Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 99 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 97 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 97 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)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	31	34
TfD	0	0	6	1	7
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	75	25	100
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Magioladitis

Magioladitis (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and his bot Yobot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been blocked many times for issues relating to violations of the bot policy and AWB's rules of use. The most common complaint is that he makes many trivial ("cosmetic") changes which do not change the appearance of an article but clog up editors' watchlists. The most recent block was for one month. He was unblocked three days ago on the back of strict conditions that he would not perform any automated or semi-automated edits for the duration of the block length (see User talk:Magioladitis#Unblock request for details). However I have just reblocked because he was not adhering to these conditions.

In usual circumstances I would remove access to AWB, but as Magioladitis is an administrator this is not possible. I have suggested to him in the past that it would be better to cease all automated editing from his main account. However he has not acquiesced to this yet, and judging from recent events I wonder if he is able to restrain himself in this way voluntarily.

I would like to stress that I believe Magioladitis is acting in good faith, his non-automated edits are beneficial and his administrator actions are not concerning. However the automated editing is proving problematic and we should find a way to manage this.

I'm here to propose to the community that Magioladitis be topic banned from making all automated and semi-automated edits from his main account indefinitely. Any bot jobs approved at WP:BRFA may continue, and we gain from his experience as a long-term editor, admin and BAG member. If this does not achieve consensus, then let's brainstorm other avenues to deal with this.

I am notifying the following editors who have been involved in the past: xaosflux — Materialscientist — The Earwig — GoingBatty — Frietjes — Fram — Bgwhite — intgr — JohnBlackburne — GB fan: and I will notify Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Mag could be unblocked only to participate in this discussion? I'd like to know why he is so persistent in applying cosmetic changes, whether he's trying to climb a leaderboard or is just slightly obsessive about articles being "just so" in terms of whitespace, bypassing harmless redirects, etc. No matter the reason, it's not setting a good example as a member of BAG. And it's a significant annoyance and timesink as people review the edits and have to determine what the reason was (when there is really, none). –xeno^talk 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reminded Magioladitis of WP:COSMETICBOT bot several times over the years, more than anyone else, so I'll join the crowd here. These pointless edits have to stop. I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB. But there's a larger issue at play with Magio's bot in that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. As a BAG member, Magio should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages.

I'm not going to say Magio should be removed from BAG at this point, but it's certainly an option I'm willing to consider if Magio keeps running their bots without making sure they first comply with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I second xeno's suggestion to allow Magioladitis to participate in this discussion on this page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not oppose an unblock on condition that he only edit this page and his own talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, I do recognize the positive contributions that Magioladitis brings to the project, which is why I tried to work with him on a limited topic ban as his unblock condition (see WP:EDR#Final_warnings_.2F_Unblock_conditions). As clearly stated in the unblock, condition violation may lead to additional sanctions including re-blocking. As one of the WP:AWB developers, I would expect he would need to make minimal AWB edits (possibly via LEGITSOCKS) for testing and troubleshooting purposes even if he ends up under a long term editing restriction, possibly under specific conditions? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note, I have delisted the prior temporary WP:RESTRICTIONS as Magioladitis was reblocked and unblocked under NEW conditions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a real shame and sad to see energetic editors who like to make mass-fixes get blocked for it. Though the fixes I see here would be so low on my priority list that I couldn't envision them ever rising in my work queue to get even close to approaching the top of the list. Is there any real concern here, though, besides cluttering up watchlists? Can't you just scan or skim the edit summaries in your watchlists and just disregard or ignore "Cleaned up using AutoEd"? If Magio needs something more important and substantial to clean up, then I have several tasks in my overloaded work queue I'd love to outsource to him. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the ping MSGJ. I'm not sure what to do. As people have said, he makes positive contributions. Since he was unblocked, Maigoladits has probably done ~2,000 semi-manually edits via Yobot's account. Most of this is due to the latest dumpfile via CheckWiki. This is the first dump since ISSN checks were added, which contributed to this message on Yobot's talk page. So, ~2,000 good contributions vs ~20 pointless ones. I don't want to see him blocked because of his overall contributions, but on the other hand, something must be done.

MSGJ, AWB's CheckPage does allow for blacklisted names. I'm not sure if a blacklisted name takes precedent over an admin. Rjwilmsi is the person to ask. Plus, as the main AWB programmer, he could come up with suggestions.

WPCleaner and AutoEd don't have a permission system. But, AutoEd needs to be added to a person's common.js/vector.js file to work. Removing this from the .js file and making it sure it isn't added back should be easy. WPCleaner doesn't make the "trivial" changes or general fixes as the other two programs do. I don't see a problem in not letting Magioladitis keep using that. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is refreshing because it's the first time I've seen you accept that there is a problem. In the past you have steadfastly defended him. I'm hopeful we can work together to find a solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ Actually, last time I made only one comment and that was to defend one type of edit as non-trivial. The time before I suggested a topic ban on editing talk pages. Talk pages are Magioladitis' kryptonite. Kryptonite and OCD is a dangerous mix. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [1], or look at the block log for Yobot [2]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also the repeated violations of WP:BOTREQUIRE, in particular for bots to be conservative in their edit speeds. Non-urgent tasks such as the bot does should be done at the rate of no more than once every ten seconds, so six a minute. But only yesterday it was making edits several times faster than this, with dozens of edits per minute. This has been raised before, and is surely easily fixable – any code on any computer can query the system clock to at least second accuracy. It is just he thinks WP:BOTREQUIRE does not apply to his bot and can be ignored, as well as the above problems with cosmetic edits and edit descriptions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the circumstances outlined here, I really think the only solution is desysopping, followed by loss of AWB privileges. Adminship shouldn't be a "shield" which protects one from the kind of restrictions that a "regular" editor in the same circumstances would see. I suspect Arbcom could handle this by motion, though they might want to make a "full case" out of it... But, ultimately, this is boiling down to "trust" and "judgement" (and it's come up repeatedly) and Admins that display neither probably need to lose the bit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have raised this issue with him several times in the past. Lots of pointless AWB edits that add no value whatsoever. He stops for a time, then restarts after the dust settles. Thankfully I'm not alone with these concerns. Rulez iz rulez for AWB, but this user seems to be "untouchable" due to their so-called admin status. Once again, it's one rule for AWB running bots and one rule for the rest of us. At one point I put my foot through my laptop and sent him the bill. PS - Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the block log, Lugnuts, that user/admin is clearly not untouchable. If they were, we wouldn't be here. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Go on, give him a 53rd chance. He's an admin afterall! Like to see how quickly a non-admin would have been indef'd for similar bahaviour. Or even to have their block lifted so they could participate at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have till now held back from calling for his administrator status to be removed, and am still hopeful this won't be necessary. Obviously I expected the issue to come up, and I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency in the treatment he is receiving. We are looking for the best solution for the project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his admin actions. (Okay he unblocked his own bot once, a long time ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.) Personally I'd like to have a try with some editing restrictions before we turn to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So far we have lots of editors pointing out the problems, but not many solutions being proposed. It might be useful if you could indicate whether or not you support the proposal in the first paragraph. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove AWB and ban from operating bots. Problem disappears. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support a ban on automated edits, meaning both tools such as AWB, AutoEd and through a bot, as the problems occur on both accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, support AWB and bot removal. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne you can also kick me out of Wikipedia. Problem disappears too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked Magioladitis (after the agreement of the blocking admin in this discussion above) solely to participate in this discussion. Magioladitis has agreed to only edit this discussion (and their user talk page) until the end of the original block (15 February). Fram (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my points in brief. I'll try to expand the, later:

• No, I am not interested to climbing any virtual ladder.
• The last unblock violation was a misunderstanding. I thought the restriction has to do only with AWB. It would be stupid of me to violate the rule just to make 3 edits with AutoEd.
• I edit a lot. People who edit a lot get a lot of complains anyway. Yesterday I fixed 1,500 pages with invalid ISSN. Yes, there were 20 mistakes. Yes, I went back and fixed them. This is my typical day.
• I do a lot of mistakes. I run on multiple tasks and I usually use brutal force (I ignore the skip conditions). This is my main negative. I know about it.
• I reply to every single comment in my talk page I never escaped any complain.
• I make an effort to pass most the tasks I do to others. I encouraged people to take over.
• I have published almost every single script I use. I want others to use my tools. I don't want to be that guy that when they leave Wikipedia they take the tools with them.
• Not all complains are valid. Many times I get complains because the editor did not understand what I did (example: removed a duplicated category). I try to use the edit summary a lot. Better than some people who don't use it all.
• I wrote on my talk page a lot of stuff I would like the community to agree for. It's not about me. I see a lot of complains around about AWB and tools in general. Some are valid, some are not. I want specific rules. NOTBROKEN has changed. COSMETICBOT has changed. The rules have relaxed. Some of you may know that,some may don't, some may want to deny this fact. Yes, it is a fact.
• A lot of people when banned, blocked for using the tools all these years. Even there were different reasons behind, some people may have the impression that the reason was the same: The tools. No, it's not the tools.
• When this started I got the impression that some of the blocking admins want me out of Wikipedia. I apologise for that. I see now that this is not the case. I am happy to see that the vats majority does not think I act on bad faith. I still believe though that some editors might want me out. They may believe this would be the solution. Well, it's not.
• I typed this in less than 5 minutes I hope it's not too emotional. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would propose the following as a possible set of edit restrictions:

1. AWB may only be used by the Yobot account, and only for tasks that have bot approval. No semi-automated tools of any kind may be used on the main account.
2. All "general fixes" and other changes apart from the literally approved bot task must be disabled within AWB when Yobot runs.
3. No edits that consist entirely of cosmetic changes may be made with either the main account or the bot account. These include edits that only affect white space and underscores, changes that only bypass redirects, and other changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page.
4. All Yobot edits must refer to the specific request for bot approval that authorizes them (in the edit summary).
5. All CHECKWIKI edits must be clearly marked with the specific CHECKWIKI task they carry out (in the edit summary). Different CHECKWIKI tasks should be handled by different runs of the bot to permit clear edit summaries to be used.
6. Yobot may only save changes to a page when the specific bot task it is carrying out has been applied to that page, and must skip pages to which the bot task does not apply.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. So on one hand we have a person who won't stop making tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes. On the other hand we have people that want to really insist that tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes are not made. It seems to me that either side could let this one go and everything would be fine, or both sides can be stubborn and we probably lose an editor. HighInBC 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Or we could insist that Admins follow the same rules as everyone else, and get treated for infractions like everyone else – the fact is, if this didn't involve an Admin, this situation would have been dealt with a long time ago. (And, before anyone brings it up, I'm pretty sure I've seen non-Admins blocked for edits not all that dissimilar to the ones mentioned in this case.) Instead, this is another shining example of where someone has been cut multiple "breaks" simply because of the usergroup they're in... Bringing this back around though, in terms of "solutions", anything less than the loss of AWB privileges in this case would be unsatisfactory – that combined with an understanding that "self-granting" AWB privileges at a later date without community consensus first would result in immediate desysopping. Anything less than this would be unacceptable IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

