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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 20 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 136 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 133 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 117 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 84 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 66 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 52 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 51 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 46 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 38 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	31	0	31
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	24	0	24
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	38	0	38
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 46 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 12 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 121 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 121 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 115 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 112 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 103 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 97 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 97 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 90 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 83 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 57 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 20 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 7671 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C User talk:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz User:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pppery Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/AA Daniel Case List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees Uttar Pradesh 2024-05-04 04:45 indefinite edit,move raise to indef ECP per request at RFPP and review of protection history Daniel Case StoneToss 2024-05-04 04:12 2024-08-04 04:12 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Palestinian key 2024-05-04 04:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of national symbols of Palestine 2024-05-04 04:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Disinvestment from Israel 2024-05-04 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-05-03 18:04 2024-05-12 05:38 edit,move raised to ECP as one disruptive user is autoconfirmed Daniel Case Shakespeare authorship question 2024-05-03 14:22 indefinite edit Article name was changed without consensus SouthernNights Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) 2024-05-03 02:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ze'ev Jabotinsky 2024-05-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Yamla

'spamblacklistlog' user right and grant

Hi again, fellow administrators! I ran into an interesting discovery when going through some guidelines pages and reviewing user rights and grants just now. When viewing Wikipedia:Edit filter helper, the documentation states that the 'spamblacklistlog' right (the ability for the user to view the spam blacklist log) is included with the Edit Filter Helper user right. This is correct, and I have no objection to this what-so-ever. However, when viewing the list of grants and the list of group rights, I found that the 'spamblacklistlog' right is also currently granted to the 'Users' group, meaning that all user accounts (anyone logged-in and not viewing as an anonymous user) have the ability to see the spam blacklist log. I of course tested it and confirmed this to be true. In fact, when attempting to view the spam blacklist log as an anonymous user, the error states that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Edit filter helpers" and lists both user groups explicitly. This naturally brings up some questions and concerns:

1. Why is the 'spamblacklistlog' right granted to both the 'Users' group and the "Edit Filter Helpers" user right? This makes including the right with the Edit Filter Helper user rights redundant and completely unnecessary if all user accounts are supposed to be able to access and view this log... I don't understand why this would be done on purpose (if that's the case).
2. What is the actual, intended, and/or community discussed and agreed-upon level of access that users and accounts should have regarding access to this log? Did something accidentally or unintentionally change? Did a developmental overlook or oversight occur that allowed this change to occur (if that's what happened)?

One of two possible causes or conclusions come to my mind (at the time of this writing at least). Either:

1. The 'spamblacklistlog' was granted to the 'Users' group purposely and we just didn't remove the redundant grant from the "Edit filter helpers" user right (AKA we didn't fully clean up after ourselves when we implemented this change), or
2. The 'spamblacklistlog' user right is not supposed to be granted to the 'Users' group and an overlook or unintentional change caused this to happen.

What happened? What am I seeing here? Why is the user right granted in this way? Am I missing something? I'm concerned that the issue is the later of the two possible conclusions I drew and that we're allowing a wider range of users access to this log than what was decided and what should be given... Any input or comments would be extremely helpful. As always, I appreciate all of your time and I thank you in advance for helping to resolve the issue or redundancy here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, buckets o' beans... and most interesting reading it is ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See this discussion. Guess it's a case of not cleaning up redundant grants. Κσυπ Cyp   08:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyp - Thanks a relief to see. I'd rather see that this is a simple case of redundancy than to see that we accidentally granted permissions to users that shouldn't have them. It would be a good idea (for good programming practices) to have that redundant right removed from the EFH user right (since you obviously must be a user to be given the EFH right). I'll see if it's more appropriate to comment on the existing phab ticket or to create a new one. Thanks for the response and for the information :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• phab:T64781, resolved last Feb, made it available to (pretty) everyone. That was weird to me as well since I recall the time when I needed to be sysop to see sbl log in 2015. — regards, Revi 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  Apparently the develops decided that it was fine for everyone... — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats on e-mail

I have been contacted by a user who has received a legal threat via Wikipedia e-mail. As far as I can tell, no threat has been made on-wiki. Does Wikipedia: No legal threats apply to Wikipedia e-mail? SpinningSpark 16:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not: It is still clearly intended to have a chilling effect (even if to a restricted audience), and the fact that someone has found a "secret" method to do so should surely not go rewarded by their receiving different (read: no) treatment to what they would have received had they done similar on-Wiki. Imho, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes this murky is the sentence "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia." The question I need resolved is does "posted on Wikipedia" include Wikipedia e-mail? SpinningSpark 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I would tell the editor receiving the threat to post to the talk page of the editor making the threat telling them not to email again and any future emails would be forwarded to Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• The policy applies only to threats made on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree the policy is not clear, outside that a legal threat anywhere visible on WP is clearly actionable, but it says nothing either way towards external tools enabled by WP/WMF servers. I would think it should qualify, since not qualifying could open the door for harassment and other problems. (Hypothetical: editor A includes negative material on a company that is well-sourced and otherwise meets content policy, that company sends A several WP emails threatening them to remove the content or be sued). Since the use of email (though not the contents) should be something that can be traced, it should be something that we can handle and deal with. --Masem (t) 17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree too, to me e-mail legal threats is probably closer to off-wiki harassment. I would follow NeilN's advice. Alex Shih (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading that, I do agree too, it's easier to quality NLT through WP email as off-wiki harassment, but I think we should make that clear the NLT policy, to make it explicit. --Masem (t) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• The problem is that, while emailing somene a legal threat is essentially the same thing as posting one on their talk page, we need to see it or it would be afar to easy to do a joe job and get somebody blocked. If it can’t be verified that it came from their WP account’s email, there’s no way to verify the authenticity of it.

