost their lives against them. The quran forbids to use word "killed" for muslims who die fighting for a righteous cause. That is why terrorists use word'killed" for opponent muslim soldiers to imply that those fighting them arent muslims. i used word "commanded" based on news reports and the DG ISPR's direct quote which i also have included in the article. I have only edited articles related to one person because in Pakistan that officer embodies our long and painful war against extremist terrorism. I have read his biography and he is the only soldier of the pakistani war on terror on whom a book has been written. that is why i possess much knowledge about him and i thought that wikipedia being the world's largest encyclopedia must have information regarding this Pak army officer who represents our nation's bravery and sacrifice. the user Ademberger80 edited the article and cut more than half of it on valid grounds. had i wanted an edit war i would unreasonably contested him on those points but i didnt. in contrast to it the said user seems bent on including a word in the article which i have repeatedly told him is considered offensive by muslims and pakistanis in this case. the case of rashid minhas is different because he wasnt fighting a war and also wasnt a combatant against those terrorists who claim to be muslim. the word shahadat only is mentioned in a direct quote and killed has been replaced by casuality which is also a neutral word in my opinion.AbdulQahaar (talk)

Maybe this would be an issue in Arabic or Urdu or Farsi, but in English, "killed X" merely means "caused X to die" (without any comment on the righteousness of the cause), and phrases like "embraced shahadat" are meaningless in English. Shahadat tells me that this translates to "martyrdom"; in something like this, where the opponents obviously won't consider it martyrdom, the use of this term doesn't adhere to our policy on presenting a neutral point of view. Finally, please don't replace simple English phrases with foreign terminology that will be meaningless to most readers. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend Just for reference, I did convey to the user that using martyr was not allowed on Wikipedia per its POV policy. In reply, the user got into technicalities claiming that the policy only censures (using their words here) the use of the word martyr and not Shaheed or Shadadat and was thus okay to include them. He further claimed that these are Islamic concepts which a non Muslim(indicating me) cannot understand. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In which case, he has even less reason to use the term, since he knows that the term is meaningless to the typical reader of the English Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AbdulQahaar, I know you may not easily understand because of cultural differences, but in primarily English speaking countries, being killed in action (KIA) is a term of respect, and implies that the person died honorably in pursuit of an honorable mission while doing their duty to the greatest extent possible. In English, there is normally only a distinction between KIA and MIA (missing in action) and both are normally honorable terms. At our funerals for our soldiers, we describe them as "killed in action" and we celebrate that they made the ultimate sacrifice. It is not a term of derision. It is a term of honor. I hope that you can understand the cultural differences here. GMG^talk 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out that for a person to be a casualty does not necessarily require the death of the person. Per Nyttend, in English "kill" is but a word with no real specific meaning beyond "an action that results in the death of another being". I would say that you would have a case if this was the Arabic Wikipedia where shahadat would have cultural significance, but not on the English Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "casualties" includes the wounded and the missing, as well as the dead. One can also "kill" animals, plants, anything else living (even viruses can be killed); it need not be humans or other beings. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nor does the word "kill" have any indication on the morality of an action. It's perfectly okay to refer to the police killing a terrorist after he killed other people - what the police did is good, and what the terrorist did is bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually here in the Western world we consider trials good and police taking the law into their own hands bad. While it is bad, they are allowed significant latitude but in the United States may not shoot someone who is on the ground (for example) even if the suspect has "killed other people." Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Another point is that Wikipedia is not guided by religious rules, and so whatever the quran forbids is of no relevance here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Now the article doesnt have any non-neutral wording and it isnt offending anyone as well. Cant we just move on from this because i think the present compromise on the said article is ok for everybody. it has been made clear what casuality means in the article (that the person in question lost his life). words martyrdom and shahadat have been removed except for one direct quote by a responsible official with reference. i think this should be good enough for everyone regarding wikipedia policy. as we have found a neutral and non offensive replacement for killed why should we insist on including it when it can do no good. As i said earlier you guys might not know this but word killed has been used as a propaganda tool by terrorists in this regard. (abdulQahaar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulQahaar (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Killed" is factual. We don't need to try to kiss up to terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AbdulQahaar The very fact that there is an issue is why we are here. You have removed the word killed and made the article less clear for the average reader of English Wikipedia. The word killed in action must be mentioned in the lead since the person's notability arises from that. He is not known for having commanded the operation (for which there is no source). Second, in the description of his death you have replaced the word killed again with this quote which talks about Shahadat. This quote is not relevant here and the language should be much simple for the average reader. This now seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The word killed in considered neutral and has no negative connotation attached to it. Removing the words martyr and shahadat is not compromise on your part, it is following the rules laid down. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Killed" is *not* an offensive word, not in the English language or in the English-speaking world - and "Killed in action" is the accepted and correct phrase to use. We will not accept people trying to force religious censorship on the way we English speakers speak our own language and making writing in English less clear. I have reverted you, and if you try to enforce your religious censorship again you are likely to be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering whether AbdulQahaar is just NOTHERE? All of their edits, covering the last four months, appear to be very unencyclopedic hagiography (or whatever the equivalent term would be in Islam) of Asfandyar Bukhari. They are very, very insistent on the use of POV terms like 'martyrdom', 'shahadat' and 'exit the temporary world for his heavenly abode' (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff as a sample), not to mention adding references to facebook (diff) and some other fairly bizarre bits and bobs (eg this). This goes back to the end of June and they're clearly not getting the message. GoldenRing (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing Another indication is the editor who had the same discussion in August 2016 with Toddy1. I am quoting him directly here "I dont know why you are so intent on making a change that will offend a lot and please none. if you are still steadfast upon erasing the word martyr then please remove it from all other hundreds of similar wikipedia articles(in which the word martyr or martyrdom is mentioned other than in quotation eg articles about catholic martyrs, revolutionary martyrs,Sikh gurus, gallantry award recipients of many countries eg India etc). then I will also change it on this article." (Talk:Asfandyar_Bukhari) and quoting him again "I had this discussion from a wikipedia editor before and he understood my point. I hope you also do so. Also please edit the many pages about Indians in which sources arent cited or the word martyr is used. Charity begins at home." (User_talk:Adamgerber80). Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The "I dont know why you are so intent" quotation is from a post by User:AbdulQahaar at Talk:Asfandyar Bukhari. I am not sure where the other quotation is from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• One of the sources used in the article is Dawn (newspaper), a Pakistani English-language newspaper, and its headline reads "Army captain among 29 killed in TTP..." (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• It's been about a week and AbdulQahaar has not yet responded. I propose we close this discussion with a final warning to the editor not to disruptively edit in the future which could attract some form of temporary/indefinite or topic ban the editor to prevent further POV edits on the same/related articles. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