IJBall they were blocked. I don't see how they are being treated any different for being an admin. Not everything needs to boil down to admin v non-admin. HighInBC 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course Magioladitis has – a "regular" editor would already have lost AWB privileges. And I'm of the strong opinion that an Admin that gets blocked multiple times (esp. for the same infraction) should no longer have Admin privileges. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you should file a case with ArbCom, since they're the only people who can take the bit away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I could, if I had unlimited time to burn on Wikipedia activities that will likely only end in aggravation. Fortunately, I have a real job for that instead! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of taking away his admin privileges (which are not the reason we're here), how about doing the exact opposite and saying "Magioladitis, here's the mop! When your block is over, could you please help us clean up [fill in the blank]? Your work there would be much more valuable to the project than these minor edits." GoingBatty (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• • IJBall I would like to know example of editors who lost AWB right. It's one of the reason I insist that we resolve the situation by strong consensus. I do not like to see people losing their AWB rights. AWB is a browser so in some level equivalent to FireFox or Chrome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Of course the main use of AWB is to perform bot-like editing, either with manual review or in a fully automated way, not to "browse" in a normal sense. The first sentence of WP:AWB describes AWB as an "editor", which is indeed the main purpose of the tool. The AWB rules of use on WP:AWB directly state "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. ", and the reason for this thread is repeated abuse of the rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree with HighInBC The edit's are harmeless, let 'em go. If he was harming Wikipedia with those edits, then I could see imposing the conditions stated here, but he isn't. The main complaint that I saw was that it was clogging up people's watch lists. Big deal, I ran across that a while ago, some one was doing a mass update of templates and it was filling my watchlist, big deal, I skipped those and looked only at articles (I was doing a vandal run at the time ) and ignored their edits. As long as Magioladitis isn't harming the encyclopedia, let it go . KoshVorlon 16:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If clogging up the watchlists was blockable I would have blocked User:MediaWiki message delivery ages ago. HighInBC 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clogging up watchlists is blockable if what is clogging them are trivial edits. If the MediaWiki Message Delivery System only added or removed whitespace, it would get blocked/disabled under WP:COSMETICBOT just like Magio was for edits like [3]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, no big deal. Magioladitis could stop doing it, people could stop caring, either way everything is fine. HighInBC 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome attitude you have. I guess if you brought an issue here, but no-one cared about it/you, then you'd be fine with it? No, thought not. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you have already answered your question to me on my behalf, but you failed to predict my response so I will answer it myself. If said harm was this insignificant then I would not expect people to get too worked up about it. HighInBC 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As the issues with this users edits have been raised time and time again, by multiple different users, I can only conclude you don't know the definition of insignificant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Your premise that if people get worked up about something then it must not be insignificant is flawed. People get worked up over insignificant things all the time, humans are kind of famous for it. HighInBC 16:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You were obviously so worked-up about being incorrect it took you a week to reply. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you had pinged me I would have responded earlier. Not worked up about anything, not sure what you think I am incorrect about. HighInBC 23:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb that particular one was a very specific bug that was fixed in a few hours after you reported it. That's the problem here: If any of the scripts has a bug it may result in something like this. Is this common? No it's not if we discuss percentages here. Ofcourse for a bot with 4 million edits, 1% is 40,000 pages. Can this be prevented? Well, yes and no. CHECKWIKI scripts are not done by me. My method is based a lot in the fact the list created actually contains the error in question. But, since I fix every single error and I fixed this immediately after the report why just re-reported this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Still this one is a very good example that I want to get more people involved in Wikipedia. I keep reporting new errors to User_talk:Knife-in-the-drawer#New_ISBN_tracking_categories even they have not edited since June. Check the entire talk page. I want mot motivate more and more people to work for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the fact that I encouraged a lot of people to make copies of my bot tasks. GoingBatty, Bgwhite know this at hand I believe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said earlier here "I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB." This happens to everyone. But the larger issue is that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. And should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages."

Solution? Don't brute force. Don't ignore skip conditions, especially if the condition is "whitespace only". Do a semi-automated test run if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb yes I can sort this out. The problem nowadays (speaking about mainspace edits) has been reduced to newly introduced CHECKWIKI errors. The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess. I already sent it to Bgwhhite via email for review. Redrose64 also did some comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb and something personal here: OK I got that a few (I think 40 out of 1,5000) edits of the ISSN fixes were "pointless", but I would enjoy a more polite way to hear this. Something like "hey, your bot failed to fix something in this page. What was about?". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but after this, this, this, this, this, and many others, I'm sure you can understand why I'm opting for the direct approach.

Look, I'm not looking to shit on you. Your bots clearly do more good than harm. But the harm is doing is in many, many cases preventable. Look at it from our perspective. You get blocked/warned for cosmetic changes, get unblocked on good faith [with restrictions], then reblocked for violating restrictions less than a week after the unblock. No one here wants to be back on your page next week/month because the bot once again ran amok. You say you acknowledge the issue, but no steps seem to be taken to prevent the issue from occurring in the first place. I give you full credit for fixing specific problems when flagged, but the root of the issue remains unaddressed. No other bot op is so often warned for cosmetic changes. What are we to do?

Bluntly put, we're at a crossroad here. You can commit to follow WP:COSMETICBOT / not ignore skip conditions / not using a brute force approach / do semi-automated testing of things where you personally review a substantial amount of edits before letting a fully-automated process take over / whatever other voodoo magic is necessary. Expecting < X/1000 trivial edits is not something I'm willing to put forth as a criteria of success, but their frequency has to be drastically reduced.

Or do we have to revoke your AWB access? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I of course appreciate your comments and I am excited every time you report something. This is because some people do not even bother to report bugs. Have you ever reported a bug about Visual Editor or Content Translator? I have. And many times. Most of them are still unfixed and there is a group of WMF professionals working on VE and CX. I am a volunteer. I hope you can at least appreciate that I make effort to fix everything as fast as possible. The diffs you provided had examples of Yobot doing "pointless edits". All 4 cases were fixed not only as part of my skip conditions but as part of the software itself. And this is better because at some point I may not be around to edit or use my bot. Someone else will try to use AWB. Bug fixing is better than adding skip conditions to a single bot. Bug fixes have global positive effect. In the first case I noticed I found the software bug and fixed it in less than a day. Sometimes, I am faster. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to bottom line this, it seems like the main issue, at heart, is the complaint by some editors/admins that Magioladitis does not follow the letter or the spirit of their unblock restrictions. Can these restrictions be made more specific to cover those edits these editors have problems with and can Magioladitis assure the participants in this discussion that they can abide by these restrictions, not temporarily but until such restrictions are formally removed? It seems like this would solve the problem, the end of "pointless" edits without Wikipedia losing a very productive editor and unproblematic admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of AWB from his user account and removal of AutoEd from User and bot accounts should be step one. Cannot use these at all from his user account. I'm not sure how to put "restrictions" on bot account activities or how to word it. For example, besides what the bot does, he does semi-manually fix maintenance categories and does requests. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a specific proposal above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Too complex for no reason. The only necessary restriction is #3. Don't edit in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That won't solve the whole problem. There is an equal problem with poor edit summaries that make it impossible to tell what the bot was *trying* to do. The more effective single sanction would be to disable all general fixes whenever AWB is run - but that will also not address the entire problem, and will leave us back here soon enough. If Magioladitis was able to work with just "don't violate the existing rules", we wouldn't be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Carl: I commend you for posting a detailed proposal. For #1, could you think of a more specific description for "No semi-automated tools"? Magioladitis didn't understand this included AutoEd, and I wonder if this would include Twinkle or Hotcat. I would also ask that Magioladitis be allowed to edit the User:Yobot page if he would like to indicate which bot tasks he is choosing to discontinue and which bot tasks he could improve per the suggestions here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is very hard to find an airtight wording. Perhaps it would work to say that Twinkle and tools whose main purpose is to interact with users or handle vandalism are OK, but tools such as AutoEd or Hotcat that are primarily for editing should be avoided. In the end, a lot will depend (regardless of the sanctions that are used) on how much Magioladitis wants to resolve the situation by not pushing boundaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested this T124868. If this is implemented I won't be doing anymore trivial edits when working with maintenance categories. This is still not the root of the problem but a step forward. Also if other take over my talk page fixes which are my weakest point we save a lot of bad edits done by me. I promised to work on it. I sent GoingBatty an email with my settings file to review it and I hope they take over (GB, did you receive it?). As someone else wrote GoingBatty has better communication skills than I do and they are more careful than I am. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Your request is a great one - I hope it can be added to AWB. Thank you for sending me your settings. Once my current WP:BRFA is complete, I'll play with yours to see if I can get it to work with the proper skip conditions. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

GoingBatty someone's comment that "GoingBatty can play out the community better than you" rang as a huge bell in my head. :D -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it speaks well of any editor or admin that they are aware of their editing strengths as well as those areas where there is room for improvement and they can be honest about themselves. A technical solution might be the best answer here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Earwig ^talk 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember non-admins - just admit your faults when dragged though AN/ANI and you'll get away with it be OK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A built-in AWB solution for most of the errors is underway thanks to the AWB team. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the conditions of the temp unblock was to To participate in the AN discussion ONLY, yet this edit was made after this condition was agreed. @Fram:? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts check the edit that was done 30 seconds later in the same page. Plese be more careful in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I need to be more careful?! That's rich. So why did you make the edit in the first place against the sanction of your unblock? I guess you'll weasel out of this one too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts I was pinged by Redrose64 in commons and I replied in the wrong window. Is this OK with you or do you think I have to be blocked for this too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what I think. However, no one will action this. Admins win again! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts is clearly out to get anybody who uses AWB. It says at the top of his talk page, "FUCK AWB". He just left a message on my talk page accusing me of doing one trivial edit. No hi or what you doing? Just judge and jury. He then left, Fine, but your edits are now being monitored. Look forward to seeing you at ANI when you fuck up again. I can't remember the last time anybody accused me of a trivial edit... 8-12 months? Guess I'll be hauled into ANI later today. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to correct you, again, but it's anyone who misuses AWB. There's a difference. And you don't seem to know the difference. As you've been using AWB for a long, long time, you should be more than familiar with the rules of use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You only saw the edit, you never, ever asked why. If you would have asked, you would see that it wasn't a misuse. Shot first and don't ask questions later.... Bgwhite (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I saw the edit and then pointed it out to you. Are you now trying to cover up your errors after Fram pointed it out to you too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop with the threats. Why is it that you have falsely accuse people and threaten them every time. Fram understood with what I'm doing. You've accused me of yet another mindless bot edit even thou it did exactly what the edit summary did. You've threatened me with ANI again. You said I broke 3RR with only two edits by me. I've asked 5 times to stop writing on my talk page. Stay away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And here you are stalking me! Pot. Kettle. Black. How pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what's the outcome of this user's editing? We all bend over and let him continue until the next time he's brought here? Or the time after that? Or the time after that? Seems this isn't really being addressed now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The technical issue on the CHECKWIKI error fixes: There are 100+ errors checked and every month there are alternations to the code generating the list. Since Bgwhite now does a reproceccing of the dump files i.e. cleaner lists I deicded with him and I ll get a message of when my bot should start fixing. Till now by bot was triggered automattically in the large lists resulting a large percentaage of "did nothing" edits. This can be addressed at list at the part of the list.
2. The technical issue on the deprecated parameters: Rjwilmsi created a custom module that enusres that we will have skip conditions. I asked GoingBatty to help in testing. So on that part we can have 100% of good edits.
3. The technical issue on the the talk page fixes / tagging. This is tricky because consensus on the placement of the banners changes very often, AWB's code is incomplete, most edtors who requested tagging of a WikiProject have given me bad lists. This can be partially addressed with GoigBatty's help if he uses my scripts and reports bugs and fixes some things.
4. On my editing: I can promise not to perform any large scale editing from my main account (i.e. automated edits will be done mainly from my bot account) and I can los stay away from AutoEd. In fact, I ve been using AutoEd mainly to get ideas to implement in AWB so it's not a big lose for me. I still believe AuoEd needs update in many places. Frietjes has better AutoEd-like scripts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hats off. See you back here in a month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts why is that? I have not received any serious complains about my editing for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you should pay closer attention to your talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, could you help myself and others understand the thinking behind the assertion "not received any serious complains"? (ie. is there a word missing somewhere?—The assertion as it stands appears to be inconsistent with the public record – available for all to view – in the history of User talk:Magioladitis). —Sladen (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The implication is clear: Mag does not consider complaints about trivial or cosmetic edits to be 'serious', which really highlights the problem being discussed here. –xeno^talk 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen and Xeno: How many complains go I get per year? Should I count? I do hundreds of edits per day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. By "serious" I meant "major". All reports are serious ofcourse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Magioladitis. Looking back over the responses in this discussion above and distilling out the important parts from your responses:

1. "hundreds of edits per day." – automated edit rate has been too fast/too high for review.
2. "a lot of mistakes." – the automated edits had some $error-rate.
3. "All reports are serious" – there was feedback about the edits/errors.
4. "every time you report" – that feedback was frequent/repeated.
5. "Should I count?" – feedback was so large, it would require an explicit effort to count.
6. "it's not the tools." – compliance with WP:BOTREQUIRE/ WP:COSMETICBOT/ WP:AWB#Rules of use/ WP:NOTBROKEN has been proved achievable by other editors, using with the same automated toolset.

Could you confirm whether this is a correct synopsis of the situation? —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen.

1. Yes. Many people do that too. I do not think that this necessary bad.
2. The mistakes are usually mainly when something changes in the code. Long-standing scripts work fine. So usually there are many mistakes of ONE kind i.e. easily fixable.
3. Yes. I reply to all reports. I try sometime to reply in a few minutes after the report. Not all reports are valid though.
4. Yes. I fixed all errors reported. Mainly bug fixing or revisited a page to finish the task. Most fixes were really quick. Not all reports refer to the same thing. Take this under consideration. (See below).
5. True. In the past I kept logs of the bot edits. But this logs were manual and there were getting too large.
6. Almost true. Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith. During the years I established some extra rules for that.