I would suggest that in a case like this that the email in question be forwarded to the functionaries, as we deal with this sort of thing sometimes. What would e needed would be the full email wih all headers, not just a copy/paste of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Inaccessible user talk page?

I attempted to add a 'welcome' template to this user talk page, but instead received a "permission error" notice advising I post a notice about this issue to this board. - ^theWOLFchild 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The title is blacklisted because of the fullwidth characters in the person's username. An admin can override it though. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure we should be allowing such a username. Perhaps WP:RFCN would be appropriate or ask them to change it? --Majora (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've started the talkpage, so anyone should be able to edit it now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the page can be edited now, which was the reason I posted here. I have since posted a notice of this report there. As for his username, it's now been brought up on an admin noticeboard, so if one of you guys think it should be addressed, that's up to you. I have no intent in going after a username unless it's some vulgar or other gross violation of username policy. This just appears to be more of a technical issue, so I won't be filing anything about it, anywhere. Thanks for the fix. - ^theWOLFchild 00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've asked the editor to change their username. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that username definitely needs to change. Depending on one's browser, Operating System, etc - they'll have an extremely hard time accessing this account's user space or navigating links to such pages. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ｔｏｍ has made almost 3,500 edits since first registering at the Old Church Slavonic WP more than six years ago; his activity's been concentrated at the German Wikipedia, where he's made more than 90% of his edits, and at Commons, where almost half of the remainder have been made. Doing anything because of the username, whether {{uw-ublock}} or less, would be out of place. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

THX + [1] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This user is primarily focused on the German Wikipedia. As an admin and global renamer, I will not force this user to consider a rename simply because they occasionally pop in on this Wikipedia. With that being said a username block IMO, is absolutely inappropriate.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am minded to agree - this username IMO does not show any risk of confusion, we all know what a space is. Wikimedia is a global movement, not everything revolves around enwiki's preferences. Actually, I think that we might want to consider narrowing down the titleblacklist and add some userspace exemptions, this isn't the first time we have had this issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Jo-Jo Eumerus; any page ought to be created if it's in the userspace or usertalkspace of an existing username and if the only title-blacklist violation is within the username itself. As long as it's written properly, the exception shouldn't permit anything bad to go through unless it's in the userspace of someone who needs a username block. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, see the history of User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 6 through User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 10 and the twelfth section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242, from late 2012. In short, some years after the 7&6=thirteen account was created, someone modified the global title blacklist to prevent the creation of pages with some components of the username, so unless something's been tweaked since late 2012, 7&6=thirteen can't create pages in his own userspace/usertalkspace. Another reason that we ought to make userspace exemptions. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

THX & good idea for ~ 600+ active users --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather deceptive comment, in that for the majority of those users, the space is between a "first name" and a "second name", not within a single name, as yours is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry there are no spaces between the single characters in |Ｔ|ｏ|ｍ| (check in source code). --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Fullwidth characters appear to have spaces when they're actually less-width letters; the "o" is narrower than the "m", so part of making it a fullwidth version of a normal character is giving it extra whitespace. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(Tag: 2017 wikitext editor)

I hope this is the right place to ask this. Why do the edit tags still say 2017 wikitext editor? Should we not create a 2018 tag?Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: that tag is about which version of the editor was used, not when the edit was made. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unban request by Light show

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

---

Link to topic ban

Per some recent topic ban issues, I would appreciate a review to my being un-banned. Most, or all, of my recent bio edits have been to revert vandalism or obvious--IMO--BLP violations. --Light show (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to support this unconditionally, but I'd be interested in a proposal to make the TBAN less onerous. What types of edits to BLP articles do you plan on making? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, looking back since a year ago, they include major and minor edits, of all types. The comments on Chaplin's talk page, which caused such an uproar and got me topic banned, were actually to topics and RfCs, edits which one would normally assume would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, there's a short discussion about this on my talk page in which I expressed my stance on this issue. Alex Shih (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think that this should be kept in mind [2] before making a decision. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Having 300 words about an accusation, creating an entire section for it, and basing it on yet another single British article, should help explain the obvious undue problem. --Light show (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that violating one's topic ban and then coming to this page to appeal it is not the brightest idea ever. Also, given that Light show is still [3] complaining about some heinous bias against American actor biographies which they need to fix (which was one of the main issues leading to the topic ban in the first place), I would decline this. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic towards some of the material that Light show removed as being material that should be carefully discussed under BLP policy (just because someone was accused of sexual misconduct does not make it an encyclopedic addition), but I think it should be clear these are not BLP violations that would be excepted from 3RR, 1RR or any topic ban, given they are sourced and these are public figures. Breaking topic ban to address those is not a wise move, and I don't think we should consider lifting the ban yet. --Masem (t) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier on my talk page about Schwarzenegger, his sexual allegation section also relies almost entirely on British news sources, and a questionable site such as The Smoking Gun. Maybe I'm just guilty of taking core BLP policies too seriously: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States.... For any American notable, I would require highly reliable U.S. sources, and never allow their bios to include implications or innuendos related to criminality using only some other country's website. IMO, when newbies, IPs and SPAs, can drive by and flood a bio with criminal accusations from a British website, WP has allowed itself to be easily corruptible.--Light show (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, your comment that so long as negative commentary about "public figures" are sourced, they're OK, is incomplete. The standard is much higher: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. It's therefore reasonable to think that defaming an American public figure with a single non-American source, would be a violation. So that even a topic banned editor dealing with it both on the talk page and with subsequent edits, should be thanked, not again bludgeoned.--Light show (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that they should be left out, but I do not read that part of BLP as "must remove", as to meet the WP:3RR exemptions from edit warring or where one may violate their topic ban. (If these were completely unsourced allegations, you'd have been in the right, but they weren't). --Masem (t) 02:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's implied in exceptions to bans, that my explaining in the edit summaries why I removed the material, along with detailed talk notices on editors' pages, that this should not summarily be dealt with as a violation of a topic ban. The opposite should be a reasonable conclusion. And at worst, a gray area, but obviously not a clear violation. --Light show (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