BukhariSaeed standard offer

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

---

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

This user was indefed back in March for socking and eventually banned from UTRS for a year due to repeated unblock requests. They are now requesting the standard offer, having posted this to their user talk page:

It's been a long time since I was blocked. I was communicated by the admin who blocked me that I could ask for revoking of this block after six months. During this period, I've learned the main reason the block on me i.e. sockpuppetry. I assure everyone that I will not resort to this in future. I also assure positive and constructive edits as well as a friendly approach for all my fellow Wikipedians. Bukhari (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, a 'crat from the Urdu Wikipedia has left a kind of character reference for them.

I request the input of the community as to whether this editor should be unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support: From reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba, I see a relatively young editor panicking to "save" their article. The sockings were painfully obvious, the main issue back then in my opinion was feigning ignorance. This no longer appears to be an issue based on this unblock request (written in intelligible English, which would address the WP:CIR concern six months ago). There weren't any issues of incivility or POV pushing, so I think it's safe to lift this community ban now as long as they steer clear of the original topic/article for the time being. Alex Shih (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Withdrawing support based on diffs provided by KrakatoaKatie and Rschen7754. Alex Shih (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I would probably feel better about the whole thing if User:Hindustanilanguage could give us an indication of why the block log on ur.wiki looks fairly long and fairly recent. I'm afraid machine translation here is probably less than useless given the awkward English it spits out. GMG^talk 18:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: Thanks for asking this. There was a dispute over a comment made by this user on the WhatsApp Urdu Wikipedia User Group. This concerns the word "Saaen" used reverentially in Sindhi but offensive in Punjabi. An admin blocked the user. My view and that of other admin is 1) the incident doesn't pertain to Wikipedia directly; as such a block could could be placed in the WhatsApp Group and not Urdu Wikipedia. 2) when a word has two different meanings, it's better to ask the user what he actually means. Assuming good faith should be the guiding principle. --Muzammil (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. No objections here. GMG^talk 19:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed Has a CU confirmed that there is no evidence of recent socking? The user was renamed from Hammadsaeed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I see several instances of  Technically indistinguishable anon edits in September. These edits share a similar focus on Sufism, so I'm fairly certain these is BukhariSaeed. They share the same user agent with BukhariSaeed and they are the only edits on that range with that user agent. Katie^talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. I do NOT have ANY faith in the competence User:Hindustanilanguage's -- the Urdu 'crat-- AT ALL. Check out the history of his User talk page for my recent dealings with him. As this involves rev-deleted material, I'm not saying more publicly, though I am willing to provide details privately. Jpgordon (talk · contribs) could also provide some back up here. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I regret that my good intentions are grossly misinterpreted. I've interviewed and as well as helped a number of Wikimedians from different languages such as Sindhi, Punjabi, Telugu, Turkish, Wikidata, Ido, Esperanto, Doteli, Maithili, Esperanto, Sanskrit, English, Hindi and Urdu backgrounds. I've helped a number of Wikipedians. I sensed a problematic situation with Calton and wanted to help him as well. Regrettably, however, Calton will now use every available opportunity to tag me as "incompetent", without realizing that the discussion here and elsewhere does not pertain to me but some another user who needs a review in an independent and unbiased manner.  :) --Muzammil (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, you WERE incompetent then and your continued failure to recognize the obvious even after it's been pointed out makes you incompetent now. (Editors are advised to check the edit history of his talk page for further details.) --Calton | Talk 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how Hindustanilanguage/Muzammil making a mistake means that BukhariSaeed/Hammadsaeed should be denied the standard offer, unless they were collaborating together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support- If he edits constructively. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Inclined to support. We all deserve a second chance and people can change a lot in six months. Otherwise I think WP:ROPE applies. Sro23 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on CU evidence, BukhariSaeed has evaded his block within the last six months. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment to the above: I would like to quote the CU Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments for the past six months --Muzammil (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC): "I don't get the same interpretation out of that comment; I think he was just saying he disagrees with the revert. Nothing in that comment proves sockpuppetry. Closing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The comment from BU Rob13 that you quote is about one specific IP address reported in October, and it explicitly discusses behavioural evidence, in particular about the meaning of a comment made at a different Wiki (also in October). In contrast, what has been reported in this thread is CU evidence from this Wiki, from September. --bonadea contributions talk 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bonadea, for the clarification. I will greatly appreciate if you or some of our other friends disclose the CU evidence link as unblocking or otherwise for the user is largely dependent on it. --Muzammil (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, My understanding is that you have already stated in your comment above everything that you can publicly disclose on this. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, pings don't work unless you sign your posts at the same time with four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, remembering to sign is a good thing. Fixing: @KrakatoaKatie: Tazerdadog (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I'll reiterate that in my opinion, based on the technical and behavioral evidence, he has been evading his block. Katie^talk 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per both cu evidence, and because I'm still not sure they "get it". Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton, and per this nonsense [8][9] crosswiki. They seem way too overeager while still showing no understanding of what they have done wrong. --Rschen7754 05:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the block evasion disqualifies from WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per CU. GMG^talk 14:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Self-nominations for the 2017 ArbCom elections are now open

Self-nominations for the 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 12 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA

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

---

Per this thread, the editor is back. This time the editor opened up an account and made 462 separate edits to one article, which could easily have been made in just a single edit.

Since then, the editor reverted all of the rollbacks made by ValarianB

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed EC status from their account and reverted their EC edits. I don't have any particular views on their block status. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Willschmut and CU blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

RFPP is backlogged

Apologies for not jumping on this but I am going to be busy for a bit in the real world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All fine for now. fish&karate 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Create ဵ

Could someone create ဵ as a redirect to Burmese alphabet? I'm away from my own computer, so not using an admin-enabled account. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done WP:AGF , Google search says it is "MYANMAR VOWEL SIGN E ABOVE" - not sure if this is a good redirect, any admin that has more knowledge on this character set is welcome to revert/change. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Myanmar = Burma. fish&karate 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I am changing it to Burmese script. The article Burmese alphabet is about the variant of the Burmese script used to write the Burmese language. By this standard, the diacritic ဵ - used in Mon but not Burmese - is part of the Burmese script but not the Burmese alphabet. Kahastok talk 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog at SPI

Hi, hate to be that guy, but we've got a bit of a CU backlog at WP:SPI. Some cases open since November 3rd. Thank you if you can assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, there are currently four cases endorsed for checkuser by the clerks and three of those are from today. There is always a backlog at SPI but I'm not sure that there is a "CheckUser backlog". :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Acknowledged. I was going by the band of yellow and the oldest report being from 10 days ago. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerks? I wasn't even supposed to be here today! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

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

---

Could 2606:6000:5057:F700::/64 be blocked? Judging by the contribs, it's been used solely by a single person for vandalism over the past year. Thanks, Simplexity22 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a few seconds. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Close request

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

---

Could someone close and enact the two sections at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_violations please? I began these to attempt to save one particular editor from ending up blocked and I suspect that will be the end result if these are not enacted soon. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin AuburnPilot - sysop flag move request

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

---

• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A discussion is open at the bureaucrats' noticeboard regarding moving admin access from one account that has a lost 2FA authentication to another for admin AubernPilot. Community comments are welcome at WP:BN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Tom Wolfe

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

---

• Tom Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on there? 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah never mind, seems it's been fixed. 202.85.7.44 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello all,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki vandals/spammers?