To resolve one main part of the latter I already contacted Bgwhite to refine lists before feeding them to my bot. I also contacted GoingBatty and other to distribute the talk page related tasks.

There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes". This gives the impression that the root of the problem is the same while it's not.

Please, also read my report on the situation. I try to separate the errors by their kind. Just calling them all just "errors" or "trivial edits" does not help. It's like reporting a hug by saying "the program does not work. Fix it". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes"."

And this underlies the frustration that I (and probably other people) have with Magioladitis. Every time that he does trivial edits and I have reported it, he claims he has fixed it, but in a few days, the same kinds of trivial edits show up again. Every time Magio cheerfully claims that he has resolved all reported problems, but to me it looks like nothing changed. But underlying the specific bugs that he is "fixing", there is a systemic problem should be addressed on a more general level: to skip saving a page if the edit would consist of only trivial changes.

There are also some other recurring problems reflected here, such as denial of responsibility: "Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith." -- intgr [talk] 14:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rule one of WP:AWB could not be more clear: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." Seems there's a core of AWB users who chose to ignore this or think it doesn't apply to them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

intgr for the first: As I wrote there a custom module underway. This will reduce the error drastically. For the second, I always WP:AGF when someone asks me to fix a list. I do not care about the tagging myself. I find WikiProject boring and useless when it is done in thousand pages. Anyone wishes to take this task is more than welcome. All my code and "house rules" are online. I had to participate in creating rules for talk page fixes. I try to help others. This is not denial of responsibility. I guess you are aware that many BOTREQs remain unanswered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Check also that in 2009 I did work for others Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7. I see Wikipedia as a cooperaive projectwith people who trust each other. I later expanded this in a more general way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

2009? Wow. I'm sure I did something good 7 years ago too. Do you have something a bit more recent that might carry a bit more weight? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts Why you behave like this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something more recent? I mean, seven years is a long time ago and standards were, how shall we put it, not as good as now. Look at any FA that crept through back then and compare it to today's standard. So, what can you dig out from say, the last 12 months? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My talk page fixes are based on Wikiprojects requests. What do you mean? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In 2010 I asked some of the talk page fixes to be done in toolserver and it was done by Larabot till toolserver was shut done. Check User:Yobot#Logs_2008-2012. I resumed the tasks after Larabot discontinue the Wikiproject Biographyvtagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet, another proof that even single-task bots operated by experienced programmers can fail from time to time: User_talk:T.seppelt#Non-removal_of_comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, thank you for the heads up. Looking over the bug reports and replies, it would appear that T.seppelt has been reasonably responsive and has replied to the reporters of the bugs in correspondingly timely fashion. I can see the responses "stopped the program", "adjust[ed] the replacement pattern", "implemented several improvements". There would be room for improvement in the edit summary pointing to the precise bot task authorisation and in the bug report it would be nice to see pointers to revision controls corrections of the patterns. However all-in-all the bot appears to have stayed on-task and not wander off into things that weren't requested, (eg. into whitespace rearranging), was done from a bot account, not a user account, and the operator has not attempted to deny responsibility for the automated edits or shift the blame on to other people. Is there something I've missed about this (nearly) model response by a bot operator? —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many bots have errors from time to time.Typically, these are different errors. The difference with Yobot is that it has had the same errors for years, and they have never been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen Please reread my points with the root of the problem. No AWB bot just removes whitespace. I never just removed whitespace using AWB. Moreover, in contrary to other programs AWB always shows which code revision is used. I looks that your approach tends to reach my point of view. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A comment about HotCat just for the record: HotCat is a java script installed internally by Wikipedia perferences under the section "Gadgets" and comes with no additional terms of use. It is considered to be part of the Wikipedia environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As for never "just removing whitespace using AWB", see [4] [5]. This seems to be a relatively common failure mode your AWB code, which has been happening for several years now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

CBM Exactly! Code failure. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Moreover, you gave two bad examples! The latter is by WP:LISTGAP we even have bots for that. The first is typical wikilink fix and bots do that too. So, both are accepted edits! But, OK we agree in the spirit of the report. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not code failure - it is operator failure. Looking through your contribs, it took me less than 1 minute to find more examples: [6] [7] [8]. Those are not bot edits - they are edits that you personally reviewed and approved with your own account! Your claim that "I never just removed whitespace using AWB." is simply false. The pattern of your responses, when problems such as this are brought up, is to deny your own actions and/or blame the code. The fact that you continue to violate the AWB rules of use in this way, with no plan to resolve the underlying problems, shows why there is a need for an AWB ban on your main account, along with much tighter rules on your bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis breaching the terms of his unblock

Hatting per Fram's request. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right, now that we've finished being side-tracker by some pusillanimous trolling, lets address the issue at hand. Magioladitis was unblocked purely to contribute to this discussion only. However, this edit was made after this condition was agreed, thus violating the terms of the unblock. So it's safe to assume he should be re-blocked for 1) breaking the terms of his unblock and 2) his contributions here have now concluded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Oppose: I don't approve of much that Magioladitis does, but I believe this instance was a honest mistake and should be forgiven. Magioladitis himself undid the edit 1 minute later. While technically a violation of the unblock conditions, he didn't violate the intent of the conditions: he wasn't editing article content or running a bot. -- intgr [talk] 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "An honest mistake". Lets look at that. So he can't make automated edits without them being brought into question and when not editing with AWB he makes more mistakes. Obviously a big competency issue here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Well that last bit is irrelevant, but given his edit-summary comment on the reversion, it does seem to have been an honest mistake - I've written in the wrong tab sometimes before and only noticed later. I'd say as long as it isn't repeated, then no foul should be considered here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Have you ever "written in the wrong tab sometimes before" in direct violation to the conditions of an unblock on your account? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts so why I did it? Because I am trolling? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) No, I don't think you're trolling, I think you are not competent. As your failure to read basic instructions shows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts I disagree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Of course you do. You're not going to sit there and admit to being incompetent! I do give you some credit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "I misread your reply" In the same token of I misread the word ONLY in "To participate in the AN discussion ONLY". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts, I can hardly be accused of being a blind follower of fellow admins, a supporter of valueless automated edits, or someone who believes that restrictions or conditions can be ignored. But this case is utterly trivial. All you do by continuing this is creating sympathy for Magioladitis and antipathy towards yourself and your complaints about the real problems (those that lead to the block). Please drop this non-issue. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hardly trivial when this editor goes against the very sanctions you imposed in the first place. But it's OK, he's an admin, so lets ignore this and not do anything about it. Maybe you can explain exactly what you meant by To participate in the AN discussion ONLY in your edit summary, as now it's not so clear. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) It's perfectly clear to everyone but you, and I guess it is clear to you too. It certainly is clear to Magioladitis, otherwise he wouldn't have immediately undone that error. I wouldn't have blocked anyone over this, no matter if they are an admin or not. It doesn't even merit a warning, since it is obvious that it was an error, not a breaching experiment. Fram (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks Fram. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Bludgeoning editors [9] [10] [11] who are trying to improve the project over a minor automated edit? If an editor does not want to see minor edits on their watchlists I think there is a setting for that. Many editors make minor edits [12] and even totally pointless ones [13] Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Look who's crawled out! My fucking hero! Still bitter I see after you got blocked. Oh hum. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Please cut it out, both of you. Legacypac, ignoring minor edits is ideal to give every vandal every chance to do whatever they like. Yes, one can choose not to see those on their watchlist, but often this is not a good idea. Minor edits may well hide vandalism or mistakes, bot edits have the potential to make the same error very fast on many articles. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) And there's a hell of a lot of bad minor edits done by established editors. Two spring to mind straight away. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The point of the block was to stop the problematic AWB editing. Asking a question about CC licenses on a talk page is light years removed from being disruptive. Get off your high horse Javert, because you're making it impossible to focus on the issues by calling for heads to roll because of trivialities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Finished with the personal attacks now? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Can someone uninvolved please hat this subsection? It generates (much) more heat than light, with PAs going back and forth, people harassing other people (though it isn't easy to tell who harassed first or most), and nothing concrete about the Magioladitis situation likely to be achieved in this part of the discussion. Fram (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving towards a resolution

xaosflux — xeno — MSGJ: This thread has been sitting for a while now. Do you think it is time for one of the administrators handing this to work out the precise terms/restrictions that will be in place going forward? I suggested some possible restrictions above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Recuse; I have strong feelings about useless edits and on the other hand I am also quite fond of Magioladitis as regards his other useful work. –xeno^talk 15:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I'm with Xeno above - I'm involved with Magioladitis frequently as part of the Bot Approval's Group and only came in to this as a broken between the original block and a short-lived unblock w/ restrictions, would appreciate some input of uninvolved admins here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there is much consensus for any particular remedy, but I think we need to get something in place before 15th. I could certainly support #1 in your proposals. The rest would be good practice and/or covered by other policies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I fear that #1 is probably an inevitable necessity, given the continued claims and long-term denials of the situation. All that's being requested is simple compliance to existing Wikipedia's norms, so ideally #2–#6 (which attempt to summarise existing bot policy) should not need to be necessary—but perhaps spelling them out may help to focus the mind of Yobot's operator. I'm hopeful that in 6–12 months Magioladitis may be able to return here voluntarily with a a greater understanding and a demonstrable clean slate. —Sladen (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't see much consensus for any particular remedy. Most of Carl's #2-6 suggestions are not bot policy. For example, #3 states, No "changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page". This would disallow DEFAULTSORT changes, removal of deprecated or changed infobox parameters, etc. #2 and #6 are not feasible with AWB. Support #1 and #5. #5 falls under WP:BOTREQUIRE and is something Magioladitis hasn't done well in the past, but has gotten better.

  Carl's suggestions doesn't include AutoEd, which is what Magioladitis used the last go around. I already suggested and would support Magioladitis not using AutoEd for a year. I've already removed AutoEd from his .js file and left a message that I removed it so it wouldn't "tempt him". Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The point of special restrictions is that they can go beyond the ordinary policy, of course. The question is: what set of restrictions will prevent us from coming back here again? Regarding #3, there is no need for Magioladitis in particular to perform the kinds of edits mentioned - DEFAULTSORT, parameters, etc. - and given his long track record of being unable to do so in accordance with ordinary norms (cf. this thread), it would be better for him to let others take care of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My stating that it is not normal bot policy is in response to others saying that it is normal policy. So, your statement just reaffirms my point. Yobot does have bot approval to fix Defaultsort, deprecated parameters and others. Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I stand by Carl's efforts to put stricter/clearer limits on Magioladitis's editing. I believe it is inappropriate to let someone to systematically and repeatedly violate Wikipedia's policies and neglect user feedback, despite how useful their good edits may be. The current approach of many people simply complaining with no enforcement, has clearly been ineffective. I think even simply a clear re-statement of aspects of the bot policy, together with consequences when violated, is a step forward. (Non-administrator comment) -- intgr [talk] 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't personally understand what most of Carl's restriction would do (e.g. the edit summary restrictions), in real terms, other than have pointless bureaucracy to govern Magio's editing. #3 (no purely cosmetic edit) is the only problematic issue. General fixes are fine, but the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip condition have to be used. However, Magio doesn't seem to be enclined to use them, and short of such a commitment, I would support a 3 month ban on script-assisted editing on his main account, and a restriction on Yobot's CHECKWIKI edits to be performed iff the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip conditions are used. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I can add these two skip conditions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This "I can …" terminology seems quite familiar (eg. Special:Diff/691603628: "I can stick to bots do the job instead of using my normal account. … -- Magioladitis … 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)". Magioladitis, will it be done (+infinitely, not just for a short time)? —Sladen (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are several approaches we could take here:

• Restrict access to certain tools, including AWB and maybe some others. This may be worth a try, and I could support a restriction of this type. But it may encourage him to explore other automated tools which haven't been mentioned or to disguise the tool that made them.
• Restrict a certain type of edit, i.e. cosmetic changes. I don't think this will work because based on past experience if the automated editing continues I am sure there will be further cosmetic edits.
• Restrict all automated, semi-automated, or script-assisted editing from the main account. This is the simplest remedy. The bot can continue with tasks that have explicit approval (and there is less of an issue with watchlist clogging from the bot account anyway).

Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the first option, the worry that this leads to 'hidden' or 'disguised' automated editing is seems like a big dose of unwarranted bad faith.

But in general, Magio has, for the first time I think, acknowledged there is an issue and said they were willing to make use of the the skip conditions (which I interpret both for them and for the bot, unless what they are trying to fix would be prevented by skip condition, like a fix to a badly-formed template (e.g { {reflist}} → {{reflist}}) that would be prevented by the whitespace skip condition. They've been blocked/restricted from all editing for a good week (if not more now), so I'm sure the message has sunk in by now that compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT (which also covers bot-like editing via WP:MEATBOT) is not optional.

However, I'm also semi-wary of an unrestricted return. But something like a one-month restriction on AWB edits from the main account, while also allowing Yobot to resume its tasks (with the skip conditions enabled, and a better description of its task via edit summary) would be reasonable. And if there's no issues (allowing for some false positives due to GIGO/vandalism/live version different from dump version if building edit lists from database dumps/etc.), then lift the restriction on AWB, provided the skip conditions are also used going forward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Have struck that part from my sentence, although the part of exploring other tools was not hypothetical given his prompt switch to AutoEd when his use of AWB was curtailed. One month is too short - I would prefer an indefinite restriction which can be reviewed in a few months time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a one-month ban on AWB and other semiautomated tools from the main account, and mandatory skip conditions on all Yobot edits (so that the edit is only saved if the specific bot task applies to the page) would be a reasonable option. If he can follow that for a month, but then happens to revert to problematic behavior, it will be easy enough to re-impose the restrictions. The purpose for having better edit summaries (re Headbomb above) is exactly so that it is more clear whether the part in parenthesis is achieved. Vague summaries that just mention "CHECKWIKI", for example, don't give enough information to tell what the bot is *trying* to achieve. If that means that he has to run separate tasks separately, I would view that as a normal part of bot operation.

Magioladitis has very unexpectedly posted a wikibreak message on his user talk page today, running through the 17th, which is after the original one-month block would expire. A return to the old "status quo" would just bring us back here in a few days. I think it would be better to go ahead and notify him of the restrictions that will apply when he returns, or else extend the original block until he is able to properly interact with this thead (cf. the unanswered question from Sladen above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis is off to a WikiConference being held in Athens. He is a speaker, so it was not unexpected.

Having skip conditions (cosmetic or blank space) will mean the majority of CheckWiki errors cannot be handled... section headers, invisible Unicode, missing ref tags (< ref>), defaultsort problem, pmid, isbns, etc. As I explained to Headbomb yesterday, there are errors that "only cosmetic change" and/or "only whitspace" have to be on. If articles are fixed before we get to them, it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles. Not to mention, forgetting to check or uncheck a box between running different errors.

To MSGJ's first point. AWB AND AutoEd must be included. The only other tool Magioladitis uses is WPCleaner. WPCleaner does not have the cosmetic changes problem. Bgwhite (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument you are making seems to be "the software is broken, so we have to use it as it is". But that is not correct: the solution is to fix the software so that it is able to make the desired changes correctly, without making undesired changes. In the meantime, a responsible bot op would not continue running the software in a way that causes the error to re-occur. That is 100% standard bot development procedure, which Magioladitis as a BAG member should be completely familiar with. If he is unable to make certain kinds of edits until the software is improved, perhaps that will be an incentive to fix the longstanding bugs in his code. But it is clear that returning to the status quo is not an option. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Did I ever say the software is broken? No. Did I ever say the status quo? No. Don't make up things I never said. I said, there are instances where blank space and "only cosmetic change" MUST be checked to fix errors. For example, I'm currently running a 100,000 article bot job that only removes blank lines. Another example, changing ISBN1234567890 to ISBN 1234567890, which only involves a blank space. I've also said there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this. Others have the same problem when they run off dumps. Headbomb mentioned this in his proposal above. There are no software problems. Status quo? I've said... Magioladitis must not use AWB from his main account and no autoEd from any account. He must only run AWB for approved jobs. He must do edit summaries better.

What you are proposing means Magioladitis can't use AWB for most of his bot approved jobs. I've replied to you before, Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. There was never close to any consensus to take away AWB privileges. Bgwhite (talk)

@Bgwhite: (Irrelevant snark) "Don't make up things I never said." Sounds familiar, maybe you should refrain from doing that yourself, too. [14] [15] [16] -- intgr [talk] 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, you wrote above ¨... it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles.¨ and "there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this.". Remember the saying "a bad carpenter always blames his tools". Nobody is suggesting Yobot cannot use AWB, but if AWB has bugs that cause undesired edits in bot mode then Magiolatiditis needs to fix those bugs or run AWB in a way that does not cause them to trigger. If that means doing some code development before running some bot jobs -- well, that's part of being a bot operator! For example, I am certain that the problem of determining whether the desired problem still exists can be solved, because if a program detected the problem in the first place, then AWB can test to see if the problem still exists before making the edit. That kind of check should have been implemented years ago, when the issue of outdated dumps for CHECKWIKI was first noticed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

These are reasonable false positives, and have been tolerated with all bot ops, provided they take steps to minimize how often they occur. The issue mostly is that Magio has not taken these steps in the past. To quote him "The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess." That indicates improper testing of new code and logic. I've reported similar errors to BGWhite (see here, scroll down a bit), but those were caused because the database dump (of which edit lists are built from) and the live version of the article differed because of vandalism. These are unavoidable short of putting a herculean effort in coding. A 'good enough' code that edits correctly 99% of the time and doesn't break anything in the other 1% is something the community and BAG considers acceptable in cases like this. The ISSN edits, however, were not caused by this, and proper testing would have caught it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the ISSN edits were also being done manually. One can't blame software in manual mode. If software had an issue, one shouldn't have pressed save. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So after a lot of back-and-forth, what is the resolution to this and, more importantly, is anyone going to act on it/enforce it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts; Magioladitis is on a wikibreak—which we should respect—and can hopefully contribute when back. If that doesn't happen, one of the blockers/unblockers (Materialscientist, Xaosflux, MSGJ, Fram) can probably go ahead with a block extension for Special:Diff/704691363 on 13 February 2016 being outside the agreed unblock conditions ("… only edit your user talk page and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Magioladitis discussion" + "bot's talk page and subpages" + "not edit any other page until the original block would have expired (00:00, 15 February 2016)"). —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sladen. I think we all know no-one is going to block him for that breach of his unblock conditions. Or this breach either. So that makes four edits (see the collapsed section direcetly above this) that are clearly outside the terms of the unblock. He's back tomorrow though, so we'll see how this goes. I'm lifting the corner of the rug in readiness. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest ignoring that, it is mostly in the spirit of the block if not the letter - blocks are not "meant to be" punitive and I don't see any reason to extend. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Magioladitis has returned. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And making yet another edit that is outside the terms of the unblock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Those restrictions expired with the expiry of the original block, on February 15. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yobot continuing to make pointless edits, such as this and this, clearly against WP:COSMETICBOT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: So what happened to your "I can add these two skip conditions"? -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis was working off of a list for CheckWiki #22. The list was generated on the 12th. Lugnuts fixed the issue in both articles after the list was created. As stated a zillion times, there will be cases where the article will fixed before we arrive. The blank space and minor edit skip must be turned off in order to fix this. Lugnuts also reverted the edits in spite of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. How many times do Magioladitis and I have to be accused of this only to be told by other people that this is ok? Look at the discussion just above where Carl thinks I have to be 100% perfect. Look at the discussion on my page where Lugnuts accused me of the same thing, twice this year. Bgwhite (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that Bgwhite continues his reverts of my edits, despite the fact I'm bringing this issue to the attention of the bot owner. I guess it's too hard for you to fix the issue at hand. Bgwhite needs to read the rules of use for AWB (again) - "You are responsible for every edit made" so you do need to "be 100% perfect". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is 100% perfect around here, not even you. As explained to you by multiple people, Fram and Headbomb among them. Stop repeating the same thing. You've been after me atleast three years about this. Once again, stop with the insults. Bgwhite (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to be, as I'm not operating a bot! After you for at least three years? So that means your edits are against the rules of AWB. I see I'm not the only one who has brought this to your attention, but you think you're above the law. How sad. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Read-modify-write is a basic premise of most concurrent programming (ie. checking something before modifying). Bgwhite, there are several solutions for this, the simplest might be to store of a SHA1 hash of the page content at the point of list generation, and retrieve+rehash again before attempting to save. I fail to understand why this sort of basic validation is still not present; and it certainly does not excuse a bot operator who continues to use known-defective software without proper oversight and responsibility as required of the bot policies. —Sladen (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no sort of validation for any bot that I am aware of. The SHA1 hash is useless. Pages are updated all the time that don't fix the errors. It would also be complicated. This is normal practice by all bot operators. Defective software causes bugs. AWB does have bugs and it is updated all the time. We are talking about a very small minority that isn't causing errors. As headbomb stated above These are unavoidable short of putting a herculean effort in coding. A 'good enough' code that edits correctly 99% of the time and doesn't break anything in the other 1% is something the community and BAG considers acceptable in cases like this. Bgwhite (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed forms of validation. For a long time, I used a Linux equivalent to AWB that I wrote, called LWB. This would let me manually approve systematic edits after reviewing each one. One one hand, the use of the edit token automatically detects certain kinds of conflicts. But the code also checks the return value when it makes a text substitution, to make sure that the desired substitution actually occurred. If the return value indicates that no change was made, the page is skipped. Checking the return value after calling a function is very basic programming technique which all bot operators should be aware of. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I am back. :) So: The "not only whitespace removal" is not only about my main account but includes the bot account too? This can't be easy to fix since there are some CHECKWIKI errors that are about whitespace changes. Error 22 (category with space) is one of them. I am open to suggestions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Do you agree that the fix to checkwiki error 22 is a "cosmetic change"?

Have you read WP:COSMETICBOT? "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should be applied only when there is a substantive change to make at the same time".

Do you think WP:CHECKWIKI or your bot approvals give you the permission to make cosmetic changes to articles even if there aren't any "substantive" changes to make? -- intgr [talk] 10:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

intgr you just gave me new data to process in my brain. :) My bot has approval to fix all CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI errors were defined by others and not by me. Why it should be me to be bothered about it? I mean it's OK for the community to define which errors should be activated by the CHECKWIKI project but I am only the guy who says "OK, bring me your lists and I'll fix them". All these years in CHECKWIKI I focused on making automated tools (AWB, AutoEd, WPCleaner) and bots more effective against these lists. I also tried to coordinate these attempts to fix errors and resolve any conflicts (some years ago Yobot was fight against SmackBot over a whitespace due to different programming approaches. YES my bot in on the list of lamest Wikipedia editing wars ever). I work on the direction of making the list of errors more effective but it takes time. The ere more than 100 types of errors processed daily. I could exclude error 22 fixing if there is consensus for that. I could also ask the CHECKWIKI project to disactivate the fix. I am open to suggestions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen what you say it's true. The way we work right now is due to the lack of better software. In order to reduce unnecessary edits in the past we did the following tricks (which are not proper solutions):

• We update the CHECKWIKI lists more often (daily scans)
• We ensured that AWB won't affect a page when revisiting it ("Do-all-in-one-run" project)
• We added skip conditions but they can't check whether a specific error has been fixed.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you refer to here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts in the first one I mainly mean myself and Bgwhite. I was fixing things of the CHECKWIKI project which was an idea by a German editor but it was not updated that often. Back to these days I was making more cosmetic changes than now. Bgwhite rewrote the entire thing, added many errors and removed some old ones. In the second and third bullet I men the AWB team. I still keep the things that are not fixed in one run at User:Magioladitis/Notes#.22Do_all_in_one_run.22_project. This list was much larger but mainly Rjwilmsi helped in fixing most of them. Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bgwhite rewrote the entire thing, added many errors" Well that certainly explains a lot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't you (general checkwiki bot you, not only Magioladitis) build in a rule that says: "if page is edited between update of checkwiki list and now, skip page"? It's a more conservative approach that will see some pages where the error isn't fixed in this run, but which will also prevent most of the unnecessary edits. Fram (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen T127173 Thanks for the idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fram too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

