Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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 |
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 19 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 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 12 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)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 80 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 77 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 77 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)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Tom B (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 22 | 26 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 40 | 44 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 55 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)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 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)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 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)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Brief reminder
Just a note that the Neelix cleanup is still ongoing, and in recent months seems to has stalled out. We're down to a 4 digit number of pages needing eyes, including a small handful of Ancient Greek redirects; the full list of remaining ones is at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6. Figured a note here might get a little attention, and since this is something that'll actually go away when it's done it has all the good feeling of accomplishing something without the accompanying Sisyphean nature of other backlogs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- November 2015 that all kicked off. I'm glad that dozens of volunteers haven't wasted their time with this since then instead of just nuking it all at the time. Oh, wait... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can’t believe it still isn’t done. I’ve deleted a few thousand of these pages myself. And the user who created the whole issue has quietly returned to occaisional editing without the slightest consequence for creating this disaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Every time I dip into this I'm freshly amazed at the sheer level of fuckwittery (Frà→My Last Duchess, anyone?), and the sheer amount of time it's wasted—it's just taken me 20 minutes to delete 100-ish obvious cases, and I can delete directly without the timesink of one editor tagging and another editor reviewing the tag. Someone remind me again why Neelix hasn't been shown the door? ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Door was a redirect to stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Every time I dip into this I'm freshly amazed at the sheer level of fuckwittery (Frà→My Last Duchess, anyone?), and the sheer amount of time it's wasted—it's just taken me 20 minutes to delete 100-ish obvious cases, and I can delete directly without the timesink of one editor tagging and another editor reviewing the tag. Someone remind me again why Neelix hasn't been shown the door? ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can’t believe it still isn’t done. I’ve deleted a few thousand of these pages myself. And the user who created the whole issue has quietly returned to occaisional editing without the slightest consequence for creating this disaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Meh. The time to block Neelix was two years ago. He's done nothing disruptive since, so showing him the door now would be purely punitive. Unless there's genuinely something disruptive about his sporadic recent edits, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Reyk YO! 11:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be strictly accurate, he's still being just as disruptive but he's taken it outside the remit of en-wiki admins; his latest wheezes are creating ultra-narrow categories on Commons (Category:Topless men wearing wristwatches and Category:Nude or partially nude women with cowboy hats, anyone?) "to ensure people don't accidentally see things they weren't looking for", and obsessively moving images between categories. (Because it's outside en-wiki jurisdiction, Commons still retains a Neelix-curated shrine to Tara Teng, as well.) He's also recently discovered the joys of Wikidata. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two of the images in his cowboy hats category weren't even wearing cowboy hats. Weird. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Iridescent: you missed adding living people to potentially en.wiki BLP violating categories on Commons. THAT was a fun cleanup. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shrine? You do realize that creating categories for notable people with multiple available images is... pretty much just the way commons works... right? GMGtalk 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, there are shedloads of examples, I just gave a couple—another of his favourite games is disrupting efforts to clean up Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention by deliberately adding a technically correct but barely-relevant category (recent example). The point is, his goofing around at Commons and Wikidata is all something over which en-wiki admins (correctly) have no jurisdiction. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, the more editors like Neelix who get into Wikidata the less likely we are to use it in the long run. Hasten the day etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, that is most definitely not how Commons works when it comes to photographs of identifiable living people, particularly in a case like this where the LP in question lives in Canada where distributing photographs of someone without their consent is illegal. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah... Given that half of those come with an OTRS permission, I think we'll be okay. GMGtalk 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS from the photographer. Not the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- But how the hell does that work then in Canada? The Miss World Canada comps presumably all took place in Canada, likewise the University pics. Some of them are clearly outside in what would be considered a public place, some are obviously publicity, some are at private venues. My reading of the Canadian provisions in that commons policy is that without the subject's explicit consent, none should be published? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I assumed they were official press kit, as similar images often are. But you are correct. GMGtalk 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking through the sources that the Commons guidance is based on, it looks like the issue is mostly confined to problematic commercial uses generally and especially with regard to public figures. Saying simply that it is illegal is a gross oversimplification. GMGtalk 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- -That is some weird, weird shit. Still, if he's not currently disrupting anything here, there's no need to block him here. Reyk YO! 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Sorry to barge in like this, but wow oh wow, I just read the initial AN/I thread and looked at his categories on commons... This must be the funniest thing that happened on Wikipedia for a long time. However, in retrospective, banning him during the initial AN/I would do no good, let alone now. He should have been forced to undo the damage himself, though - I'm just not sure how it'd work. BytEfLUSh Talk 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be strictly accurate, he's still being just as disruptive but he's taken it outside the remit of en-wiki admins; his latest wheezes are creating ultra-narrow categories on Commons (Category:Topless men wearing wristwatches and Category:Nude or partially nude women with cowboy hats, anyone?) "to ensure people don't accidentally see things they weren't looking for", and obsessively moving images between categories. (Because it's outside en-wiki jurisdiction, Commons still retains a Neelix-curated shrine to Tara Teng, as well.) He's also recently discovered the joys of Wikidata. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know I wasn't heavily active in the admin side of things when this all went down, but could someone give me a one-or-two-sentence answer as to why we don't just nuke them all and REFUND the legitimate ones? I know with the SvG case there were actual improvements made to some of the pages, but it seems like if it exists, has no incoming links, and is still a redirect, it should just be nuked. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Because a bunch of his friends whined about it" is the TL;DR answer. The discussion that led to the "don't delete them all on sight, but allow any admin to delete them without discussion" compromise is here. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is a distinct culture around redirects that since they're "cheap" it's best to keep them just because they exist, and it often veers into fundamentalism; this mess is but one obvious symptom of this attitude. As anyone who's done this has discovered, sifting through this is quite far from cheap in volunteer effort. I don't know how to bring about change on that front, but it is something I've noticed at RfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Primefac: As the editor who's ploughed through the greatest number of these semi-recently, I'm keeping >90% of the redirects I look at. A mass "Keep and don't waste further time" would be preferable to nuking them if we want to resolve the issue with finality. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, since it was before "my time" I never really looked into the matter, so I didn't know how good/bad of a situation it was. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree with Tazerdadog. I first looked into this several months ago but was surprised with how many good redirect I found so I figured it would be done by now. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, since it was before "my time" I never really looked into the matter, so I didn't know how good/bad of a situation it was. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights Is there an X1 option for CSD? If so, I'm not seeing it. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it. It's apparently not an option via Twinkle. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because it’s a temporary criterion that was supposed to be deprecated by now. The really, really bad ones (and believe me, there were at least 5,000 of those) went away early on in this process, so it’s no surprise that here towards the end there are many that are more innocuous or even potentially helpful. Doesn’t excuse all the mountains gof garbage and the hundreds of hours taken to clean it all up. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- And even now there'a a non-negligible proportion of total nonsense left (I saw Boomer Vial tag a couple, the help is appreciated). It's a good thing we didn't deprecate it when we first thought this was over with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because it’s a temporary criterion that was supposed to be deprecated by now. The really, really bad ones (and believe me, there were at least 5,000 of those) went away early on in this process, so it’s no surprise that here towards the end there are many that are more innocuous or even potentially helpful. Doesn’t excuse all the mountains gof garbage and the hundreds of hours taken to clean it all up. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've managed to get it down to about 2500 redirects, or a few hours worth of work remaining. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've done a bit. Mostly some easy ones though. fish&karate 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
AIV backlog
Currently a backlog at AIV EvergreenFir (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up - another backlog is building up at AIV. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
AWB access
I really do promise that I will behave with AWB. I really do. My AWB access has been unexpectedly removed. I take this as my final chance. I will not make any insignificant or controversial edits with it. If I do make bad edits, I understand that not only my AWB access will be removed but I will be indefinitely blocked. I will also not use regex typo fixing ever again. I promise. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging Primefac, who removed the access. Nihlus 16:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, I'll restore, but please be more careful. This includes both edits with AWB as well as WPCleaner - both of which have resulted in complaints. There's no rush, so make sure your edits are all accurate before you hit "save". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you. I will be more careful next time. I will avoid edits related to spelling as that is the main area I am receiving more complaints. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, you're clearly not being asked to avoid any areas. You're being asked to actually pay attention to what you are changing with these programs instead of clicking save just because it found something that might be an error. There is a reason both programs give you a preview of what you are doing beforehand. Nihlus 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- What they said. As per the many, many warnings I and others have given you, the false-positive rate for AWB's "suggested fixes" is well over 50%, so if you're not rejecting more than half the proposed fixes it suggests you're almost certainly using it inappropriately; plus, AWB is a tool intended for use on multiple projects, not just Wikipedia, and many of the fixes it suggests are inappropriate for English Wikipedia or are purely cosmetic changes which are banned on Wikipedia. To repeat yet again a piece of advice I've given you which you invariably ignore, I cannot recommend enough that if you insist on continuing to use AWB you disable the "apply general fixes" checkbox, and that you stop using WPCleaner altogether unless and until you actually understand what you're doing. (Because there's no WPCleaner equivalent of AWB's checkpage, the only action we can take if you keep making mistakes with WPCleaner is to block you from editing Wikipedia altogether, and given the number of warnings you've ignored thus far I will do it if I see any more obvious errors or blatantly inappropriate violations of WP:COSMETICBOT). ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, you're clearly not being asked to avoid any areas. You're being asked to actually pay attention to what you are changing with these programs instead of clicking save just because it found something that might be an error. There is a reason both programs give you a preview of what you are doing beforehand. Nihlus 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you. I will be more careful next time. I will avoid edits related to spelling as that is the main area I am receiving more complaints. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, I'll restore, but please be more careful. This includes both edits with AWB as well as WPCleaner - both of which have resulted in complaints. There's no rush, so make sure your edits are all accurate before you hit "save". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Is this appropriate?
AWB is fucking dangerous; why allow it for a user who already/recently fucked it up many times? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's called assuming good faith. Their edits were improper, but they've agreed to pay more attention in the future and there will be no qualms about permanently removing it next time. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, so let me edit the main page. I've never harmed it.