I'm sometimes minimally active on the German Wikipedia, and I happened to notice an IP that is spamming semi-legible opinions both there and here. Apparently, it's a sock of a well-known and blocked user on the German Wikipedia. I've slapped a 36 hour block on the IP to stop further disruption, but do we have a general policy on such cases? How independent are the different language editions with respect to administrative action and/or user behaviour evaluation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the typical ways we respond to cross-wiki abuse is to ask the stewards for a global lock, which prevents a user from logging into a particular account on all Wikimedia wikis, or a global block, which only affects IP addresses. Aside from these, I believe local administrators on a specific wiki can and do take into consideration actions of a user on a different wiki when considering whether to take administrative action against a user, as such actions have the potential to also affect the local wiki. However, just because a user is blocked on one wiki does not automatically mean they should be blocked on another wiki. I would look at it case-by-case. (In this case, the IP hasn't edited the German Wikipedia for several hours, so it's probably a stale matter at this point.) Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that matches my expectation with a bit of useful extra info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Mz7, my understanding is that cross-wiki behavior is supplementary evidence; it is not by itself enough to enact a local sanction, but when a user is creating problems locally, then it can be brought in as evidence to support a necessary block. If someone is blocked on another Wiki, and has done nothing wrong here, however, we don't block them locally. The key is nothing wrong here. If they're doing the same behavior, ban away... --Jayron32 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Editor895

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

---

Editor895 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When an editor is inactive since 2013 (zero edits) but then suddenly shows up to defend an article repeatedly recreated by a sockfarm - see their deleted contribution, Sabrina Ho, and Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng - should we assume they are part of the sockfarm? I would already block them indef (as I did with their colleague created the article), but I have slight doubts since they seem to have good contributions before 2013. More opinions appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd consult the CheckUser who acted at User talk:MacauMan888. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Let us ping them for safety: @DoRD:. However, we may as well decide that a duck test suffices.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth noting that User:333vip333 (who created the Sabrina Ho (何超盈) article that User:Editor895 defended) has been dormant since 2014 until today, when they also added this puffery to another article. A bunch of paid sock farm sleepers is what this is looking like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Now indeffed by Primefac, making the topic redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac found me on IRC before I saw this. They all appear to be the same, but I wouldn't be surprised if more socks appear out of the woodwork. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to check, DoRD, are you confirming a CU match between Editor895, 333vip333, and the rest of the socks at User talk:MacauMan888? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they're almost certainly the same (same ISP, same geolocation, same device) as the accounts noted at User talk:MacauMan888. Primefac and I also noticed Angrylala, cu-blocked on zhwiki for promoting Ho, who may also be connected to these somehow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked that one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: The recent edits to user talk pages make 333vip333, Editor895, and Editor43043  Confirmed to the larger group. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And now somebody is trying to break in my password.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours, eh? Primefac (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Unless they have a quantum computer, they are not likely to succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, this is IP 216.25.187.3, not sure whether they are associated with this sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the geolocation, I doubt that it's related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Tell me if I may update or edit how an user presents non-English Wikipedia related information on ENWP?

If an user was an admin on an non-English WP but is no longer, may he or she present the info here on ENWP as if he or she is an non-English WP admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsquare (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. We don't care who anyone is at all. Anyone can discuss anything at anytime for any reason here. We don't care if you are or are not an admin. If you've got something to bring up, do so. You could be an admin, you could be anyone. Just say what you need to say. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone is not admin but at the talk page states they are admin, we usually edit the talk page. I think the question is whether we would similarly edit the talk page if someone incorrectly states they are admin on a different project. (My guess is we do not care).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you not ask this question at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_November_12#If_an_user_is_no_longer_an_administrative_user_--_bureaucrat.2C_steward.2C_administrator_et_cetera_--_on_project_not_English_Wikipedia.2C_shall_description_on_user_pages_be_editing_accordingly.? Either way you are an admin here and that is the main thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with Ymblanter that we don't care. We remove it when non-admins claim to be en-wiki admins because that could potentially be disruptive (if people waste their time asking them to perform admin actions), but other than that we don't care whether the claims people make about their off-wiki activity are true or not unless they're claiming their off-wiki experiences give them a particular authority (cf. Essjay). (I suppose there's a theoretical case we'd take action, if someone were claiming to be a Commons admin and giving people erroneous advice about copyright which other editors were following in good faith on the assumption that a Commons admin would understand image policies, but that's a very niche case.) ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a definitive answer than at last time when I asked. I value Iridescent's idea that off-wiki experiences gives a non-admin a particular authority. A non-ENWP user can claim to be non ENWP admin on ENWP user page as many wikimedia projects have flourished in more than a decade of this online phenomenon called wikipedia. As a user is now difficult to be a WP admin, does carrying the stigma of an admin earn the user an image that readers can look upon? Although JW on a mailing list post claimed that

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

do we admin need to stamp out the aura whenever it is seen? --- Ktsquare (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on contributions, not contributors; re-displaying these personal attacks will result in a block.