BANEX specifically says "obvious". The phrasing of the part of BLP that speaks of accusations does not suggest that a sourced allegation should be considered "obvious". Unsourced - yes, you'd be in the right, but not sourced ones even if they don't meet the suggestion of having multiple sources. --Masem (t) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, that's called a "technicality." But you consider it a good enough pretext to keep a 10-year editor banned. --Light show (talk)

BANEX is all about technicalities, and without those technicalities, you wouldn't be allowed to make any edits to biographies. Further, you say "10-year editor" as if you previously had a spotless record, when, in actuality, you're under three other topic bans (one against uploading images, one against any edits related to Stanley Kubrick, and the same about Peter Sellers) dating back to 2014, and you managed to slide by in the Chaplin controversy for four months before you were finally sanctioned. So please don't hold yourself up as a model editor tied down by the Lilliputians of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Could someone please post the original discussion in which the sanction was applied? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

   Done, see the top of this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggested compromise: I've been banned three times from articles, from Peter Sellers, Stanley Kubrick, and then from all bios, as a direct result of my comments on Chaplin's RfC. However, as I'm sure most of you know, all three of those bans were initiated by the same tag team, and came as AN's reasonable resolution for my complaints about their teamwork. Which is why I felt a another pillar should be considered.

Forgetting the pillar idea, but seeing that I self-imposed an IBAN on the team, I really don't foresee many more future disputes. And I generally post a talk page explanation before potentially controversial edits. For one group of problems, I first posted a discussion on Gopal's talk page an entire month before I made any changes.

While discussions may get a bit charged, they are kept reasonable and on topic, with rare edit wars. I've worked on many bios, and besides a few oddball talk page debates with others, ie. Zsa Zsa Gabor or Sharon Tate, they still get resolved. As a totally neutral party, I think lifting the ban and keeping the IBAN in place is a reasonable solution. --Light show (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comments My hope is that administrators do not consider this for even a moment, not yet anyway. Light show's copyvios at Commons (where they are indeffed) as well as their "problems" here in Wikipedia are/were very long term. A lot of patience was extended to Light show over and over, and the topic ban was a long time coming. Just as the indef at Commons was a long time coming. Light show has promised before to never do what they did in the way of copyvios - a violation that is incredibly egregious, by the way - but continued doing it anyway. And in a sneaky manner, as well. What I'm writing here doesn't even scratch the surface of how Light show thumbed their nose at policy and editors, seemingly believing they were immune to sanctions. I'm sorry, but for someone who continued to blatantly violate policy even after shorter blocks and being indeffed elsewhere within the project, I can't see how this is the time to lift the sanction. And, from their comments above, it doesn't seem they have learned a damned thing. Remember, the consensus for the topic ban proposed by SNUGGUMS was unanimous. The !votes came from editors with long, painful histories with this user. Too soon in my opinion, way too soon. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks for finally referring to me as a "they," instead of a "she," which you enjoyed doing at the commons. But I'm a bit surprised you brought up the commons indeff, implying it was neutral, since you initiated it. Although I did compliment you on your skills, where even as a newbie, you managed to get two editors banned at the same time during a single discussion, which you accomplished immediately after you offered a "friendly attempt to work things out collegially, peacefully, and productively." --Light show (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose too soon per your topic ban violation, purposefully disregarding people's counterpoints to your flawed assertions, and everything Winkelvi said. You haven't earned it, Light show. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional support I'll support limiting the restriction to be on BLPs of actors and other people in the film industry, widely construed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There's apparently a very long history here, I've only looked back to 2014 but people's animosity seems to be based partially on incidents before that. I see an editor with severe WP:OWN problems on actor's biographies, and a bizarre obsession with "American"/British" related comments. Keeping the basic TBAN in place, but limiting its scope somewhat, seems fair. I don't see their recent edits at James Woods etc. as a valid BANEX, but it's also not so egregious that I'm going to oppose their request as a result. Perhaps the ability to post new concerns at WP:BLPN should be allowed under the TBAN, so the editor feels they have an opportunity to address what they feel are serious BLP concerns productively. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Accusing me, of having "a bizarre obsession with "American"/"British" related comments," is quite the opposite of what my edits and subsequent discussions imply. And in any case, digressing onto personalities and implying agendas is against guidelines. But as for the nationality-related edits, I challenge anyone to find any nationality-related edits or comments I've ever made which are either against guidelines, unreasonable, or based on my personal opinion.