T127185 too. In 1.5 month is the Mediawiki Hackathon. I'll be there and there is a plan that the AWB team tries to implement this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fram, that is *very straightforward* to program - the API already provides the time that any page was last edited, so it is straightforward to query this inside a bot program. The more important check, though, is for AWB to verify that the error it is fixing still exists before saving the page. That can also be done - if the error can be detected by software to make the list, then it is possible for other software to check for the same error before making changes. This is all programming 101 level stuff, which should have been implemented in AWB long ago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

CBM I would be more than happy if you create a code patch for me. This would save me and Reedy a lot of valuable time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To note two more breaches of the conditions of the unblock. Nearly into double figures. You had a good run, kid. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, the unblock conditions expired four days ago, Magioladitis is at the moment free to edit anything and anywhere he likes (just like any other editor). This was pointed out to you in this very discussion a few days ago when you made your previous such accusation ("Those restrictions expired with the expiry of the original block, on February 15. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"). And please don't address people you have a conflict with as "kid", it's an attitude and approach that won't help to solve anything. Fram (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. I should have used AWB for that edit. And I don't have a "conflict" with him, or indeed anyone, so please check your facts before making accusations. Maybe you can be as quick to sum up this situation now you're here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, quite frankly, shut up. No one here believes you don't have a conflict with Magio given your constant hounding so you can jump on them for the slightest of so-called 'violation', create a AWB/non-AWB user divide, or whatever your WP:BATTLEGROUND bullshit du jour is. We're all tired of pointless cosmetic edits, and we all agree that Magio's editing pattern has been problematic. We're here to find solutions, not to conduct execution by firing squad. It's getting to the point that I would support a one-way interaction ban on you for the remainder of the discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So what are your solutions to all this? I'd quite like to hear them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts, one of the early steps is probably for the user of your account to try to resist drowning out the signal-to-noise ratio. Please, pretty please, try to reflect on what useful contributions you can make. —Sladen (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have. I've posted time and time again on the user's talkpage about the issues in hand and finally, we're here. However, nothing is likely to be addressed with this. We'll probably be back in in a few months with the exact same concerns. Which will be ignored. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor comment: Thanks Bgwhite for removing the AutoEd script from my account. thanks to Rjwilmsi for fixing T121203. This resolves a long standing inconsistency between AutoEd and AWB. This means AutoEd won't affect most of pages that have been previously edited by AWB. This was the thing I was trying to spot and fix lately. On less problem with whitepace addition/removal. Thanks GoingBatty for discovering and fixing a duplicated piece of code in the wikiproject fixes. This expalins why my bot kept fixing WPBS while at some point I claimed I disactivated this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Help requested with the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

Hi, there is currently a file rename request pending for File:KFNB-DT1 & KWYF-LD2 Logo.png that is held up by the titleblacklist. Anyone know why?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on the blacklist so I moved it for you. Tag the redirect if you don't need it. :-) Katie^talk 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

":KFNB-DT1 & KWYF-LD2 L" -- too many consecutive non-lowercase letters. I think the limit is ten, while you've got 22. --Carnildo (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

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

---

Hi all, can I request a discussion about one of my own RfC closes please?

Recently Sandstein closed an RfC here, saying that there was consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. This was expanded into a second RfC concerning galleries of images of living people in general, and after a post on WP:ANRFC I closed this second RfC here. I felt that there was generally a consensus to remove galleries of images of people wherever there's contention about which people should be selected to represent that particular group. In subsequent discussion on the talk page, users agree with the general thrust of my close but are concerned that I may have overreached the consensus in that (a) I suggested the close should apply to galleries anywhere in articles, not just to galleries in the lead and (b) I did not confine the close to ethnic groups; I felt it should apply to any large group of people rather than merely ethnicities and similar groupings.

I've considered this carefully and I think I'm right. If I applied the first restriction, i.e. just to the lead, then the only effect of my close would be to move galleries farther down the page. I don't see how this could abate the pointless contentions editors are concerned about because it's so easily circumvented. And if I applied the second restriction then I'm opening the way for endless quibbles about whether a particular grouping is really an ethnicity.

However, I generally agree that RfCs should be closed conservatively. I can understand the counterarguments to my close even though I think they're wrong ---- so I turn to the community for advice. Do I need to re-close more narrowly? Or would that open so many loopholes as to be self-defeating?—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As the person who closed the original RfC (and didn't substantially participate in the one you closed), I think you got the gist of it right. In the first RfC, the question was whether ethnic group articles (e.g., English people) should be illustrated with a gallery of group members in the infobox or lead. I concluded that consensus was to not do this, and also that consensus was that this applied to other large groups or classifications of people (e.g., religions, genders) for the same reasons: selecting these people is often very contentious (such as when a famous person's ethnic origin is contested), there are no objective criteria or sources for the selection, and the selection may not be representative. The second RfC, which you closed, was about whether consensus was really to also cover other large groups of people other than ethnic groups. I believe you correctly determined that there is. In my view, you also correctly put forth the view that this would also apply to galleries further down the page, if these galleries had, like a lead image, no purpose other than "here's what a bunch of x-people look like". But I don't think that consensus also covers galleries of aspects of human existence, such as amputations or haircuts. These remain covered by the general rules about galleries (no gratuitous or indiscriminate use of them), but the RfCs didn't really address this aspect in sufficient depth.  Sandstein  08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Discussion of close (permalink here), I'm one of the editors who have expressed dissatisfaction with S Marshall's close. TaivoLinguist (Taivo), NebY and perhaps Carlotm are the others. I'm sure that if I pinged all of the editors involved in the RfC, more would object to his broad interpretation as well. I told him that I took issue with one part of his statement; it's where he stated that the close "would affect the galleries in Amputation or Child." It was clear to me that he was extending the the wording beyond lead issues and also to cover any gallery that has a bunch of humans in it. I stated, "The wording in dispute is about images in the lead, since that [particular] wording is in the guideline section about the lead. If I thought that the wording was to dictate galleries placed anywhere in the article (meaning not just in the lead), then I would have alerted a lot more people to the discussion, including WP:Med and WP:Anatomy, since I highly doubt that they would agree to remove galleries from the bottom of our medical and anatomy articles. The current wording of your close might be taken as license by editors to remove galleries of people or their body parts from any part of an article, even though the guideline wording at hand is currently in the lead section of the guideline, and this page is not a policy page." It's also the case that the text states, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations." It focuses on articles that are about the groups, not every article that might concern humans. For what I mean, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead. I also noted that, despite his broad interpretation that the wording should extend beyond the lead, I (just like him) also questioned how it is any more of a problem to have ethnicity galleries or similar in the lead than lower in the article. I mean, the same concerns would still be taking place in the article, except now it would concern the lower part of the article instead of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that Taivo already commented here...but removed his comment. So I'm no longer sure what his full stance is on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I commented very quickly after this was posted and then thought that it would be better to get other, neutral comments, rather than rehashing the same things I said at the Talk Page for the guideline. My opinion on the matter (stated above quite clearly by User:Sandstein) hasn't changed--this guideline should affect articles about groups of humans, but not other articles. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Taivo. And for the record, I don't necessarily object to S Marshall's interpretation that the wording extends to the lower part of the article as well (as in not just the lead). After all, I noted above that I've thought similarly. I think the people who didn't want these galleries in the lead wouldn't want them lower either, at least for ethnicity issues and issues very similar to that. I object to S Marshall's even broader interpretation that the wording applies to all articles that may at some point address a large group of humans; for example, a gallery of amputees at the bottom of an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein. To expand the scope also to other articles would in my opinion require (God forbid) still another RfC. --T*U (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm now minded to amend my close to elide the word "amputation", but would appreciate further commentary from previously uninvolved people.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Fangusu - indefinite talk protection request

• Fangusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Fangusu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unusual request that needs some explanation so I'm making it here instead of WP:RFPP. Fangusu is a long-term sockpuppeteer (SPI page) who is indefinitely blocked. Over the last few months she has been using IPs and new accounts to edit around her ban, and to post pleas for unblocking on her talk page, as well as occasionally mine and Steel1943's. A while ago after a particularly exuberant round of appeals, I left clear instructions on her talk page about the standard offer, and then archived everything else on the page so that what I wrote was the only thing left, in hopes that if she really wants to be a productive editor she will read it and pay attention. Since, I've been removing other automatic notices because they're not relevant to her at this point, only the standard offer is, but she still occasionally uses an IP to make an unblock appeal or revert a templated message, or just randomly revert one of my edits. Her talk access is already revoked; I'd like to request that her talk page be indefinitely semiprotected so that she can't edit it from IPs either. Although it should be noted she has never tried to remove my instructions.

Furthermore, it's easy to spot Fangusu's edits when an IP or brand new account restores an edit by a previously flagged sock, or makes an innocuous edit with a ban appeal in the edit summary, always on one of a handful of her favourite targets. I don't think it's a very good solution, but in response I'd like to propose six months of semiprotection or PC-protection on those pages, which include undergarment, camisole, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles and Zapp Brannigan. There are others but these seem to be the most frequent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Add Melissa Duck and List of recurring Futurama characters to that list. In my opinion, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles shouldn't be included in this request since it was only used by Fangusu to perform one sole edit to get a logged-in account to auto confirmed status. (Per the most recent SPI report, this can be disregarded. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)) (I may have more to say later, but I have to go through my history with this sockmaster to see what else I can add.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Example diffs? I found this edit to one of "those pages", which got reverted as "rv block evasion". Is that one of what you're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course yes, I should have provided diffs. As far as activity, yes, you can go to the histories of any of those pages and see that the recent activity is made up primarily of revert wars with IPs and blocked accounts. What tips these edits off as Fangusu are usually the edit summaries pleading to ignore her ban and leave the edit alone (e.g. [17] This is a good faith edit. Please lift my ban and please overlook my flaws. One cannot expect any user to be a figurative "angel"; [18] Please let this edit stand. You have not explained its flaws to me) or if one of her socks is blocked and its edits reverted ([19]) she will turn up on an IP not long after and revert to restore ([20]), and she seems to have given up on her attempts to get the reverting users blocked at ANI ([21]) but that was one of her hallmarks. You can also see that there's very little activity on any of those pages that isn't obviously her, or random IP vandals (which I don't think are her).

I've suggested semiprotecting her talk page specifically because of this edit in which one of her IPs restored a notice that I had removed to keep her talk page clean.

Honestly (I'm assuming she's reading this, she's obviously hanging around the site) I believe that she could be a productive editor if she would respect her ban and pay attention to the plentiful advice that other editors have given her, that's why we have the standard offer for banned users. But each new sock digs her a deeper hole. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Contrary to what it may seem, I also believe that Fangusu could be a productive editor ... but first, she has to respect their community-established site ban and not edit at all for at least six months, as well as stop socking completely. However, at this point, my belief that is going to happen is next to zero, given that Fangusu had their 7-year block lifted last July, started socking again, got site-banned in August, and has been socking since, including socking with DJ Autagirl, an account she had been using to sock since 2013. Anyways, if somehow she manages to finally respect the community's site ban, I see good things ... if that ever happens. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Her biggest problem is constantly trying to get the community to overlook her sockpuppetry, which given time could certainly happen, but each time she uses a new IP she's throwing the sockpuppetry issues back into the limelight. She was given a chance, was told not to sock, was reminded that it would earn the ire (figuratively speaking) of the community and her indefinite block would be reinstated. If she refuses to listen to people, then there's little that can be done for her. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no chance of rehabilitation for this editor, just an apparently endless series of obvious socks. See [22] [23] [24] and [25] on Camisole over the last week. The first edit was by a now-blocked sock, and each of the next three identical edits were made by different IPs. I don't even bother warning Fangusu's IPs now. Meters (talk)

• Well, she can't say nobody's offered to help. I guess she just wants to keep playing the revert, block, ignore game. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockmaster flagging archive.today links en masse

This is too big for me, really. We had a user a few days ago, FixDefunktDomain, tagging archive.today links en masse and avoiding the abuse filter. He continued to do this despite being asked to explain his reasoning. He's arguably admitted this is a single-purpose, potentially bad-hand account: "I do not mind blocking, it is special account for the only task as you can see from its name." Now, he's using a large network of open proxies to continue doing so, which is the main reason for this post. See for example [26], [27] and [28]. Advice would be appreciated. — foxj 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I wonder if Rotlink is up to his old tricks again, he did exactly the same thing and used multiple IP's as described on this RFC for archive.is. KoshVorlon 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And now at Special:Contributions/178.165.64.241. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked that last one. I see that User:Vituzzu is also on the case. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, archive.today really is gone. We may need our own bot to tag those links. Katie^talk 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi all!