I think you should look back at your Rfa Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktsquare, and then compare it to more recent ones to see how times have changed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) I was really wondering how a person who clearly cannot write a coherent sentence in English became an admin - then I saw the date of their getting the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) EoW, thank you for your suggestion for comparison between recent and past requests for adminship. May you delineate or direct me precisely to where I can understand in detail what a request for adminship have changed drastically? However, I do not see the reason of redirecting a question about editing a user page to the difficulty of becoming an admin. -- Ktsquare (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my question: how did a person who cannot write a proper sentence in English become an admin? Is not communication a necessary quality for admins to have? Does not the possibility of misunderstanding expand greatly when the admin involved cannot properly express themselves in English? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) BYK, I am stepping away from this discussion because it is no longer answering the original question. Bye --- Ktsquare (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "BMK". Just to note, according to their log page [10], Ktsquare performed no admin actions between 13 January 2008 and 16 August 2017. In fact, in the 12 years they've been an admin, they've made only 50 admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) @Ktsquare: You obviously don't need the admin bit, you rarely ever use it. The honorable thing would be to turn it in, don;t you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Paid editor, resolutely trying to get paid, including using OTRS to solicit people looking for help

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

---

I think it is time for an indefinite block of User:KDS4444.

User:KDS4444 was formerly an OTRS worker, but this privilege was removed on 21 October.

KDS4444 was trying to get people to pay him when they asked for help at OTRS. See this page in User:Sphilbrick's userspace, which is anonymized but includes exchange with <redacted>, which did lead to an article. The agent disclosed that it was paid editing. KDS4444 created the <redacted> article, and disclosed that it was edited for pay.

Reviewing that OTRS list, this one is especially egregious: an exchange with <redacted> who is asking about Wikipedia's trademark policy. Here the agent asks for $300, even though <redacted> hadn't asked for an article. <Redacted> asks whether it was an automated response. The agent persists with the misunderstanding, until finally realizing it was a trademark question.

There are also issues with his paid editing efforts as well - for instance directly creating Stewart Levenson even though he acknowledged in the subsequent SNOW AfD that it was terrible and should not have been moved to mainspace. He is trying a second time with Draft:Stewart Levenson and if you review the Talk page, you will see he is bludgeoning that page, trying to convince two independent editors (and the reviewer who declined the draft) that the topic is indeed notable, taking up volunteer time so that he can be paid.

He has complained several times that disclosing paid editing is not worth it, playing the martyr (eg diff, diff, and recently created Conso International Corporation which looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing, and from which KDS444 recently removed a "notability" tag, placed by a NPPer here.

Today, they moved a draft of another paid article that had been at AfC to mainspace, with an edit note Article has been ready for publication for weeks, have now removed from AfC queue.