Some recent examples from talk pages might help: Simply asking whether Chaplin's bio was ignoring reliable sources, got me banned from editing all bios; Asking why it is necessary to begin Marilyn Monroe's legacy by comparing her to Mickey Mouse and having two cartoon images of her in that section; Noting that a British-American director like Hitchcock, who was an American citizen, BTW, must only be called "British"; Or noting that a British-born American actor, who was noted only as an American actor, has that fact deleted immediately after I was banned. If there is any bizarre obsession, it's not mine. I'm only focused on following guideline. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"I challenge anyone to find any nationality-related edits or comments I've ever made which are either against guidelines, unreasonable, or based on my personal opinion.". Certainly. You changed at least three biographies to show completely false American nationalities. [4] [5] [6]. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I've struck my conditional support based on this discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines regarding context in opening paragraphs prove otherwise for all three. Ignoring those guidelines was, IMO, most egregious for someone like Chaplin. --Light show (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Providing context" does not mean "adding completely false material". None of those people ever held American citizenship, even jointly. The fact they came to fame in the USA was, and is, already contextualised in the lead paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -at least for the moment, as I'm not seeing a viable argument for lifting the TBAN. What I see is essentially "time served", which, to my mind, is not sufficient. I could change my opinion if LS presents a viable argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I have indeed changed my mind, based on the appellant's attitude and argumentation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - violating the topic ban, then asking for the ban to be lifted is not the way to go about it. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since the "violating the ban" rationale is being used by most opposers, allow me to again note that I was assuming an exception based on guidelines about editing "obvious violations." I did not simply edit the apparent violation, but instead opened a talk page for the editor who added sections to five different American bios for sexual misbehavior allegations. I even waited a month with no response before I edited the violations. How else to edit such clear violations? Come here first?

In any case, just taking Dustin Hoffman's article as an example, which has 232 watchers, including some of the same editors here who "oppose" lifting the ban, the article is very well watched. Yet none of them, including admins, disputed my removing the section, to this day. At absolute worst, the excuse that simply because I supposedly "violated the ban," should be overlooked and ignored, if not appreciated, instead of dittoed as a pretext to oppose. If someone wants to add what I should have done first, that's fine. Do so. I'll know for the future. --Light show (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BANEX allows

Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.

On Dustin Hoffman, you removed two long paragraphs sourced by 17 different citations. The section had been in the article for 2 1/2 months, it had been subjected to editing, and the article overall subsequently had 39 edits made by 27 editors -- but only you saw the section as an "obvious" violation of BLP requiring removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• What could be more obvious than devoting 300 words to his entire Personal life section, but adding nearly 700 words to a Sexual misconduct accusation section? And placing them both as primary sections, equal in importance to his entire Career? Not only is that an obvious violation of undue and relevance, but its content would have received accolades from the Marquis de Sade, had he read it. My comments to Gopal point out more obvious violations. However, if no other editors/admins besides Masem sees a problem, what can I say? --Light show (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• You could say that it was not "obvious" as meant by BANEX, and apologize for the edit, and the other edits of that sort you made. You could stop trying to justify it and your other edits to biographies. You could withdraw your appeal, and come back to appeal again in another six months after not having made any edits to biographies of any sort, since your judgment as to what is "obvious" is suspect. You could say that instead of making edits that seem to you to be "obvious" violations, you will, instead, inform another editor of the problem and allow them to make the judgement, or, better yet, report the problem as you see it on the article talk page and let a consensus of editors decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Consensus can also turn out to be a sham. For example, Olivia de Havilland is described as a British-American actress, even after a lengthy RfC and a unanimous consensus decided that she should be described as an "American actress." --Light show (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

At least until some drive-by IP decided today to expunge anything related to her being an American actress. So in the template of Chaplin's bio, a reader has to go through 5,000 words of text to find any mention that she was only and always an American actress, thereby thumbing their nose at both the consensus and the MOS.--Light show (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Consensus can certainly be "wrong", depending on your point of view, but it's what we've got, and it can be challenged with new evidence or new arguments after a reasonable time has passed. In the meantime, though, we follow it or we get blocked for editing against it, something you'd do well to learn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• So we "let consensus decide," until someone who thinks it's wrong ignores it? I challenge anyone, once again, to find a single article edit where I have gone against consensus. I'm obviously not including talk pages. Good luck! What you'll discover is that even on a talk page, if someone doesn't like a person's comment, they can get them banned. All of my bans were from comments made only on talk pages. --Light show (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Has not acknowledged the problematic editing that brought about the ban - except to blame others. The posts here are illustrative of why said ban was enacted in the first place. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone can only be considered for unban once they actually spend some time abiding by said ban. Light Show clearly has no respect for the ban and has never followed it. --AdamF in MO (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still at it, per User:MarnetteD. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_guidelines_on_sexual_allegation_sections, below. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not convinced by the editor's understanding of exceptions, as noted by several others above. This appeal should be closed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The topic ban was implemented on 15 August 2017. Lightshow pushed the point on his own talk page, probably unaware that the scope of the restriction against him included these sorts of comments, but he was given a very clear outline of his restrictions by Only in death. Despite that, he made a further infringing comment and was blocked for it; his subsequent unblock request showed no grasp of the reason for the block, and the appeal was rejected. Since 19 February this year Light show has breached the restriction against him on several occasions and on several articles:

• Talk page message re Philip Glass, a biography
• Talk page message re five biographies
• edits and talk page comments about Dustin Hoffman, a biography
• edits about Marlon Brando, a biography
• edits and talk page comments about James Woods, a biography
• edits and talk page comments about Brett Ratner, a biography
• edits and talk page comments about Jeremy Piven, a biography
• edits and page comments about Bryan Singer, a biography

There is nothing in his topic ban that allows these edits or comments. I remain unconvinced that Lightshow actually understands why the topic ban was put in place, or what those restrictions actually mean in practical terms. – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to add the context. The reason why I left such a clearly worded explanation is that I wanted Light show to continue to contribute and not fall into the trap some editors who are topic banned do - and edit around or unintentionally due to not understanding what a topic ban is and no one taking the time to explain it to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose if you expect a topic ban to be lifted then it helps if you've actually abided by that ban in the first place and explain why the issues which caused the ban to be imposed won't happen again. Hut 8.5 08:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