- More seriously though - that's stretching AGF, but ok, does not prevent us watching next time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sex pest
ResolvedSomeone please work out why helpdesk is current showing a huge image from File:Berlin Sex Shop 2.jpg. Probably some template vandalism or something. Thx. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to have been fixed now. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a change to Template:HelpDesk icon. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry for posting here - when it happened, it was super-urgent and this seemed the right place. 5 mins later, it seems I am crying wolf. Apologies. All is well, carry on. Nothing to see here. Thanks for explaining where it was, Anon. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Can one of ya protectify Template:HelpDesk icon? Or do I need to file that request elsewhere? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting it! That type of vandalism can be harder to solve, so reports like this are helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah...I copy-pasted the page to sandbox, and I was trying to work it out, using Special:ExpandTemplates.. when the anon beat me to it! Sometimes hard to solve these ones. Cheers... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the template. The template only appeared on a handful of pages, but since those very pages are pretty visible (e.g. WP:Help desk), I figure there's more benefit than cost to protecting. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, the best place to make protection requests is at WP:Requests for page protection. However, if an admin sees a situation which requires protection, or a report of such a situation, (s)he's allowed to handle it regardless of any formal report. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the template. The template only appeared on a handful of pages, but since those very pages are pretty visible (e.g. WP:Help desk), I figure there's more benefit than cost to protecting. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah...I copy-pasted the page to sandbox, and I was trying to work it out, using Special:ExpandTemplates.. when the anon beat me to it! Sometimes hard to solve these ones. Cheers... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting it! That type of vandalism can be harder to solve, so reports like this are helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Community feedback: Proposal on case naming
The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.
The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.
- Current system
Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.
- Proposed changes
The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.
Effective immediately, new arbitration case requests will no longer be named by the filing party. Case requests will receive a unique six-digit identifier, formatted as the current year followed by the number of the case request within that year. For instance, the fifth case request in 2018 will be numbered 201805.If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.
In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.
- Notes
The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.
Dinhio13 again
Going back to this report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Dinhio13. 7-day page protection did nothing, user is back at it. -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BlameRuiner: What are the sources for Khubutia's early career? --NeilN talk to me 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Query about canvassing
Example: a merge proposal on the TP of a controversial article seeking local consensus for the merge rather than calling an RfC for wider community input. The article went through an AfD several months ago but the controversy lingers. Our merge guidelines are ambiguous so it can be expected that the merge will result in deletion. #1 - What are the proper steps to take in order to get wider community input which is needed for such an article, and #2 would it be "appropriate canvassing" to ping the editors and closer who were involved in the prior AfD? Atsme📞📧 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is appropriate to notify editors who were involved in the prior AFD and for getting the more community input, you can notify the WikiProjects related to the subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- With the utmost respect, D4iNa4, my question is a rather sensitive one in that such action may well be challenged, but thank you for your response. I thought the same, but I'm hoping an admin will also respond and confirm. Atsme📞📧 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unless you tell us which discussion you're talking about, the best I can say is what D4iNa4 told you )(and yes, I am an admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto; what D4iNa4 is correct. If you're not willing to tell us what you're talking about so we can assess whether there are genuinely special circumstances that apply (rather than what people usually mean by "this RFC/AFD/etc is too sensitive to publicise", which tends to be "I'm worried if the word gets out then people who disagree with me might find out about it"), then the only advice we can give is the generic list at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. "Limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open"; don't bulk-spam the notification, don't word the notification in such a way as to favour one side or to appeal more to people supporting a particular view, ensure you provide equal notification to everyone regardless of which position you expect them to take, and always be willing and able to list exactly who you notified and how they were selected if you're challenged. –(current admin and former arbitrator, checkuser and oversighter) Iridescent 10:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unless you tell us which discussion you're talking about, the best I can say is what D4iNa4 told you )(and yes, I am an admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- With the utmost respect, D4iNa4, my question is a rather sensitive one in that such action may well be challenged, but thank you for your response. I thought the same, but I'm hoping an admin will also respond and confirm. Atsme📞📧 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- And avoid this at all costs.Winged BladesGodric 10:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Doncram
- The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Doncram
Mainpage errors
The first ITN article on main page currently lead directly to redirect page Turkish military intervention in Afrin. It has been noted in WP:ERRORS since but no admin to act. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just fixed it now. Cheers. fish&karate 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
process if a final/level 4 warning has been used as a first warning
Just a question - what's the accepted process in the following circumstances: I noticed some petty vandalism on the Bugatti Veyron article here and reverted it. I checked the editors contributions and saw this was the second time they'd done this, so thought to leave a message on their talk page - only to find that Roxy the dog had already done so, but gone straight to the "only warning" template.
Firstly - as per WP:BITE that seems a little extreme for what (at the time) was petty stuff and the only edit from a newcomer, but it also left me or anybody else little room to add any additional commentary about their second edit.