From my perspective, it is clear that getting paid is more important to KDS444 than being a good citizen. I am proposing a community ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot comment on the suppressed page contents, but I can confirm just one salient fact: "KDS4444's OTRS access was revoked, by the decision of OTRS administrators, after KDS4444 was found to be using OTRS access to the system to solicit customers for payment to edit articles". - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The diffs alone are pretty discouraging but if the OTRS conduct is also true (which I cannot verify), I think there is no question that KDS4444 is not here to improve the project but only to make profit off it. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, temporary interruption: What are summaries of OTRS tickets, naming real people, doing publicly published on-wiki? I could very easily be wrong - SPhilbrick has always seemed to know what he's doing - but I'm suppressing this page until someone assures me that this is OK, and the people who wrote to OTRS - and who's names are visible - either OK'd having their names published, or don't have the right to privacy I thought they had. Discussion can of course continue, but maybe discuss the deleted OTRS page on a subthread or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Floq I had the same concern and emailed a few people about it back when I first saw it a few weeks ago. Given that a) I too assume that Sphilbrick knows what they doing; b) it was still there and c) nothing has happened and d) KDS444's escalating bad behavior, I have just put the cards on the table for the community to act. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your concern, Floq, you've got a point there. I'm not an OTRS rules expert, but according to meta:Access to nonpublic information policy, non-public OTRS information may be released when "community members needs to stop damage to the Wikimedia Sites". What was released here does in fact look like damage to Wikipedia as well as to the OTRS "customer" side. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I can tell, the damage was NOT (or was not always) being caused by the people whose names were published. A lot of these were apparently unsolicited offers from KDS4444. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite right to have suppressed that. It should never have been posted on-wiki. The identities of who submit tickets should never be disclosed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have seen some of the background but was astounded to see User talk:Doc James#"Well known long term paid editor" where KDS4444 demonstrates the alarming degree of disconnect involved. No greater example of WP:NOTHERE exists than someone who cannot immediately see that an OTRS agent should not accept cash let alone solicit payment. Johnuniq (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support and I was actually going to oppose it initially: the whining is annoying, but we have plenty of editors who whine about things, so its not that big of a deal for me, and OTRS is a meta issue, and it has been addressed. However, this move today combined with the concerns that Jytdog has brought forth make me convinced that KDS4444 is not here actually to comply with our COI guideline and PAID policy, but to try to find every possible way around them in order to make money and advocate for his clients. That is unacceptable and has reached the level of disruption that a community ban is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been reflecting on the OTRS thing since I first learned about what KDS444 was doing there. OTRS is run through meta but it was started by WP editors (I believe that Guy was one of the initiators) and I believe that it is mostly staffed by WP editors and most of the concerns are about WP articles. So even though OTRS is run through meta and his privileges were already removed there, the abuse of OTRS is something that should be addressed here; I feel strongly about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The OTRS abuse is a meta issue, and has been addressed there. What is an en.wiki issue is that he used global rights (which OTRS technically is even though it confers no actual on-wiki technical abilities) to solicit money in private for paid promotional editing on the English Wikipedia. If he had solicited money from a company to factually correct their existing article, while I'd think it was scummy, I'd be content to leave that as an OTRS issue since it technically would not have violated any local en.wiki policy. The difference is that he actively sought to use global rights to violate en.wiki policy (NOTSPAM), and even after it had been explained to him how the COI process must work, decided that he was too good for it today and went ahead and directly published an article without receiving review. All of that combined is enough for me to be fine with a site ban because it is clear he is only here to promote clients and WikiLawyer about why he should be able to do that. It makes his presence on this site a net-negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, absolutely. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". This user is very determined not to understand that the Wikipedia community is not overjoyed with people profiting form the volunteer efforts of others. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. It's clear, based on the information above, that he is only interested in money. Additionally, this is problematic. Nihlus 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose' KDS4444 has made over 17,000 edits and created more than 150 pages (almost all as a volunteer) over 9 years of editing. The editor has never been blocked. Before trying a site ban I'd much rather see us try a lesser step and see if it works. In particular, I'm perfectly ok if KDS4444 is banned from moving drafts into mainspace (he should have known better on that one), and from directly editing pages for which he is being paid in mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And over 9 years they have not learnt how to handle confidential information despite being an OTRS member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

They weren't the one who publicly posted the confidential information here, including identities of people who submitted OTRS tickets. As far as I am aware,the accusations against KDS4444 are not related to a lack of confidentiality, but to inappropriate responses to OTRS requests.

KDS4444 should be banned from OTRS, and has been, for using it the way they did, and that should be a consideration in actions here. But I don't think we should jump straight to a site ban for the OTRS actions, and the on-wiki actions don't seem anywhere near sufficient to warrant a site ban without trying something else first. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not. I do not believe that the user is complying with the terms of use. The OTRS issue is not separate fomr this. The OTRS issue is a violation of the terms of use, right there. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Without any evidence that there have been other paid edits, and given KDS4444's openness about being a paid editor, I see no reason to believe that there are undisclosed paid edits. Do you have anything to show that this has occured? If there is sufficient evidence of undisclosed paid edits, I'd certainly rethink my position, but none have been raised to date.

OTRS is a problem for meta. Given that we aren't supposed to even know the contents of those emails based on the privacy policy, I'm surprised that we can even discuss it in such detail here. That said, from what has been said I am completely opposed to KDS4444's actions on OTRS. If people feel that it is a concern for us then I'm ok with that. But personally I don't like this jump straight to a full site ban for a problem that occurred elsewhere, without anything else been tried here first or sufficient on-wiki actions to justify it. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Bilby, a huge amount has been done about it. So much so that it has become a time sink for many of us. It's even spawned RFCs by Doc James which you are well aw:are of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing looking at issues raised by KDS4444's editing, and addressing KDS4444's editing with sanctions less than a site ban. Generally I'd expect some direct attempts to sanction an editor before moving to a site ban. Has a partial ban been tried? The block log is empty, so I assume nothing has been tried there.