X1 Cleanup complete

Hello everyone. I'm pleased to report that after checking over 70,000 redirects created by User:Neelix, over the course of nearly 2 and a half years, the cleanup is finally complete. Pinging some major contributors to the cleanup (Not an exclusive list, and in no particular order): @Tavix:, @Nyttend:, @Legacypac:, @SimonTrew:, @Beeblebrox:, @Oiyarbepsy:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights: - Thank you all. I'd like to invite the community to audit our work. The full lists of redirects may be found here and here. X1 was set up to be a temporary criterion, and will automatically expire once the problem has been resolved. It therefore will be retired after an audit is performed. I think a week is plenty of time to perform this audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully this should be the last of it. The very last few are working their way through RfD now, so giving the community a week to check things over should suffice as one last check before putting this fiasco behind us once and for all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Just to clarify, as I'm not entirely familiar with the situation, are all of the Neelix redirects being deleted? Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 03:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

very unfortunately editors voted we could not nuke them all - editors who had no intention of cleaning up tens of thousands of stupid/wrong/useless/misleading redirects created by Neelix. We had to manually check them all and CSD, retarget or RfD one by one them. Granted he actually created a few useful redirects, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The benefit of keeping the few useful ones was not worth the pain of deleting the rest one by one. An important lesson for the future. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd look at the raw lists. The 70,000 redirects are approximately evenly split between keeps and deletes - A blanket approach was going to have a 5 figure number of mistakes. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful redirects of some value would be recreated but reviewing these was a HUGE job. Many of the keeps are useless but not worth the effort or debate to delete. Anyway we are done and any more can be RfD bound. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The intention is that all redirects that are going to be deleted have been deleted (save a small number at RfD), and all that are intended to be kept, have been kept. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who did the hard work! Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Should User:Anomie/Neelix list and its 7 subpages then be deleted? Also, should Template:Db-x1 be deleted with a TfD? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support the repeal of X1 now, and the consequential deletion archiving of Template:Db-x1. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would keep them for historical reference, but tagging them as historical would be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste time on an audit. If a redirect was needed badly enough, someone would recreate it. 90 percent of them were total trash. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed no need to waste even more time on this with an audit. Repeal X1 and delete the template. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is great news. This was such a big project, my thanks to everyone who helped finally get it done. Agree that if those directly involved are convinced we’re done there is not need for further ado on the subject, on which so many of us have spent too much time already. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related X2

What's the status with the Content Translation Tool cleanup? Now is as good a time as any to check in on that, seeing as we're about to repeal one of the X criteria; if that's finished too we can kill two birds with one stone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Prolific spammer