That's rotlink for sure. What puzzles me is his *complete* refusal to abide to some basic rule. By default he uses a zombie proxy for no more than three edits. Then he switches to another one. Regardless of any block, regardless of any question. I've never seen such a massive scale lack of collaborativeness! Yesterday I set up an abusefilter on my homewiki (it.wiki) then he switched to this kind of silly edits.

I think archive.today was also his (maybe an attempt to move his archive to a non-national tld) thus showing how (non) reliable is this kind of service. Dealing with my homewiki I plan replacing those links by archive.org (today I did ~20%, the rest will be pretty harder). I'm comforted to see I'm not the only one thinking there's something *so* wrong with those edits. Also I'm comforted to see en.wiki can handle that by herself without my input. But I'm discouraged to think there are 800 more wikis (more or less) unaware of this problem, handling them definitely exceeds my possibilities. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vituzzu et al, I found another one: IP 72.252.181.106. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But also about then more IPs caught by it.wiki's abusefilter. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you should also consider the IPs that made the following edits: [29], [30], [31].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

One more: [32].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And another. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/46.40.106.173 and another. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the last few. The last one Jetstreamer listed is globally blocked as an open proxy. I haven't checked to see if the ones I blocked are open or not but I'll try to get to it unless someone does it quicker. Katie^talk 22:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly one more. Special:Contributions/188.83.31.72. Not quite the same MO. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And another: Special:Contributions/182.183.254.91. see edit.- MrX 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And another two [33] [34] altering the original URLSs to ones that never existed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

Another: Special:Contributions/125.166.221.175 - MrX 12:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Special:Contributions/37.237.152.95- MrX 18:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

archive.today not gone. it only works on www.archive.today and not work on archive.today without www. Why not just update links or make a template to abstract out of domain name ( archive.org also has many domains and other wikis have a template to deal with it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.10.233 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

or write a letter to the webmaster to fix the domain as wiki has many links without www — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.10.233 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

archive.today works fine for me. It redirects to archive.is. Maybe there's a DNS problem in your part of the world.- MrX 12:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Wilding Article

Respected Administrator Sir/Madam.

I have edited a article about Tony Wilding,and i have edited a article about Tony Wilding,not many people in the world know that New Zealand has also had success in Tennis,i wanted people to know about this in the summary of Tony Wilding,but a user called as User:Wolbo has been editing this article,i wanted to give him a notice about this in my edit summary,but he paid no attention,and after few days he calls my edits as disruptive and threatens me that i will lose my editing privileges if i continue to do this,i have done no wrong and he is putting false claims on me,i request that please block this user for vandalizing me,a wikipedia user and a editor.

With Regards Adarsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.191.126 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I took a look, it looks like Wolbo and the IP are in dispute because Wolbo is choosing to footnote a section on the | Tony Wilding article, as shown here . Wolbo's edit summary is definetly off target, the IP's not vandalizing the article at all. Not sure what the footnoting is about, however, he seems to have contacted the IP on his talk page asking him not to continue until a consensus is reached, however, on neither of their pages, nor on the talk page of Tony Wilding is there any sort of discussion that would be needed to build consensus. Since Wolbo's got a lot ( [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/index.php?user=Wolbo&project=en.wikipedia | 86,969 per X!'s count) of edit's I'd assume he'd know to open a talk page discussion if he wants consensus. Ip's are harder to track as the IP could be anyone. Doesn't look bad enough to lock the page down or anything. By the way, Adarsh, you didn't notify Wolbo about this discussion, I've done so this time. KoshVorlon 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Kosh, I appreciate your mediation, but did you see this edit summary? The edit warring over this goes back quite some time--here's 11 February, and this may be when it all started, a series of edits in which this information was inserted, full of punctuation errors and grammatical awkwardness--and without an edit summary. I suppose in the many subsequent edits Wolbo cleaned this up, keeping the information but placing it in the note, which our IP editor obviously didn't look kindly upon--hence that odd attempt at an insult. No, I can't really fault Wolbo here: they wrote most of the article and kept it clean. They warned the IP, at User talk:103.242.189.126, but the problem with hopping is obviously that it's difficult to communicate. I suppose Wolbo should have started User talk:103.242.188.38--but keeping up with IPs and what appear to be good-faith but nonetheless unhelpful edits is a chore. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I did see the edit summary, and it struck me as not being at all in proportion to what was being done. I was more focused on seeing if what Adash claimed was really happening, but thank you for pointing out that that needs to be included as it's relevant information! KoshVorlon 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded to the ip editor on my talk page regarding the content edits and explained why I changed his addition to the article lede. As explained no info was deleted but I simply left the most important part in the lede and put the rest in a footnote. The ip editor stated that he wanted "the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis" but that is clearly not a valid argument. As noted by Drmies the ip's edits were grammatically awkward and poorly punctuated which I cleaned up. Also no reliable source was given for the added content. There was nothing untoward until the ip editor re-added his content to the lede with an out-of-the-blue edit summary which I can only describe as unhinged and completely out of order. This resulted in me giving the editor an 'only warning' for a personal attack with a notification that he would be reported to ANI if anything similar was repeated (something which I have not done since joining Wikipedia almost 10 years ago). If the ip editor is instructed to take his matter to the article talk page I'm happy to leave this as is and ignore his baseless request for a block. --Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Respected Administrator Sir/Madam.

Should i edit the Tony Wilding Page and give some good history in Tennis for the people of New Zealand,or should i leave that page,you please tell what to do and i will exactly do that. With Regards Adarsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.191.126 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Fungus Guy

Fungus Guy has created many unreferenced articles (see his recent article creations). Because of this, the autopatrol right should be removed from that user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I hope you don't think that I'm creating extraneous pages on Wiki. Our coverage of Canadian First Nations is, to be blunt, woefully inadequate, and I'm only trying to fill in some of the gaps where I can.

I would like to point out that these articles have external links to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the Canada Lands Survey System. I did not believe it to be a big deal to leave the references there, un-cited, as (for example) most Canadian federal electoral district pages rely solely on one un-cited external link to the Library of Parliament to justify their existence (see this example and this page I have not yet edited to see what I mean).

That being said, I have gone through and created inline citations for the pages in question, and will dig deeper into my contributions list to see if you missed any.

Please feel free to bring any future concerns about my edits directly to me first. I welcome constructive criticism, and see it as a learning opportunity. Happy editing! FUNgus guy (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I read the title of this thread and thought it was about Ted Cruz for a second. Jtrainor (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE - IP block exemption removals

This post is to inform the community that an audit of IP block exemption permission holders occurred over the course of the past month. Of the 269 users who held the right, only a small amount of the users demonstrate a need to continuing editing with IPBE. The remaining users had the IPBE right removed with the overwhelming reason being the user was affected by a hard block that has since expired. Other reasons for removal include extended inactivity (which can be restored if they return and demonstrate a need for IPBE), the original reason for issuing IPBE was insufficient, and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege.

After reviewing the permission log, I believe it would be beneficial to improve the documentation provided when issuing IPBE. A handful of requests only cited “per user request”. It would be helpful to include a link to the request to discern why it was granted. I also highly encourage admins to provide further documentation on the IP block exemption page.

It’s important to remember that issuing IPBE because the individual is a “trusted user” is not sufficient. It should only be granted in situations where the the user is unintentionally affected by a hard IP block or in exceptional circumstances needs to edit via anonymous means. Exceptional circumstances have usually included situations where there is a credible concern for one’s safety or if the editor lives in a location where Wikipedia is censored by the government. Requests for IBPE for general privacy reasons (e.g. “I wish to hide my IP address for personal reasons.”) have been declined by the functionary team in the past.

Before issuing IPBE, it’s usually a good idea to consult a checkuser. If it’s for a range block, we can privately make note of when it will expire and how long it may be needed. If it’s for editing through anonymous means, the functionary team should be contacted to discuss the reason for editing though an anonymous method and to verify the need.

Best regards, Mike V • Talk 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having participated in one or two similar audits over the years, I want to thank Mike V for his work on this. Something that is worth noting is that, as our project becomes ever more integrated with other Wikimedia projects (in particular Commons and Wikidata), IPBE on just our project may no longer really be the best solution for those users who have legitimate use for it. It may be time for us to consider routinely recommending that users apply for global IPBE if they edit any other Wikimedia site. Given that even in a busy year there aren't that many requests, this could be worthwhile.

  As an aside, when discussing the use of IPBE with some other administrators recently, I was asked what "bad" reasons I'd been given when requesting IPBE. The worst I've personally experienced is "I'm going to Cuba and want to use Tor to watch movies while I'm there." I've also been asked for IPBE by users whose usual VPN was soft-blocked; they'd become alarmed when seeing the message that the IP was blocked and missed the part about being able to log in. They didn't need IPBE, they needed to log in, and they would have had no problems - but if the user wasn't willing to reveal their IP to an administrator, the admin would have no way to verify the nature of the IP block (global, local, hard block, soft block, etc.). Administrators might want to keep this in mind, and consider reviewing with a checkuser before granting IPBE. Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  It might be worth mentioning a bit about the global flag on the IPBE page; that would be the best route for individuals who are blocked under global blocks and edit multiple projects. To make matters difficult, the global flag will not exempt users from local blocks, so in some cases both might need to be granted. On the policy side, I'll see if that can be changed, though I imagine that the original reason (don't let global rights override local restrictions) will stand and the potential for abuse would be much higher otherwise. As a note for the future, I'm not sure if global blocks were checked as part of this audit, but it would be worth doing. Especially in the past, users have been directed back to a project if they edit mainly on just one, even if they are trying to get exemption from a global block. It is one more list to check though, and I understand that this is an arduous process as-is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• In future, it would be helpful if admins removing user rights would actually tell the users directly, with an explanation, instead of hoping vaguely that they will find a thread that uses an obscure abbreviation in its header, on a message board that most editors do not watch or visit. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while I have no problem with this change, this explanation should have been posted beforehand, and the affected users pointed to it, rather than making us hunt around for it. – Smyth\^talk 12:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly an ignorant question, but don't all admins have IPBE because it's part of the admin bundle? If so, why is "trusted user" not a sufficient reason to grant this right? And why is there a need to remove it from productive editors who aren't actively using it? We don't do that for any other userright that I know of. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption is a more appropriate venue for that discussion. – Smyth\^talk 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves me, IPBE allows users to edit using Tor. An admin editing through Tor will still be subject to the block, even when logged in. Elockid ^{Message me} 12:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots and Administrators are ipblock-exempt, however tor blocks require an additional override torunblocked that is only on IPBE. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I realise this isn't the place to formally propose a change, but it seems to me that splitting the IPBE userright into two separate rights (one for editing via Tor and the other for general editing around a hardblock) could save a fair bit of effort in future. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24: We do have certain rights that are removed if they are not being used. The account creator right is only granted to active users in the education program or in the account creation process. Users who are no longer active in these roles may have the permission removed. The checkuser and oversight right must be used at least 5 times every 3 months to retain the permissions. A number of our editing rights are also subject to activity requirements. The bureaucrat, admin, and template editor rights are removed from editors who have been inactive for a year. Specifically for the bureaucrat role, they must meet the minimum level of bureaucrat activity in addition to the inactivity policy. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: At least with removal of admin or bureaucrat rights, people get advance notice and personal messages telling them about it. You did not bother to do either. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with people saying you should be warned about removal - this is meant to be a tempory right to get you round a block, not a long-term one. I think this sort of audit should be done every 6 months or so, with the right being removed without warning. Mdann52 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes with warning, there should be a clear message left when the right is granted indicated that all grants of IPBE are audited regularly and removed without notice if they are found to no longer be useful to the user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that message. The IPBE template says Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires). Perhaps we can encourage other admins to use it more often or pass on the important bits if leaving a more informal message. Mike V • Talk 02:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like Mike cares whether it remains useful to the user. While Mike himself could continue to edit using a VPN/proxy if he desired, evidently he won't allow others to do so unless they confess a dire need to him through direct e-mail. I think that is ridiculous and yet one more example of bureaucracy for its own sake run amok. I suppose I won't be editing again unless I happen to be traveling as I am now. I've made only a small number of edits over the last couple of years and I'm sure Mike considers that to be a solid tradeoff against the serious risk posed by my account having IPBE. Nathan ^T 04:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nathan, I've restored it. Mike, you need to explain now why you totally ignored the statement in the policy page, However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive. How are your actions preventive? Kindly heed policy instead of imposing your contrary interpretations of it. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: I see that User:LouisAlain is also blocked. You say that he is using a web host, and should edit through his normal service provider. He mentioned last year that he had switched ISPs and was now with Freebox, which is actually the name of their ADSL-VDSL-FTTH modem. These modems also function as WiFi hotspots for other Freebox customers, could that be causing the problem? Prevalence 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I edit rarely on en.wikipedia, but I want to leave the note that I'm extremly confused and surprised about this procedure. While I currently can edit without that right obviously, I use an ISP with few IP addresses shared by many users. This means, it is not unlikely that a vandal will cause another IP range block in the near future that I will be affected by. Where is the disadvantage of trusted users being granted this right? Is there any situation when the right can be abused by a user doing good edits? Furthermore, as I'm home to de.wikipedia where we have extremely strict rules regarding usage of CheckUser, I'm even more confused that it seems normal here to regularly checkuser accounts with only constructive edits just for some clean-up purposes, to find out what ISP and what country users edit from and to find out whether they use a VPN. Why wouldn't you allow trusted users to use a VPN if they feel safer doing so, although they can't prove their life to be in danger to Mike V? Maybe it is only financial or social risks and/or someone does not want to reveal his/her situation to Mike V? I wasn't aware of these policies and I will for sure never again apply for the IPBE right. Should I ever again run into a range block here, I will simply not do my planned edit. I'm more than astonished that the en.wikipedia community endures this procedure that doesn't make any sense to me besides doing it for its own sake while condoning its disadvantages. Goodbye. Yellowcard (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:G'day mates! (who is possibly the same user as User:Rounder1)