I would fully support a partial ban before moving to a site ban, but I can't, in good conscious, support jumping to a site ban based on the small number of on-wiki issues being shown here without at least trying a partial ban first. The OTRS issue is different, and I'm open to a community decision that we can site ban someone for actions committed on OTRS, but personally I'd rather see that managed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support - The editor's behavior is completely unconscionable. He soils the entire project by being allowed to continue editing here. I'm not sure why the WMF hasn't globally banned him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block here. OTRS access already removed. Jonathunder (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- long-running and entrenched issue; volunteer time is best spent elsewhere rather than having to deal with promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Probably should have happened earlier. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like requesting a siteban for someone who's been a functionary, but this is exceptional — as far as abuse of the system is concerned, there aren't many things worse than using your advanced user rights to try to make money. The solicitation itself is an issue for Meta, but related actions here are an issue for us. I won't say "go away and never come back", but this kind of thing warrants "go away and never come back unless you can persuade the community to change its mind", and that's only going to happen with a lot of evidence for usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per basically everyone upthread. What a waste of volunteer time, just so he can make a little cash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "I have advanced user rights on Wikipedia, I can get your article on there for $____" should result in an automatic ban, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Can we get a clear statement from an OTRS agent about whether it is accurate that KDS actually said something similar to the above characterization by The Bushranger? I don't want to jump on this without having all the facts, but if something like that was said, that is incompatible with continued editing of the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  The most I feel comfortable saying at this point is that they have not used that exact phrasing ("I have advanced rights") or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Echo Pfac.I do not recall about KDS using the exact phrasing, in his solicitations.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  It may not be exact words, but it's the clear implication, from how this is presented. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I rather fear I started the ball rolling here without mentioning names. No one has tried more to reason with KDS more than I and Jytdog but it has had little effect. Our conditions are lax in even permitting disclosed paid editing (under the assumption that it will prevent it going underground), but some take this to mean that they can make a deliberate career of it. KDS's main issue is that he is fiercly trying to avoid refunding his clients' money as becomes particularly evident in his persistence to get Stewart Levenson published (although the actual rejection of this article is a lack of notability as clearly set forth by Voceditenore) at Draft talk:Stewart Levenson. My objection to paid editing of any kind (except WIR) is that it is freeloading on the voluntary work of the editors who contribute content and maintain the quality of it. It practically always involves promotion of some kind, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We all know the OP has a bone to pick with anyone who ever recieved/s a cent ever for any edit done on Wikipedia. KDS, be more concerned with being a good "citizen" than getting paid. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • L3X1, I consider this oppose along with the edit summary to be bordering on a personal attack on Jytdog. Jytdog in fact has probably done the most of any editor we have to strike a balance between neutrality and COI/paid editing. They are one of the few editors who actually is willing to work with COI editors in reviewing their requests instead of simply reverting them. Jytdog also in the past has proposed things such as a Guild of paid editors for those paid editors who do follow our policies and guidelines (a proposal I strongly opposed, and still do). While you are free to oppose this sanction and to disagree with Jytdog's views on COI/paid editing, your characterization of them here is not true. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry it came across that way, but based off all the evidence I have seen that "balance" involves making paid editors wish they had a less stressful hobby. I believe article creation for profit and advocacy editing can be a problem, but I think they should be attacked/resolved in a manner that doesn't to me look like borderlin harrassment. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for striking your comment. I do not consider requiring that KDS4444 comply with our policies to be harassment, and I agree with what he was told by Doc James yesterday: You disclosing does not give you a free ride to add promotional material to Wikipedia and use advanced privileges to try to get further money. KDS has not tried to follow our rules on the English Wikipedia. Full stop. He has tried to use the global terms of use a bludgeon to force us to accept articles that are clearly in violation of our local policies and guidelines, and has abused a global right (OTRS) on en.wiki to violate our policies for his personal income. That is why we are talking about site banning him: he has violated local policies while trying to hold us hostage to the bare minimum requirements for even being able to hit the save button. That is disruption that is worthy of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Are we proposing an infinite block/ban or a limited with auto unblock and the standard conditions. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The English Wikipedia does not have infinite sanctions. Site bans are indefinite, but even Betacommand is having his appeal considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