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

---

• bruceduffie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'm surprised that nobody caught this until now, but of Douglasburton (talk · contribs)'s nearly 800 edits from 2009 to present, the vast majority of them (from his 11th edit to his latest edit) have been spamming blog articles from "http://www.bruceduffie.com". In my opinion these all need to be removed and the user prevented from further spamming. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If they're all in elinks, and if they're all determined to be non-RS, then I can throw up a bot run to remove 'em all. Otherwise, there are 618 uses of the URL, so it's not a huge amount to go through manually. Also, as a minor note, it doesn't look like the user has ever been questioned about their editing habits. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support either of those if others agree; plus the user needs to be officially topic-banned from adding anything from that site or pertaining to Bruce Duffie. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think an immediate TBAN is a bit excessive, given that no one has ever asked them to stop. That would be like taking away someone's driving license the first time they got caught speeding. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, blocking him would be that; preventing him from using Wikipedia almost solely to promote himself (I assume he is Bruce Duffie or a close associate) is what we normally do with spammers. We could allow him to post requested edits on article talk if he really believes something is pertinent. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Practically all of the links added by Douglasburton are to transcripts of radio interviews with the guest. They appear on a professional site, NOT a blog. The interviews aired on WNIB, a commercial classical music station in Chicago. Since most of the links are on the pages which pertain directly to the guest, they should be helpful to anyone who desires first-person information about that guest. In cases where the guest is still alive when the interview was posted, all responses from them have been completely positive. If there is any specific reason that these should not be included in the Wikipedia article, I would be interested in knowing why. Thank you. Douglasburton —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If they all aired on WNIB, who owns the copyright? --Izno (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm pretty sure that the full text of a radio interview first aired in 1981 ([7]) is a fairly straightforward copyright violation, and therefore should not be linked to period, regardless of any potential educational value. Similarly with the other link, although worse. There's definitely some content in there that's fair game, but there's also plenty of images and even full-text newspaper articles published after 1923, which, unless we know the author died prior to 1948, are clear no-gos regardless of the source of the interview. That's well outside fair use territory, and if this is a pattern on even most of the links, we're probably in situation where we have no other option but to remove them wholesale unless each one can be individually vetted. GMG^talk 14:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, I took a look at a couple of them and I'd say the links themselves are actually good unlike most "interview" links that get put on biographies. So I don't think there is an issue with the links themselves. They do definitely add a lot more than our articles. There is a question of whether Douglasburton is spamming or not, but I think they're worthwhile. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was going to suggest that Softlavender actually look at some of the interviews, rather than just the list of links. The www.brucedufie.com website is like a book, and each interview is a chapter. So, one has to always go the same book to start, but that is not spam. Spam is a wide solicitation, and nothing like that is intended. I hope this helps. Douglasburton —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The interviews were done by Bruce Duffie for WNIB, and he owns the copyright for all of them. The owners and management of WNIB knew this and approved it at the time. Douglasburton —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Um... no unfortunately. It's actually much more complicated than that. There's actually three copyrights involved, one for the recording, one for the broadcast, and one for the transcript as a literary work. GMG^talk 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Bruce Duffie made the original recording and owns the copyright to it. WNIB aired the interview, and since many transcripts were made and published during the time, WNIB agreed that such use was permitted. The transcript as a literary work was done by Bruce Duffie, so any copyright is also under his control. Is this not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasburton (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Question, how do you know what Bruce Duffie's agreement with the station was? Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I leave the copyright questions to others, it's complex as you say and I don't begin to understand it. I think the links provide encyclopaedic value, but whether they're legal or not I'm clueless. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The assumption made by Softlavender (that Douglasburton is Bruce Duffie or a close associate) is correct. Douglasburton —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is it? Canterbury Tail talk 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been around for nearly 10 years on Wikipedia. Would you please start signing your posts. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Diannaa: to sanity check me, since I've spent the last 30 minutes trying to sort this out in my own head. I... feel that it would be highly unusual for a transcript (previously published in print in 1985) of a radio broadcast of a sound recording to... exist in a way where one person would own the exclusive rights down that whole chain. GMG^talk 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Each medium will have its own copyrights. When I was doing sound engineering for an orchestra, the composer/family/publisher owned the copyright of the score (so we had to pay a license to play it), but I owned the copyright to the recording itself (because I was the one doing... the recording). If I were actually working for them the orchestra would own the copyright. So I can see how the radio station could own the copyright to the audio but Duffie could hold the copyright to the transcription. Whether that holds across the book/internet translation is beyond me, but I haven't looked deep enough into that connection to see it. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And to get to GMG's concern, I think it would be possible for Person A to record an interview, allow station B to broadcast it, and then go on to publish a transcription of said interviews. Now, if Station B had been the first ones to do so, it might be different, but it sounds like the chain all starts from A. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is understandable that such a rare occurrence would confuse you, but this is what was done... Bruce Duffie gathered interviews on his own time and at his own expense. The radio station allowed him to air portions of them. Since they did not assign them as work-product, they had no hold on them. When Duffie transcribed them and had them published in non-profit journals, the agreement was that he retained all rights. Now that they are being posted on his website, he still retains any and all rights. As to photos, he has been careful NOT to use any which belong to commercial newspapers, etc., and when quoting from published sources (a rare thing for these interviews), he cites and credits them. If there are any mistakes with that, he has asked to be informed, and changes or corrections will be made. This has happened less than five times, and each correction was approved by the complainant. In most cases (wherever possible), the link is sent to the guest and/or the agent, and always is met with gratitude and compliments. Many of the guests' websites have added the link, and a couple have even re-posted the material in its entirety. The material has been used in obituaries in the New York Times, and other major papers and magazines. The interviews have been cited in many books, dissertations, and theses - as shown in Google searches. This is said only to show that the work is appreciated, and finding it via Wikipedia is important. Duffie is not making any monetary profit from this, so spamming is not an issue. Again, my thanks to everyone, and I hope this clears up the controversy. Douglasburton 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: When an editor admits that they are Bruce Duffie, and spends most of their wiki time promoting himself by adding his blog posts to ELs (his other edits have been few and extremely minor), that is the very definition of WP:SPAM. It is also by definition WP:NOTHERE. Can we please remove all of the blog posts and restrict the editor from posting them? If the editor really is here to build an encyclopedia, he is obviously free to do that by contributing without posting links to Bruce Duffie's blog. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reply: I truly do not understand what the problem is. If I was giving these interviews to the Encyclopedia Britannica, then all the links would start with their URL. I am simply self-publishing these interviews, and so they all appear on my professional website. This is NOT a blog. It is a place where these professional interviews are posted. I am not interested in any specific promotion of Bruce Duffie. My aim is to promote the artists. This is confirmed by people who actually read the interviews, including a couple of those who have added comments on this page. Your complaint began when I added a link to the Richard Wagner page, and you removed the link to my article. I understand that, and will not attempt to replace that link. It goes to an article, not an interview - one of the few articles I have written. The article, as you stated, was not specific enough for inclusion on the Wagner page. I agree, and am sorry to have made that mistake. But the interviews with musicians are directly on point. They are one-on-one conversations with the specific person of the Wikipedia entry. How can that not be appropriate, no matter where it's found on the internet? I hope this makes it clear that NO self-promotion is intended. I have the rights to these interviews, and am posting them to share them with anyone who cares to look at them. My claim of no self-promotion is backed up by the fact that on a couple of occasions, people have asked me to put up a Wikipedia page for Bruce Duffie, and it has been declined. He does not want that. His only interest is giving the artists' ideas wider circulation. Allowing the interviews a place on their Wikipedia pages does just that. I am truly sorry this has caused you any discomfort, and hope you now understand the reasons these links should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Douglasburton 10:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE. You have added your own name [8], your own interviews, and your own website to External Links on Wikipedia articles more than 600 times. This violates WP:SPAM and WP:COI. In fact, that's virtually all you've been doing on Wikipedia, and it seems in fact the only reason you joined Wikipedia. This violates WP:NOTHERE. If you cannot see those points, I'm afraid you do not understand Wikipedia's purpose, principles, and policies. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Question: If someone else had added these links to the various pages, would that change things? Is it just that I am adding my own material? Douglasburton 9:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If anybody had added articles from the same personal website to Wikipedia external links 600+ times, and that was virtually all they did on Wikipedia, then it would be a case of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE. If someone adds their own name to Wikipedia 600+ times, and links to articles on their own personal website 600+ times, then it's a case of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI. Either way, it's blatant mass promotionalism and needs to be removed. The most leeway allowed after this spree of wiki-spamming should be the ability to make edit requests (with clear WP:COI declared) on article talkpages, where experienced uninvolved editors can decide whether they belong in the article. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Because each interview is individual, and relates directly and completely to the person of the Wikipedia page, why would an uninvolved person have any objection? The only problem seems to be that they all reside on a single website. As I mentioned, it's like chapters in a book. I cannot change the name of the website, but I can stop adding the name a second time. The link would just be <<Interview with (guest) on (date)>> rather than <<Interview with (guest) by Bruce Duffie on (date)>> Does that help at all? I would even be happy to go back and delete that second use of the name... As you see, I am trying very hard to work with you in order to keep the material available. As noted earlier, virtually all outside (uninvolved) viewers have praised the interviews. It is NOT for me at all. Douglasburton 10:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to be listening. You've been spamming Wikipedia for more than 8 years (as clearly your primary purpose for even being on this site), and that spam needs to be removed, and you need to stop this behavior. Trying to rationalize and keep your spam online is not really appropriate here until the spam is removed, in my opinion. If your editing had otherwise proved that you were here to build an encyclopedia, you might have had a case, but since virtually your only activity here has been posting your own links, that doesn't really hold water, and in my opinion your repeated pleas to keep the spam online are cluttering up this administrator's discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I really think one could ease up a little on hammering an apparent good-faith contributor here. Leaving aside the copyright issues (which look as if they could be sorted out) for the moment, is there actually any contention that the interviews do NOT constitute useful encyclopedic sources? From sampling a few, I would say that this is useful and professionally presented material, to which the identity of the interviewer is completely incidental. It's not as if the thousands of links to Roger Ebert's movie reviews are treated as promotional for Ebert, after all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Before you remove any of the links, let's try your idea. Select any 10 (ten) of the interviews. Go to their talk pages and ask if the link is appropriate to the article. Do you think that is a fair way to evaluate the situation? Douglasburton 11:09, 27 March 2018