I left another template anyway, but it seems a bit weird to have a message that says "This is your only warning" - which is promptly followed by another warning. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's vandalism, and it's petty and pointless vandalism. There's really no point to welcoming an editor who engages in that sort of behavior, or trying to encourage good behavior. It's best to let them know that if they don't stop on their own, we can force them to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's really the problem of the person leaving the over-the-top "only warning". It is quite acceptable to follow it with a level 1 or level 2 warning, or even better, a non-numeric handwritten note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- An "only warning" should only be used for extremely bad vandalism - not for anything on the level of normal vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The warning wasn't "over the top". Plonker was clearly not here to build an encyclopeadia. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Those look like "can I really edit Wikipedia?"-style vandalism, in my opinion not worthy of "only warning" level templates. There's a possibility (though small) that this editor can turn into a productive one. I use "only warning" templates also, but the vandalism must strike me as intentionally damaging the topic, or attempting to punk Wikipedia. Even then I've undoubtedly been too hasty on occasion. Anyway, if you see this you can always add a personal note underneath, with a gentler message encouraging constructive participation. (but never excusing vandalism, of course) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- (e/c) The vandalism - I agree it was vandalism - was only petty, not obscene, racist, offensive in any particular fashion - and given that it was a first edit, not even a pattern. I mean - changing 407 km/h (253 mph) to read "20Kph" - yeah, that should knock Grawp off the top spot, eh? While the end result may have been for a level 4 warning and ultimately a block somewhere down the line, doesn't jumping straight to a final warning deny AGF, or indeed give the editor any real incentive to continue when faced with such an attitude? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The warning wasn't "over the top". Plonker was clearly not here to build an encyclopeadia. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- This was definitely not "only warning" level vandalism, it was run-of-the-mill number-change vandalism. This gets a revert and a lv1 from me, generally. I use lv2 or lv3 as a first warning for more serious cases, and generally will only drop an "only warning" if the edit includes dick pics, explicit racism, or requires revdelete. On the other hand I have blocked users who leave excessive warning templates, per WP:BITE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well that turned needlessly sinister. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No kidding Floq. Youze guys had better look at my edit history for today then. It's a typical day. I still see no reason to change my dealings with plonkers like this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because other's are telling you
it's overly harsh, generally out of step with community norms, and would you please dial it back a notch?
That... that's the reason. GMGtalk 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)- As the OP here, can I ask Floquenbeam why this is "needlessly sinister"? Especially when I look at Roxy's edit history - as he requests we do so - and see that L4 warnings are pretty much all he uses, even for such heinous edits such as this or this. I started this thread as just a question, but after looking at the edit history, I really think Roxy is being a bit excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the veiled threat of blocking Roxy the dog. Do you think that's a reasonable response? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- As the OP here, can I ask Floquenbeam why this is "needlessly sinister"? Especially when I look at Roxy's edit history - as he requests we do so - and see that L4 warnings are pretty much all he uses, even for such heinous edits such as this or this. I started this thread as just a question, but after looking at the edit history, I really think Roxy is being a bit excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because other's are telling you
- No kidding Floq. Youze guys had better look at my edit history for today then. It's a typical day. I still see no reason to change my dealings with plonkers like this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well that turned needlessly sinister. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not well versed in the etiquette expected of administrators, so couldn't comment with authority on whether a block is warranted. However, if Roxy thinks a block is warranted for a single silly edit, then I guess Ivanvector's implication for blocking a user who peppers dozens of L4 warnings for first and trivial offences, is ok - especially when backed up by policy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- That strikes me as having seriously messed up priorities.
- I'm always puzzled by this idea that some kid is going to vandalize, and then might become productive, but only if treated with kid gloves, and who won't become productive if clearly told that what they're doing is vandalism and will lead to a block. Most of the time, the gently escalating warning system is giving the vandal the attention they crave, and actually reinforcing the desire to vandalize. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a reformed vandal, I'm saying that (a) the odds are very low, (b) if they're going to reform, they can reform after a level 4 warning just as easily as after a level 1 warning. While I don't care if others want to be more gentle, and I don't care if others want to recommend a softer approach to Roxy, given the unlikely payoff, it seems really weird to threaten a long-term productive editor with a block; that's much, much more likely to damage the encyclopedia than too quickly warning vandals about being blocked if they don't knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Chaheel, did you look at the edit histories of the pages concerned, and the warnings issued already to the editors concerned in the two examples you gave above? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, because much like your own editing style I made assumptions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said in my previous edsum, you should. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, because much like your own editing style I made assumptions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Chaheel, did you look at the edit histories of the pages concerned, and the warnings issued already to the editors concerned in the two examples you gave above? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Am I missing something here?
- An individual creates a new account and vandalizes an article, using a deliberately misleading edit summary ("changed the date").
- The vandalism is reverted a few minutes later, and the new account receives a warning.
- The individual returns three hours later and vandalizes the same article as his second edit using this account, again using a false and misleading edit summary: ("nothing more just updated speeds").
- Now we're having an extended discussion on AN about this.
- Seriously? This is obviously someone who has edited Wikipedia before, and created an account solely for petty vandalism. There is no reason whatsoever to 'escalate' through three or four levels of warnings, when it's pretty obviously a child or childish adult screwing around and wasting our time. To an experienced admin, that is pretty apparent from the first edit, and painfully obvious by the second. This isn't a situation where we need to talk about which warning template is appropriate; this is a situation where an admin should just revert and block.