      • That was what I was implying. Beta's been trying to get unblocked for 5 years. The last one had multiple proposals of various levels attended by a multitude of editors, and even though the appeal is still under consideration, he is still blocked from en.wiki. DrStrauss (the guy, not the account) probably has a good chance of getting an account unblocked (or a new account with Arbcom's approval) because the level of his disruption is limited to deceit and socking. Indulge my crystal ball for a moment: the problem is that when the 6 months roll up, a good number of editors won't be bothered to support KDS's return. "Prove that you've repented" "How will we know that you aren't still taking payment" "unblock=might be trouble, blocked=no trouble" Comments like that and energetic opposition can sink a appeal either by numbers or by preventing consensus. And if KDS is site banned, wouldn't that mean he can't participate in any wiki-project? News, commons, fr.wiki, meta, media etc, right? At least Beta and Strauss can try to show penitence, a sitebanAn indef block will IMO be a damnatio ad beastias for KDS. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Just thought I would chime in here. This discussion, on the English Wikipedia's AN has absolutely no bearing on any other projects. This is not meta. This is not a global ban discussion. Site ban != global ban. They are free to prove that they can follow rules on other projects to their heart's content. --Majora (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I'll strick those parts then. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The user is not here to write a decent encyclopedia. They are here to make money for themselves by adding promotional content about their clients. There comes a point when enough is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Trust has vanished due to the egregious OTRS misconduct. It was also an act of defiance of community norms to move a paid biography of an artist of very dubious notability from draft space to mainspace, bypassing AFC which was established, at least in part, to allow ethical, regulated editing by paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Accepting payments for the creation of promotional "articles" and abusing positions of community trust to solicit said services are both completely incompatible with being here to help us build a volunteer curated encyclopedia. MER-C 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Actively soliciting for paid work using OTRS is simply appalling behaviour (and yes, it is an en.wiki problem if it is soliciting for paid work on en.wiki). That, coupled with things like moving his own paid drafts (especially of dubious notability) into main space, show that KDS4444's prime motivation is self-enrichment and not building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to admit that I share my friend Kudpung's distaste for most paid editing, but I do recognize it is allowed under disclosure rules, and also that there is a spectrum of paid editing which at one end covers altruistic work like the WIR programme (and things like simple factual updates by company employees seem fine to me too), but what we're looking at here is firmly at the parasite end of the spectrum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the OTRS issue, this alone should warrant community ban - don't use/abuse English Wikipedia publishing, or fellow English Wikipedia editors in disagreements with a client - either to prove something to the client or to waste the time of other editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself. Everyone has to make a living, and if you can generate an income by editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with its policies, far be it from me to tell you not to. On the other hand, if you're editing in a manner consistent with policy, you're very unlikely to come to the attention of even the most zealous of the paid editing opponents, and if you're attracting such attention, you're doing something wrong. Clearly something is very wrong here, and using OTRS to solicit for paid work is abhorrent; OTRS access is a position of great trust and you are essentially speaking "for Wikipedia". Add to that the deliberate creation of an inappropriate article to prove a point to a client and clearly the bottom line is more important than writing proper, neutral encyclopaedia articles. And for that reason, support: not for paid editing, but for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - if the community decides he should be indefinitely banned, fine, just wondering whether desysopping and editing restrictions would resolve the issue but retain a good editor with 17,000+ edits to en.wiki.fish&karate 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Fish and karate, KDS is not an admin, nor do they (currently) have any advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, my bad - I assumed he would be with OTRS access. Never assume! Above comment amended appropriately. fish&karate 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