Oppose that proposal. Obvious and deliberate spam/self-promotion is obvious and deliberate spam/self-promotion, and has apparently been your only purpose for being on Wikipedia, and it should all be removed. If you are really concerned about Wikipedia rather than promoting yourself and your website, then I suggest substantively editing Wikipedia, cited by reliable independent sources unconnected to yourself. Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I became involved with Wikipedia because I thought I could contribute something worthwhile. I am sorry that the only things I can contribute are my interviews, and a few incidental updates and corrections. If I had more to give, I would do so. I am only able to give what I can, and apparently you feel this is inadequate. I don't want to just add things to add things. That would be ego-building, and I'm NOT about that. I do wonder, however, why you think my list is different from Ebert (as mentioned by Elmidae)? He makes a good point, and it seems to be spot-on with this discussion. Douglasburton 11:40 27 March 2018

Douglasburton, just as a note, Softlavender is just one participant in this discussion; their views are not the sum total of this conversation. I thank you for being civil and respectful during these conversations, but just because one editor is against your actions doesn't necessarily mean that we all are. I haven't looked into this case, but reading through this thread it sounds like there are a couple of people who somewhat support what you've done. Either way it looks like someone will be unhappy about the outcome of this discussion, but that is unfortunately the way of life some times. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, thank you so very much for helping me understand what is going on. I have stated my thoughts and reasons, and hope they are sufficient. Douglasburton 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, I think we should be a little more circumspect before immediately jumping to conclusion that an editor is a spammer or copyright violator. These edits appear to have been made in good faith and the collected interviews are a valuable resource for the various subjects. I'd leave it to subject area experts to determine whether the external links add value on a case-by-case basis. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• I've seen this link before and checked it out. I chose not to pursue as I don't see this as spam..no ads, no products, no sales. In my opinion, this is okay and I don't see any real promotion or problem. This is an archive of interviews.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think these links add value. As long as the COI is declared for the links, I don't see an issue. The interviews are actually quite valuable in my opinion, and to lose them over this would be a net negative to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree that these links are not spam, which is a term pertaining to monetary profit. There is no advertising or other financial advantage in question here. While I can see how the argument that they are self-promotional might hold a bit of water, the offer to remove the name of the interviewer from the External Links listings seems more than fair. These, from what I have read so far, in my view, are good interviews that add encyclopedic value to the articles they are added to. Deleting the links is, as Canterbury Tail notes, a net negative. Sanctions to Douglasburton? Give ‘um a barnstar. And frankly, this never should have been brought here, especially under the inflammatory title, confrontational rhetoric and urgent requests for an immediate TBAN. How about some common sense? Jusdafax (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you to the last few respondents for your support and kindness, and understanding of my aims. I will modify new links to omit the second mention of my name, and I will also go back and remove that mention in old links... though that will take awhile! BTW, what is <<COI>>? Am I doing it correctly? Let me know so I don't make any further blunders. Douglasburton (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Douglasburton, COI is short for conflict of interest, a guideline which you should be sure to read. I don't think anyone would mind you removing your name as suggested but you may want to wait a little bit before adding new links. We are consensus-driven and this hasn't necessarily been decided yet. I see that you have added a couple more but you may want to wait until this thread has concluded.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Got it. I'll continue to remove my name, but will not add anything further until I am told it's OK. Thanks. Douglasburton (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Douglasburton: May I ask you, while you are at it, to also review our external links guideline. Although I agree that there is often important information in (good) interviews, we do have criteria that the added link should actually add information over what is already contained in the article, and the other external links, to avoid that we create a linkfarm of related material. Moreover, the guideline also contains the strong suggestion to use the material into the article and use the interview as a reference (which I think will be possible in many cases where the link is currently an external link). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Dirk Beetstra, thanks for this pointer. Before an interview is posted on my site, I edit the transcript. In doing so, I consult other sources, including the Wikipedia article. In no case would I post something which is merely duplicate material. The conversations ran from at least 40 minutes to sometimes as much as 90 minutes, so there is much more material than could ever be in a Wikipedia article. I say this not to boast, but to assure you that there will be more material than is on Wikipedia. Take a look at any of them, and you'll see the depth and variety of the conversation. Douglasburton (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• HELP! I've been making corrections to the pages to eliminate the name (about 50 done so far, and doing a few every day). However, someone else (user HI) undid my correction to the page on composer Philip Glass, and stated "previous wording was fine". So, should I undo his undo, or just leave this one alone? I could explain to him that the Wikipedia Administrators have asked me to make the change. But let me know how you wish me to handle this one. Thanks for your guidance. Douglasburton (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would leave it. If another editor wants to keep the name in there, then that's fine. I think it's probably just important you don't actively put it there yourself. Should someone else put it there, then so be it, it's not a big deal. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will continue to remove the name from other pages, but will leave Philip Glass alone (with the name re-inserted by the other editor). Douglasburton (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Question: As I continue to remove my name from various pages, I noticed on one page that two small fixes need to be done. May I do those? I don't want to be accused of adding anything yet..... Thanks for your advice. Douglasburton (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Please do. Since the attempt to sanction you has clearly run its course, I request we close this report with no action, except perhaps a trout for the filer, who I would think more kindly of were they to finalize this with an brief apology to all concerned. And thanks for sharing your lovely interviews. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I appreciate your kind words, and am glad to be able to simply continue with my work on behalf of my musical guests. Douglasburton (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Admin protected Atom (book) : requesting redirect