- I have done so now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Following that, I don't see any need to respond here any further, unless a direct question needs answering. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The short answer to the original question is that there is no defined process, different users take a variety of approaches to handling vandalism. If you want to make a big deal out of how one particular user is doing it, WP:ANI is thataway. If yo were trying to have a policy discussion WP:VPP is over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It behooves everyone to remember the purpose of Wikipedia. Bear with me; this IS relevent.
The only purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If an obscure article is 'wrong' for 10 minutes, it is not disruptive.
If we deal with users like this in a professional, understanding way then - very occasionally - they become productive editors.
I am sure that most people reading this will be mostly dealing with vandals, and thus jaded; but I beg you to step back.
999/1000 of people who make edits like this will be useless to the objective of Wikipedia. But that one might be gold. Just think, if 1/1000 makes 10,000 good edits, it's a net positive.
There is no 'level 1-3' warning system here; that's an entirely fictitious system, which may be convenient but has absolutely no meaning.
TL;DR: Be nice. 99% of the time you'd be right to assume they're assholes, but that 1% is pure gold. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Elegant words from someone who just told another editor to "get the fuck out", at the Help Desk of all places. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Upon reading the comment above, I'm tempted to opine that losing one nominally valuable editor who thinks it's funny to write "MY BROTHER IS A DICKHEAD" or change the top speed of a car to 20mph, (contrast with actually funny vandalism like this) is a sufficiently low cost to pay to make 999 vandals think twice about doing it again.
- For the record: my IP address received a "warning" that consisted of being told to get a life, coupled with speculation about my mental faculties and social acumen once, before I registered an account. I didn't even perform the vandalism it was in response to; an IP whose last quartet had one additional digit to mine did (kids, never drink and copy and paste). Despite being given that incredibly bad impression, I still registered an account and have been editing ever since. Mostly because I'm the kind of person who takes enjoyment in contributing to an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Standard offer for User:Mgstaggers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am willing to unblock User:Mgstaggers based on the wp:Standard offer and his unblock request [1]. I need community approval for unblocking per WP:SO. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of policy here: this is a CheckUser block; you got approval from a checkuser ([2]) but not the blocking checkuser. Do you need Bbb23's consent? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." (WP:NEVERUNBLOCK) Still, hard to "blame" Vanja as Katie instructed him to come here. In any event, I know the user was blocked for spam, and I know he says he won't continue spamming if he's unblocked, but I don't know (haven't looked) whether a significant portion of his edits before being blocked were not spam. That would seem to me to be an important question.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, my bad. Katietalk 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, with that procedural pedantry out of the way (you're welcome) I support the unblock request. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of socking after the original case, and the incidences of spam (I see three total spam edits between two accounts?) seem to be an odd misstep in a generally productive history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I see no history at all to go off of. We wouldn't likely grant this user pending changes reviewer or rollbacker if they asked for it because there is no reasonable editing history to track. They have a total of
171178 total edits, were caught socking, and spamming links. There is nothing in their history which suggests to us that we should trust them to be a productive contributor. If anything, their history of contributions is what you would expect from a spammer who is attempting to build a long-term account that slips past filters and reviewers: short spurts of editing over several years, bouts of WikiLove messages, and then suddenly they start spamming when they have enough edits not to be a completely new redlink account. They should remain blocked and per the banning policy a declined unblock should be taken as a community site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the same token, one thing we know about SPA spammers is they do not stop when their first account is blocked. They make new accounts and come back over and over and over again. Mgstaggers has intermittent constructive history going back many years, even though it doesn't amount to much and you're probably right about granting them advanced permissions, it's also hardly enough that they would have become intimately familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to assume good faith that they made a fairly common mistake and were dealt a pretty severe punishment because of it (rightly so, socking is serious) but that they seem to have learned from that. At least, there's not evidence that they haven't, and I still like to think we're not in the business of kicking users out forever because they made one or two mistakes as n00bs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- The standard offer is not typically intended for situations like this, however. It is intended for users who have a history on Wikimedia projects of constructive contributions and who made a mistake. That is simply not the case here. We also don't know that they aren't an SPA spammer: we know that they haven't socked in the last 90 days, which given their history, is entirely in line with them still intending to sock again. I would be more open to this if they actually had a record on any Wikimedia project, but they simply don't have that. Even with LTAs that are requesting the offer we typically have some history to go off of. We have nothing at all here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the same token, one thing we know about SPA spammers is they do not stop when their first account is blocked. They make new accounts and come back over and over and over again. Mgstaggers has intermittent constructive history going back many years, even though it doesn't amount to much and you're probably right about granting them advanced permissions, it's also hardly enough that they would have become intimately familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to assume good faith that they made a fairly common mistake and were dealt a pretty severe punishment because of it (rightly so, socking is serious) but that they seem to have learned from that. At least, there's not evidence that they haven't, and I still like to think we're not in the business of kicking users out forever because they made one or two mistakes as n00bs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pedantry (and nitpicking) is always a good thing. 176 live edits and 2 deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bbb, I Xtools showed 171 total for me. Updated above (though my point stands). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tony. !dave 06:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support, oddly enough, for pretty much the exact reasons Tony opposes. That is, because there's not much to go on, we can't really say anything about this editor. The reason the SO, to my understanding, came into existence is because the other option for long-term blocks and bans was for editors to show us how they have improved via contributions elsewhere on other projects. In most cases, that just didn't happen—there was rarely enough, and it was rarely good enough, and so indeffed editors stayed blocked. So we have the standard offer, in which we will typically overlook past misconduct. It doesn't mean that the person has to have been a net positive without the blockable offense. That said, I'm not particularly impressed with the unblock statement, and get the feeling that Mgstaggers still doesn't quite "get" Wikipedia (talking about the "Wikipedia database" and using the phrase "fervent wish" strike me as a bit... out of touch) but this could equally be due to inexperience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, correct, we do typically like to see positive participation before the block on this project and/or positive participation on other projects after the block. The latter also hasn't happened in this case. Just pointing that out since you brought it up in your support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that the SO was devised to save people from the catch-22 scenario of having to show positive contributions post-block but don't really have an acceptable place to accrue them. Commons, for instance, is a very different environment, and small enough that you can work a long time without amassing the interactions a classical unblock discussion would demand. Contribs to non-English wikis are tough to evaluate, and not everybody can do that. The SO lets us skip all that. What matters, at least in my book, is that the grounds for blocking weren't particularly crazy (i.e., LTA cases probably aren't suitable for the SO) and that the request itself makes some steps towards taking ownership of past misdeeds. I'll admit the latter is where I pause in this case, but I feel the misconduct is petty enough that it's at the bottom end of a "SO required" unblock request, and so I feel comfortable enough giving the benefit of the doubt on that.I have thought hard about this case, and what makes me willing to completely ignore the lack of pre-block contribs is the fact that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't require a track record for people to enter the community for the first time, and because the SO is sort of "starting over", I see no reason to apply a different standard to pre-block contrib quality. If there were evidence that Mgstaggers were so incapable of editing that a return to good conduct would still be severely disruptive, I could be swayed, but I don't see it in this case. And, realistically, given editors with virtually no pre-block track record probably could just make a new account and not get noticed, I think it says something good that this editor is going the honest route. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I disagree, obviously, as I typically want proof from a socking spammer as to why I should trust them, and I don't see that here, but I understand your POV. I suppose my view is that while we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, once you have shown that you simply don't care about our rules and want to use us to further commercial enterprises, you need a very strong case to be let back in. I don't see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that the SO was devised to save people from the catch-22 scenario of having to show positive contributions post-block but don't really have an acceptable place to accrue them. Commons, for instance, is a very different environment, and small enough that you can work a long time without amassing the interactions a classical unblock discussion would demand. Contribs to non-English wikis are tough to evaluate, and not everybody can do that. The SO lets us skip all that. What matters, at least in my book, is that the grounds for blocking weren't particularly crazy (i.e., LTA cases probably aren't suitable for the SO) and that the request itself makes some steps towards taking ownership of past misdeeds. I'll admit the latter is where I pause in this case, but I feel the misconduct is petty enough that it's at the bottom end of a "SO required" unblock request, and so I feel comfortable enough giving the benefit of the doubt on that.I have thought hard about this case, and what makes me willing to completely ignore the lack of pre-block contribs is the fact that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't require a track record for people to enter the community for the first time, and because the SO is sort of "starting over", I see no reason to apply a different standard to pre-block contrib quality. If there were evidence that Mgstaggers were so incapable of editing that a return to good conduct would still be severely disruptive, I could be swayed, but I don't see it in this case. And, realistically, given editors with virtually no pre-block track record probably could just make a new account and not get noticed, I think it says something good that this editor is going the honest route. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, correct, we do typically like to see positive participation before the block on this project and/or positive participation on other projects after the block. The latter also hasn't happened in this case. Just pointing that out since you brought it up in your support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I declined this user's unblock request on 2017-06-22, about a week after the original block. However, now that six months have passed, my position is that this user has shown no further block evasion and it's worth extending the standard offer. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support 2nd chance. If someone can make an edit like this, they are sure capable of making more productive edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Mendaliv. Reblocking is easy if needed. Miniapolis 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Yamla, Mendaliv etc. In the event of problematic editing a reblock would indeed be simple, and, I suspect, swift. -- Begoon 02:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support As others have noted, were this a truly malicious user the odds are high that they would have simply tried to evade their block. And if it turns out we are wrong here, fixing the mistake is likely to involve only a few clicks. The Standard Offer is something that in the world business might be termed a speculative investment. In this case I find the potential risk/reward ratio to be fairly attractive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - while I appreciate Tony's concern, I wonder how this editor could *prove* he won't spam/sock again. Per Yamla and Ad Orientem and others, I strongly suspect this editor's work will face high scrutiny. Worth the risk, and easy to rectify if it doesn't work out. If unblocked, I would suggest to Mgstaggers that if they have any concerns that an edit of theirs may slightly violate NPOV or SPAM, that they seek advice from an experienced editor, because the leash will be short for some time. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - if we believe in a second chance, we must give it a real chance of succeeding. This user has lived up to our standard offer - which this user appears to do completely. I wouldn't oppose an explicit limit to a single account for the user, or an explicit restriction related to external links, but beyond that the only way to check if any user is truely ready to be unblocked is to see that they wait for a reasonable period of time, say the correct things, and then we unblock them and they edit correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Two CUs (it would seem) have looked at it, and (most) everyone deserves a second change. I would add they should be limited to one account and understand they have being given a length of WP:ROPE, so they would do good to not hang themselves with it as they will be under higher scrutiny once unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking per TonyBallioni and WP:ROPE. Yes, he opposed. But I support for the reason he opposed: Without a history to work from we're left with AGF, and blocks are cheap anyways. It won't take but a few days to figure out if this user is serious or not. --Jayron32 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Contribution surveyor