TfD issue

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 15#Template:Authority control has been closed; please would an uninvolved admin now review and close the discussion that has been stared below the closed section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Working Primefac (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Primefac.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94 on my talk page.

User has claimed I "fell from the sky declaring my opinion superior to others" (a fabrication).

User has claimed I am "messing around."

User's post on my talk page is incredibly aggressive.

I have no intention of humoring it with a reply (knowing myself, I would misbehave as well, admittedly). I merely request an administrator or other authority to step in and give him a proper warning template on his page to let him know that his behavior isn't assuming good faith and is quite abhorrent. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You would probably misbehave because you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here. Good faith reverting edits over and over again does not fit. "Incredibly agressive" is way overreacted btw. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)@JohnnyFiveHole:, you are a relatively new user and you got involved into a content dispute. This dispute has to be resolved somehow, and trying to resolve it in edit summaries is usually not the best idea. Gsfelipe94 went to your talk page to resolve it, and might have not chosen the best approach, but you need to discuss with them anyway. The article talk page seems to be the best venue for such discussion, and I strongly recommend you to go there, open a new topic, and discuss the changes, at the same time trying to stay cool.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing that much. My case in point is as follows *points to the tone and tenor of the above message by gsfelipe*. "you can't start a proper discussion as you've showed here" This is a long-time user. He knows that personal attacks are a violation of WP policy, yet he's attacked me personally several times. I never have and never will type messages like what he's typed to me. As an aside, a quick perusal of his talk page reveals he's crossed others similarly, often biting the newbie. Cheers. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)