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

---

Both (if not the same) users are indeffed, but the former could stand the revocation of talk page access as well due to this...which may not seem too critical on its own, but this thread leads to a cause for concern—btw, I wonder if JzG should consider WP:EMERGENCY. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but this is much less scary than the time I had to go to court to get a Norwich Pharmacal order - I do not consider these threats especially credible, and if I did then I would be in contact with the local constabulary. Please do revoke TPA though. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Extra eyes on Dr. Luke and its talk page

Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting extra eyes on Dr. Luke and the talk page. The page was recently protected due to BLP violations, but there's been spillover into the talk page. Dr. Luke is currently involved in a lawsuit with Kesha and there are allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. Due to news today about the lawsuit, there seems to be an increase in editors making comments that violate BLP. Extra eyes would be appreciated. I've reported a few edits from Talk:Dr. Luke to OS already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Realskeptic

Appeal declined. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Realskeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of vaccinations and autism concerning Realskeptic imposed here, logged here, archived discussion is here. Administrator imposing the sanction NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator diff Statement by Realskeptic I was blocked by an admin who said my edits should disqualify me from editing Wikipedia. I was only seeking to correct unproven criminal accusations of fraudulent research against a living person while improving the overall neutrality of the article with reliable sources. Realskeptic (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I reject your allegation that I was disruptively editing to POV-push when I was topic banned. I have consistently stayed within the top three tiers of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. The same cannot at all be said of the editors who have gotten me topic banned. Guy is a perfect example. If you compared his below statement to my talk page edit that he linked to, you would see that nothing he said actually contradicts my edit. The rest of his statement fits squarely within the bottom tier. The bottom tier also describes the editor who said I should be disqualified from editing Wikipedia for trying to make a supposed BLP more like an actual BLP as opposed to the attack page that it is in its current form. Realskeptic (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I was editing productively at Talk:Trace Amounts and elsewhere to share my concerns with other editors. The problem is not me, the problem is them. The bottom line is that they are a faction of editors hijacking Wikipedia to push their POV that vaccinations are not associated with autism, as they've succeeded in doing for years. I understand they have an agenda, but that agenda is not one that's in line with building an encyclopedia. Try as they like, there is nothing in any of my edits that can be described as pseudoscientific. Their pretense for stifling my edits, however, is pseudoscientific because it is based on reports that do not adhere to the scientific method while relying on weak statistical evidence as I've consistently shown. Their defense of their agenda-driven edits consistently falls in the lower tier of the disagreement hierarchy with their name-calling and ad hominem attacks. That all said, I realize I have probably killed any chance of having my topic ban overturned. I don't have high hopes for that anyway. I do hope, however, that someone who is not part of this gang and who is in a better position to make some badly needed changes will take my concerns into consideration and hopefully follow up on them in the not-too-distant future. Realskeptic (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "@Realskeptic: You most certainly were not 'editing productively'. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)" -See, this just further proves my point about the editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realskeptic (talk • contribs) Lankiveil: "the user has simply completely misunderstood the sources as saying that he had been exonerated" - Wakefield had been exonerated of the findings that were overturned by his colleague's appeal, that is true. Btw, Dave Dial is an involved editor and should not be posting here. Realskeptic (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Ivanvector and the other editors here should be disqualified from deciding on my topic ban because they have the same position on the topic as the admin who topic banned me in the first place and that position is compromising all of their judgement. I was not topic banned because I was violating any of Wikipedia's policies; I was topic banned because my sources and edits were not in line with the POV this faction of editors have hijacked Wikipedia to push while blatantly censoring anything to the contrary. Please understand that that makes it impossible for me to not talk about other users without informing any objective reviewing editor - who I have yet to see here - about what is really happening. Realskeptic (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzG Realskeptic is unable to tell the difference between truth and fiction. For example, he stated that the GMC findings against Andrew Wakefield were overturned on appeal. That is false. Wakefield remains disqualified from practising medicine, the appeal affected only John Walker-Smith. This discussion is rife with WP:CRYBLP and WP:IDHT from this user. Since the topic ban he has made absolutely no attempt to learn Wikipedia's ways by peacefully editing elsewhere. Realskeptic is here to Right Great Wrongs and a review of his editing history shows nothing other than tendentious editing, outbursts of wrongteous anger, and blatant antivax POV-pushing. This topic ban needs to remain in place at least until the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @Realskeptic: You most certainly were not "editing productively". Guy (Help!) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Realskeptic I'm not entirely clear what the basis if this appeal is. Are you arguing that the original decision is wrong or that you think the passage of time means we can let you off the leash?. If its the latter, than I note you haven't edited at all since the ban and your comment above suggests your attitude to pushing your POV hasn't changed. Please can you explain how your behavior will be less disruptive this time if we lift the TBan? Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (I fixed the formatting and links on this request for you) Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I'm totally unpersuaded that we can let an editor with such a fixed POV edit disruptively in a contentious area - especially when they clearly have made no effort to learn how to edit according to our accepted norms and standards. Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Question Why has this been posted here, and not at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC) AE or AN are both valid venues for appeals. It tends to get more messy here. Spartaz Humbug! 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) And as recently re-established on another appeal (which the appellant then moved to AE), unlike appeals at AE, appeals made at AN are decided by a consensus of all uninvolved editors not by admins alone. I have altered the text above to relfect this. BMK (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I am an uninvolved editor. In my opinion, the material at Talk:Trace Amounts alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the topic ban was needed and should not be lifted at this time. I would strongly suggest that the result of this appeal be written so as to make crystal clear that we really, really like to see a topic-banned editor show a history of editing productively in other areas in order to demonstrate that he is capable of following Wikipedia's behavioral standards before we consider an appeal to the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I am also uninvolved, and on a review of User:Realskeptic's edits, I have to say that I feel the topic ban should stand. I could be charitable and say that rather than an attempt to sanitise Wakefield's biography, the user has simply completely misunderstood the sources as saying that he had been exonerated. Even then, such a lack of due care and attention should disqualify the user from working in this space. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC). This is an attempt to overturn a topic ban because this editor believes they are right in their strong, fringe, POV. Not an attempt to prove they have learned to edit constructively, since they have not edited at all after their TB. This attempt not only shows the editor cannot edit productively in the area in which they are topic banned from, but that they will not be a productive editor in any fashion for the project. Not here to contribute to the project. Dave Dial (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) We don't really need to spend a whole lot of time on this, do we? Without really bothering to review Realskeptic's edits, it's apparent just from this request that their ability to edit neutrally in this topic area is severely impaired by their fringe anti-vaccination views. They basically decimated their own appeal in their third edit, saying everyone else is wrong and then detailing all the ways that they misunderstand how WP:NPOV works. Subsequently, they've just basically used this appeal as a veil so that they can continue opining about the areas they're topic banned from. This should be closed as declined as quickly as possible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC) @Realskeptic: the policy you violated that led to your topic ban is the neutral point of view policy. On matters of science and medicine, Wikipedia publishes the consensus of the scientific and medical community, and significant dissenting views if there are any. There aren't any significant dissenting views when it comes to vaccines: science and medicine say they don't cause autism, the supposed link has been entirely disproven, and those who continue to say otherwise are trying to sell you something or they're just fringe nutjobs. Writing anything else here violates NPOV, and that's why you are topic banned. If you want to whine and argue your fringe views, the internet is your oyster: go start a blog. Wikipedia is strictly objective, and it's not for you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) I am not persuaded at all that Realskeptic has learned anything regarding NPOV and advocating fringe views. Their only edits since receiving the topic ban have been in direct relation to this appeal, and reviewing some of the talk page discussions leading up to the ban leads me to agree that the topic ban was warranted. I cannot support lifting the topic ban until Realskeptic demonstrates that they understand the relevant policies and become a productive editor again. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Realskeptic This section is to be edited only by the closing admin.

For the old-timers

In case you hadn't noticed, Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. Happy memories of gentler days. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Has there been controversy over the question? I've been here since 2006, so I suppose I qualify as an old-timer, but I'm still confused. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I suppose JzG is referring to the fact that Trenton, New Jersey is the proverbial location of the court where Wikipedians traditionally threaten to sue each other... [35]. But don't ask me which blocked troll first brought that one up. Yeah, back in those days... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It used to be policy until relatively recently [36]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

But some humourless whatnot removed the Trenton courthouse from the page: [37] Guy (Help!) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You are Mr. Treason and I claim my five pounds! --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Are you claiming to be Shylock x5? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the "Mr Treason" bit, but "You are *insert name here* and I claim my Five Pounds" is an old trope, see Lobby Lud for more. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Treason was the name we used for a guy who insisted that certain content constituted treason and threatened to "SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY" if we did not allow his edits to stand. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, that *does* take me back. See User:Mr. Treason/Request for arbitration for a taste. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Perennial request

WP:SPI is a bit backed up at the moment (shocker!); Vanjagenije is doing the lion's share of the Clerk work and we really could use some extra admin eyes there. The "CU completed" category likely holds the most low-hanging fruit - all of the grunt work is done, we just need an admin to take a look at the results and do any required blocking and tagging. The "Open" requests are ones where no checkuser is requested that may need more in depth analysis, though there are often several WP:DUCK cases as well. If you can spare a moment to review a case or two it would be appreciated. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I am not working on the SPI because of some technical problems I have (see my comment here). Namely, my installed scripts have not been working since yesterday. I really don't want to waste time clerking SPI cases without the SPI helper script, and without the Mark-blocked script. I don't know what to do, seams like the problem is at Wikimedia servers. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes a marked difference when you're not there. You need help...and a pay raise.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I closed a bunch of them. Feel free to revert and trout me if I did something wrong. That SPI helper script is intensely satisfying. :-) Katie^talk 19:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now. Seams that WP:Igloo was malfunctioning and preventing other scripts from working. I uninstalled it now. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 – Per request of IJBall. Mike V • Talk 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

During the course of my IPBE review, I had reviewed the IPBE right of Nathan and found that he did not meet the criteria for using the IPBE right. The right was removed because it was no longer needed since the editor has access to a a non-firewalled IP address. In addition, the reason for granting IPBE ("user in good standing, request seems reasonable") was insufficient and didn't meet the expectations of the IPBE policy. Recently, Nyttend restored the right without first discussing the issue with me. I'm concerned that this falls under a misuse of his administrative tools, as administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I believe that the reversal was without good cause, as Nyttend is not privy to the checkuser information that would verify that Nathan does not have need of the IBPE right. In addition, I've been presently available and it seems unreasonable for Nyttend to taking any action without first discuss this with me.