There used to be a tool called Contribution surveyor that counted up the sizes of an editor's additions and deletions, separated out by article. It appears to be busted, at least as of last night, and its author has been gone for years. Is there any kind of replacement for it? I haven't used it in a while so haven't been following developments. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was formally taken over by the WMF. The source code is publicly available, but I don't know how much work is necessary to get it to run (1) on the current toolserver or (2) some other hosting platform. If it's really important, I have some code lying around that is an imperfect substitute. MER-C 22:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I might try to run the Github code, or if your code is available someplace public I might give it a try. Somehow I had thought Contribution Surveyor used database access. If it's just an API client then I can run it or something like it. The thing I wanted to check isn't super-important so I won't ask you to run it for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it does appear to use database access. SQLQuery me! 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Come to think about it, this looks like something I can replace (with a 40,000 edit hard cap). Don't expect to see anything in the near future, I have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. MER-C 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it does appear to use database access. SQLQuery me! 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was looking at converting it over to tools:, but it would be 2 weeks minimum before I could start any work right now. SQLQuery me! 21:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Article BLP on UserPage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned about the existence of User:Inexpiable/Jerome Ersland - this was an article originally deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Ersland and deleted quite quickly as the subject fails WP:Notability and also the article had issues with POV, BLP, and OR. Following the article's deletion, this post was made, then the article subsequently restored on a user page. The user making the request promised to work on the article and improve it. This was never done and the article has existed on this user page for nearly two years. My main concern here is that the restoration of this article is an attempt to keep Jerome Ersland's information on Wikipedia probably for the status of "having a Wikipedia article" but also there are some real world concerns here relating to Ersland being in prison and attempting to appeal his sentence. This concern is made doubly so by the article referencing the Jerome Ersland support page as one of its "sources" [3]. The way this article has been "nestled away" on a user page really concerns me as I think there is more going on here and that this breaks our rules about WP:BLP, if not several others. Can an administrator please review this situation. -O.R.Comms 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in the case anymore, delete the article it's not a notable enough case. I've deleted the stuff on the page you're referring to and have no interest in making a new page for it. Inexpiable (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I moved it back to article space and redeleted it per the WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
IRC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I've just been banned from the #wikipedia-en-help chat thing in IRC. I did absolutely nothing wrong, I helped users - giving good advice, in accord with all Wikipedia rules.
Is there anything I can do to appeal the ban?
I was banned by "Waggie" apparently.
I've tried speaking to that user, but have had no response.
I would like to continue talking there - in particular, a user was asking about their draft about a motorcycle, and I was helping them make it more suitable for inclusion.
Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mind logging in to your actual Wikipedia account? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Jeske, I'll comment in IRC.
- For info, here is more IRC discussion;
(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Given IRC logs should not be posted here, I'll say this: you were being patently unhelpful and rude to a helpee which resulted in that helpee then getting frustrated and rude themselves. You've refused to work with other helpers and in fact, have been banned previously for this exact same behavior. This isn't an AN problem, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here. But good luck with whatever your crusade is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- I tried to appeal, and got further 'banned'. Apparently, we cannot even talk about these things - which seems the antithesis of Wikipedia.
(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- As you were in the room and can read, the top of each WMF channel explicitly states "No public logging" yet you've posted the logs here, publicly. I'd imagine that's the reason for your ban. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
For those interested in background info: Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Archive 1. Killiondude (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: The IP was an evading banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GoodDay (or whoever), the IP was recently blocked for ban evasion but then unblocked on another admin's assurances that they were not the banned editor. Are they a different banned editor? Is there any chance someone can elaborate on this at all, or is it private info? Please email me if necessary. (courtesy ping Yamla and Huon) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Consider it a +12 year veteran Wikipedian's intuition. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please restore link
to thread above for an I-Ban. We hope (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I reposted here as the link isn't working since the mass revdel. We hope (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- 22:28, 24 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2,410) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (→I-Ban request: new section) We hope (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Its struck on my contribuions page. We hope (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I had to oversight a whole bunch of revisions, for an unrelated reason. While you couldn't link to a diff of your post (and it was technically not possible for me to restore it), you could still link to the section, which was never deleted. Or, you could do what you did below, that works too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The odd thing is that the post itself remained online here but the link to it was struck and wouldn't work. I reposted the original request below. We hope (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not odd, that's how revdel and suppression work; I can explain more on your talk if you want, but I always imagine most people's eyes glazing over and them giving me the "I could not possibly care less" vibe when I start explaining the minutiae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Suppose that I've never been in the right place at the right time for it to happen-like viewing a total eclipse. ;) We hope (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not odd, that's how revdel and suppression work; I can explain more on your talk if you want, but I always imagine most people's eyes glazing over and them giving me the "I could not possibly care less" vibe when I start explaining the minutiae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The odd thing is that the post itself remained online here but the link to it was struck and wouldn't work. I reposted the original request below. We hope (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I had to oversight a whole bunch of revisions, for an unrelated reason. While you couldn't link to a diff of your post (and it was technically not possible for me to restore it), you could still link to the section, which was never deleted. Or, you could do what you did below, that works too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I-Ban request
Can someone here convince User:Volvlogia to try being civil? This stems from the thread he opened at ANI yesterday. When no one removed this polemic from his user page I did saying he could take me to ANI about it. When he continued altering my comments here, I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments. He then posted to my talk page to let me know "You are a hypocrite".
Apparently for removing the previous polemic, he posted more directed at me: "Censorship, served hot and fresh by we hope!" The thread about 3RR was then posted to ANI with the following note: "WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange." Today he removed my post from another editor's talk page and pinged me (not knowing he's muted) with the comment "{WP:POLEMIC. I think {{ping:we hope}} can agree there's precedent)".
The matter went from ANI to ArbCom yesterday. I've never been in contact with this editor before he started the ANI thread. Since then it's been almost continual harassment and personal attacks apparently because I don't see things his way. I would like a one-way I-Ban to stop the harassment directed at me by the editor. We hope (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to me like an attempt to distract from the larger issue a hand: the ArbCom debate. I'll cooperate with discussion here, but I don't think my behavior is at all comparable to Cassianto's, in scale or scope. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No-it's an attempt to stop your unwarranted PAs and harassment which is fully documented in the links above. We hope (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Stop bringing others into this who have nothing to do with this issue-it's YOU and your attacks/polemics and harassment we're here to discuss. We hope (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no desire to speak to you. I had no initial intention of speaking to you. The issue I raised which started this is with Cassianto, I have no desire to speak with you outside of the context of this discussion. I hope that this is the last time we exchange messages, I have no intention of interacting with you. I have never targeted you, only responded. Please do not respond to me, we can both let it go and allow the ArbCom debate to continue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- So why all of the above if you want nothing to do with me? I certainly feel the same about you but I've not done any of the things you have. I want a formal I-Ban, not just this "agreement". We hope (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- "...I've not done any of the things you have." You accuse me of improperly posting a polemic on my talk page. In frustration, I accused you of censorship. Here are two instances of you speaking negatively of me in similar ways. You posted a polemic on Cassianto's talk page describing me as a "Tinfoil Hat" wearer. Later, you posted on Serial Number 54921's talk page a post against me, which I took issue with, as you took issue with my accusing you of censorship. In addition, "I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments.", here you are altering a comment to add {{RPA}}, which spurred my editing of your comment with {{RPA}}. This can hopefully be my final response to this inquiry, unless an admin requests otherwise.--Volvlogia (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Again-posting polemics like that is against the rules; you saw fit to post two of them. The post on Cassianto's page has no names connected with it. What you have been doing refers to people BY NAME. Warning you about 3RR and about refactoring comments of others which are also in the rules caused you to post this on my talk page to inform me I was a hypocrite. There are also no names connected with the post you removed on someone else's talk page. It's against the rules to remove someone else's posts from anywhere but your OWN talk page. You also tried pinging me but you're muted. Not adding "nowiki /nowiki" to the ping template results in a red link-and it was the ping template {{ping:we hope}}. When the second polemic was brought up at ANI an admin removed it from your user page. When you removed my post from another editor's talk page, you were warned by an admin to stop. It's of no concern to me whether you continue responding here or not-what is of concern is that your incivility/polemics and harassment directed at me do--with a formal I-Ban. We hope (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- "...I've not done any of the things you have." You accuse me of improperly posting a polemic on my talk page. In frustration, I accused you of censorship. Here are two instances of you speaking negatively of me in similar ways. You posted a polemic on Cassianto's talk page describing me as a "Tinfoil Hat" wearer. Later, you posted on Serial Number 54921's talk page a post against me, which I took issue with, as you took issue with my accusing you of censorship. In addition, "I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments.", here you are altering a comment to add {{RPA}}, which spurred my editing of your comment with {{RPA}}. This can hopefully be my final response to this inquiry, unless an admin requests otherwise.--Volvlogia (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- So why all of the above if you want nothing to do with me? I certainly feel the same about you but I've not done any of the things you have. I want a formal I-Ban, not just this "agreement". We hope (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no desire to speak to you. I had no initial intention of speaking to you. The issue I raised which started this is with Cassianto, I have no desire to speak with you outside of the context of this discussion. I hope that this is the last time we exchange messages, I have no intention of interacting with you. I have never targeted you, only responded. Please do not respond to me, we can both let it go and allow the ArbCom debate to continue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Stop bringing others into this who have nothing to do with this issue-it's YOU and your attacks/polemics and harassment we're here to discuss. We hope (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No-it's an attempt to stop your unwarranted PAs and harassment which is fully documented in the links above. We hope (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Sosnowiec article fiction
Referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_User:83.29.46.96_(Result:_Semi) and based on Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis I demand taking down Sosnowiec article blockade and/or reverting fiction forced by User:Poeticbent here: [4].--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)