I approached Nyttend on his talk page to discuss my explanation further and to ask why he reverted my action without consulting me first. I found his reasoning to be incorrect (as my actions were supported by the policy I've provided), as well as inadequate (I don't see why this was such a pressing issue that it must have been reverted, fully knowing that I would have objected on reasonable grounds.) I've requested Nyttend to permit me to revert his actions, to which he has declined. I'm bringing this to the community to discuss the misuse of administrative tools and to seek a consensus to overturn Nyttend's actions. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this belongs at WP:AN, not here (esp. if you want more Admin eyes on it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I brought it here since the admin noticeboard suggests using ANI for specific instances. However, I would have no objection to having it moved to AN. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My thinking on AN being the better forum is that this is less an "incident", and more a disagreement over the interpretation of Administrative actions/policy. Those of us around ANI who aren't Admins (which is most of us) probably aren't going to have a lot of insight on the details of IP block exemption policy... YMMV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• From my vantage point, it seems like your actions were reasonable, informed, and within policy. (IP address exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it). By contrast, Nyttend's response seems arrogant and unyielding. Nyttend should reverse his own action restoring the IPBE or consent to allowing you to do it yourself.- MrX 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• The way I read the policy is IPBE should only be temporary as long as the right is needed in order to continue editing articles. I take this from two parts in the policy. First, under the conditions for granting, when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator and second under the removal section, relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-firewalled IP address. As a CU, Mike V has access to information that Nyttend does not have and would be able to make the determination on whether or not the requirement is necessary much more easily. Assuming that Mike V did all the prerequisite work of making sure the editor can edit normally without IPBE, I believe his actions were completely correct. Nyttend's reversal of his action was hasty and not in the spirit of admin cooperation and discussion. The policy does not state that the right may be removed if it is no longer needed. It says it will be removed when it is no longer needed. Mike V was enforcing our policy. Nyttend should reverse their action, permit Mike V to do so, or provide a valid reason why Nathan needs that right (specifically why they cannot edit normally without it). --Majora (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn Mike V made a reasonable proposal about reviewing and removing IP block exempt (IPBE) permissions that no longer serve a purpose. Furthermore, if a permission was granted given a poor rationale, I'd expect an administrator to be able to revoke it, no matter what it was. Indeed, No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting is listed as a typical reason about why IPBE is removed generally. These "no longer needed / insufficient rationale" cases seem entirely separate from cases of abuse, where the preventative vs. punitive distinction is actually relevant, which is what Nyttend has cited as a rationale for reinstating the IPBE permissions. I agree Nyttend should have discussed this concern with Mike V or pointed it out in the discussion first. What I really think is needed here is some rewriting of that section of the policy. Anyone want to help me propose a rewrite there? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  It's simple. Remove "However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.", which is little more than a platitude. It's also incompatible with the rule that the right should be removed if it's not needed. "Being needed" is not synonymous with "being preventative."- MrX 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Quick notes (1) I disagree with the interpretation of the policy being advanced here, but if the community either endorses the other interpretation or thinks this is a good time to ignore the rules, I have no reason to complain; my objection is that one individual mustn't unilaterally do it. (2) I endorse any reasonable proposal to rewrite the criteria. If there's a fundamental disagreement regarding what's intended, it's definitely time to clear up the meaning, one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your interpretation of the policy then? It would be helpful if we knew what rules we are allegedly "ignoring". Is there a talk page discussion you've started on said rules? Can you point us to it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd have preferred to see more thorough discussion, though I can kind of see Nyttend's IAR basis insofar as it looked like leaving it off was going to drive away an editor. But I think that sort of matter should be built into the IPBE review policy (i.e., a "restore pending discussion" period where admins/CUs/whoever can review it as a group when the editor in question isn't a risk). I guess my point is I'd rather have seen more thorough discussion prior to restoring the IPBE. I have zero opinion on whether this editor should have IPBE or whether the IPBE policy needs revision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn If checkuser information shows the right is not needed then it should not be there. I don't think either side has behaved poorly, just that there is a disagreement. My 2 cents is that Mike V is in a better position to make an informed decision. A discussion on the policy talk page may yield a policy that is more clear. Discussing the issue with Mike V before reversing it would have been a lot better, and policy really encourages it. HighInBC 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am a bit concerned about the (correct me if I am wrong) removals with no warning or discussion on the user's talk page. I have IP exempt because I often do everything through Tor because I am at a remote site where industrial espionage is a real problem (I do consulting work in the toy industry). I often end up waiting around for someone at the remote site so I edit Wikipedia. The thing is, I might go nine months without needing IP exempt then suddenly have to spend a couple of months in China where I need it very badly. I don't want some admin to remove the right without first discussing it with me and giving me a chance to explain my situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am slightly more concerned that since there was no discussion with any of the editors whose rights were removed, how was it determined they no longer had a need for IPBE? Was a checkuser run on every IPBE holder to determine how/where they were editing from? While IPBE allows for review, it doesnt specify how that review will take place and the policy regarding Checkuser use on ENWP does not allow for that sort of fishing around in people's private data held by the WMF. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • How would a checkuser have revealed that for the last few months I have had no need for IPBE but next week I might be in China working under a consulting contract that specifies that I must access the Internet is through Tails and Tor? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Well it wouldnt, that was rather the point. Since no effort was made to contact the users with the exemption, as far as I can see (and from Mike's comments on his userpage) his decision was entirely based upon the editing history. Which means he would have had to checkuser hundreds of people in order to determine that. And I am still waiting for someone to point to where in the ENWP checkuser policy that is allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - While I appreciate Mike V's efforts to clean up IPBE pursuant to the intent of IPBE, I understand the misgivings about users not being notified that the permissions were being removed; perhaps a new template to be substituted on the user's talk page could be created. I must, however, disagree wholeheartedly with Nyttend's restoration of a permission that is specifically designed to be temporary having neither full knowledge of why it was removed nor discussion with the removing administrator. Discussion regarding the removal of users' permissions is expected preferred before reversion takes place; the only plausible reason I see for reverting the removal of a user's permissions without discussion is a good-faith belief that the original administrator had "gone rogue," in which case I would also expect an ARBCOM case and emergency desysop. I support overturning Nyttend's reversions unless the affected user(s) can demonstrate a bona fide need for IPBE to be retained.

As for the process behind the mass removal, Mike V stated that an audit of IPBE permissions had occurred over the past month. I do not believe that users need to know the exact details and methods of the audit, save that such an audit can only be undertaken by administrators and/or bureaucrats. If a user doesn't trust an admin or 'crat to properly carry out such an audit, then that user is free to request that the bit be removed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – FWIW, I think a discussion among Admins about this needs to be held at WT:IPEXEMPT. I don't agree with the current discussion over there that it should be handed out like candy and never be removed. I also don't think that removal of the right needs to be "pre-warned" in the same way that removal of Admin and Crat rights are pre-warned. But the creation of a template for a Talk page notice, stating that the right has been removed, why it has been removed, and what users can do if they want to re-request it, would be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Removal without warning or discussion --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

An unblock request

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

---

Can one of y'all have a look at User_talk:Justice007#Blocked to decide if an unblock is warranted? Thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time, Nyttend. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block for IPv6 address

We need a range block for user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:29c3:2c5b:2a13:24d7 because he appears to be a sock of many other IPv6 addresses like user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:29c3:2c5b:2a13:24d7, user:2604:2d80:c007:c68d:15ab:8521:22d3:e940, and user:2604:2D80:C007:C68D:A4F0:27A:FBCE:70EA. CLCStudent (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Umm ... "we"? CLCStudent, does more than one person use the "CLCStudent" account? Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that was we in the Royal we sense, or we as in "Wikipedia we". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore: Maybe, but the word "student" is in their name, and their user page is ambiguous on who specifically uses this account, so ... not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm we do.  Done. Anonblocked 2604:2d80:c007:c68d::/64. I've been meaning to ask, does anyone know of an IPv6 range-contribs tool? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean "we" as in do "we" need a block on that range. CLCStudent (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@zzuuzz: The lack of tool to show IPv6 range contribs is being discussed at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and Johuniq: NativeForeigner's tool can calculate IPv6 anges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit I don't yet find IPv6 ranges as easy to calculate as IPv4 - I still need to look at the manual instead of doing it in my head, so it is useful. But it's really the range contribs I'm looking for. It seems from VPT that we're still lacking in this department. I wonder if a CheckUser could confirm if they have this capability? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My {{blockcalc}} (recently moved to {{IP range calculator}}) is a great way to calculate IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, and it works hard to optimize the ranges where possible. It links to IP contributions, but it cannot do that for IPv6 ranges as there is no tool which does that, presumably because of the ridiculously large number of IPs that could be in an IPv6 range. Johnuniq (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Calculating the range to block for IPv6 is trivial 99.9% of the time. You just block the /64 range starting with the first four sets of hex digits (like 2604:2d80:c007:c68d::/64) because 99.9% of the time it's the same user. It's perfectly normal for an ISP to allocate a /64 range to a single customer and it has advantages in simplifying routing, etc., so exceptions will be vanishingly small. There's not much point in checking a /64 range for 'other affected users' because there won't be any other users in that range. I'm going to suggest that you don't need an IPv6 contributions tool for those reasons. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree mostly, but mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6#Collateral damage says "A single /64 subnet can represent anything from a single user to hundreds or even thousands of users". I asked Jasper Deng about that here. It's conceivable, for example, that a university department might use a single /64 and allocate individual IPs to a thousand users. Someone who has examined actual IPv6 usage would be useful, although it's likely that such usage will increase as time passes so what was generally true a year ago might not be true in a year from now. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is technically correct, however my experience of institutional IP's is they dont tend to do it that way. But given the wide variation on organisation's network management, its probably some somewhere do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: I asked on the VP for a tool to figure IPv6 range contributions, but it wasn't so much because I want to check for 'other affected users'. I was assuming there wouldn't be any other users — perhaps an unsafe assumption, according to Johnuniq just above, but surely good enough for everyday use — but only the one person, and I want to see what else that one person has been up to. You know how when you see an account editing problematically, perhaps vandalising, you click their "User contributions" button to see what else they've been doing that may need reverting? (And then that account complains you're "stalking" them, but I digress.) Deploying a range contribs tool for a /64 range would come to the same thing, and that's what I want to do. Particularly in a case I have right now, where I have reason to suspect the IPv6 edits have been made by an experienced user logged out. It would be lovely to be able to confirm or dismiss those suspicions. But I guess it's not to be. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

BLP violations and sockpuppetry by User:Lane99

This report concerns persistent BLP violations, topic-ban evasion, and sockpuppetry by editor User:Lane99. The most recent episode appears to have been at User talk: Jimbo Wales: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705484463&oldid=705484198

As some of you already know, the topic is Murder of Anni Dewani. This appears to have been a carjacking in South Africa that was botched and wound up with her being killed. The gunmen then confessed that it had been a murder for hire. By confession , they got lighter sentences. They tried to incriminate Shrien Dewani, her husband. He was extradited to South Africa, where he was tried and formally acquitted, with the trial court finding among other things that the confessed killers contradicted each other and were lying. User:Lane99 and his sockpuppets insist that the current article is biased because it does not reflect a judicial finding that this was a murder for hire. User:Bishonen topic-banned User:Lane99 from Murder of Anni Dewani based on BLP discretionary sanctions on 14 November. Lane99 was then blocked for 48 hours on 30 November for evading the topic-ban. Since then, the arguments that the article is “biased” (because it doesn’t state that there was a murder for hire, and because it states that Shrien Dewani was found not guilty) have been by sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane99 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705486051&oldid=705485256 This may not make much difference, because User:Lane99 is a single-purpose account who hasn’t edited since 30 November, when first blocked. On 1 December, Lane99 was blocked for one month for sock-puppetry. Lane99 hasn’t edited since then, preferring to let sockpuppets do the dirty work. However, when the puppet-master hasn’t learned from the one-month block, I propose that a Site Ban is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

C'est vrai. Collect (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban relentless socking is unacceptable. Implement Pending changes on the article as well? Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - even if it is merely a formality, it's worth making a clear statement that this behavior is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a gesture, I suppose. I admit I can't see it making any practical difference. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
• Support (Non-administrator comment) just to make it official. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support but don't think it will make any difference to a relentless and prolific sock creator and meat puppet canvasser. It would be more productive to extend the the article's semi protection (it is due to expire a week from now) or implement the "Pending Changes" measure as that article is the sole target of Lane99's disruptive editing. NeilN implemented the semi 3 months ago. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ClcBruno

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

---

Please could somebody block this guy, who is a long standing sockpuppet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Hồ Ngọc Hà

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

---

IPs are putting obscenities to the VN singer's nickname. Please semi-block this page. Thanks. Tuanminh01 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, please use WP:RFPP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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