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

---

Atom (book) is currently a redlink protected from creation. It looks like it was the subject of some controversy in 2015, but I humbly request it be created as a redirect to Atom (disambiguation)#Literature, as there are at least two book articles on Wikipedia named Atom (Atom (Krauss book) and Atom (Asimov book)). Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~ GB fan 11:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedi0

While browsing the User talk:Jimbo Wales page I clicked on a link that sent me to a proxy website https://en.wikipedi0.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regenerative_medicine&diff=611563111&oldid=611559645 which was almost identical to Wikipedia and showed some Bitcoin thing or other. Is that some kind of cryptocurrency mining thing or what? I've edited the link there, not sure if that was the right thing to do (the link was added by SandyGeorgia, probably by accident) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

From my iPhone, No idea what that was about but thanks for editing the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I am on a computer now, at clinic. That is a very weird thing, and I appreciate that you corrected the link. It makes me uncomfortable that, when clicking on the link, I get a message that says "you are centrally logged in", but I am not logged in. Worried if that means something nefarious is happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a simple mirror. The banner at the bottom says "Buy a coffee for the developer of this wikipedia proxy site", with a bitcoin address for donations. After a quick look, I see nothing "nefarious" in there. Isa (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I figured out now how I inadvertently got to that link, via google search, and I should have been paying more attention. I was juggling too many things at once, and just did not notice the faulty URL. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

pls. block Thai editor user:Btsmrt12

Moved to WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Community comment requested – ArbCom discretionary sanctions procedure modification

The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures:

• In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors, insert below the existing text: The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
• In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Important notes, in the second bullet point: While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion:_Discretionary_sanctions_appeals_update

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Should these edits be redacted?

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

---

A few minutes ago, an IP has added edits on Willy relating to a banned user, Willy on Wheels while also discovering a dreadful edit summary. (See here and here) I've reverted them back to the last good version, but also wondering if these edits should be removed from public view? Minima© (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL explains how to make such a request. Iffy★Chat -- 11:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to REVDEL these. By the way, Willy's main account is not User:Willy on Wheels but User:WoW; see Special:Contributions/WoW~enwiki and its impressive second edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I RD3'd the poop emoji edit summary, but nothing else is terribly disruptive. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave the IP a timeout to rethink their life. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick

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

---

Can an admin take a look at Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick? I believe the article should simply be deleted on NOTNEWS and A7 grounds but at the very least, the names of minors supposedly implicated should be rev-deleted (I've temporarily removed them). Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've stripped it down and tagged it A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have done the revdel. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I put it up for AFD while Beyond My Ken was tagging for A7. I'm not 100% certain that A7 applies in light of the 48 hours reference, the CNN reference, and the "No Bullying" campaign reference. Putting a AFD ensures that if the A7 doesn't apply, we do call the question of feasability. Hasteur (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the A7 tag. AfD is a better and more definitive venue and will ensure against recreation. I have removed the "no bullying" reference as not a Reliable Source; that still leaves significant coverage from two mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Same creator and no better. No refs, reads like copyvio of a news report Death of Zachary Bearheels speedy it as ? Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• In fact this user is quickly creating unreferenced bios too [9] . Perhaps they shoild stop creating new pages and focus on making each creation not speedy deletable or PROD worthy. New user of 5 days. Would have been slowed down by WP:ACREQ. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's an appropriate criteria, but I nominated the page Legacypac referenced G10, primarily to blank the mass BLP violation. Wonder when the Friday they refer to is? John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

All their creations are under some deletion process now. They contested several with blank or poor English meaningless reasons. This helps prove the WP:ACREQ point. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Marconoplay

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

---

Needs a WP:CIV block. Creating and recreating crappy pages and from his talkpage comments evidently clueless or unable to understand English. See User talk:Marconoplay and Special:Contributions/Marconoplay. Brought to my attention by recreation and speedy tag removal on a page I NPR'd. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections

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

---

Resolved

 – More or less. WP:BOOMERANG has landed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noted earlier an endless number of BLPs that have what can be considered egregious violations of guidelines, if not U.S. laws regarding defamation, ie. they must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, per BLP. I won't bother listing the dozen or so I've noticed so far, but will if requested. I happened to come across another one just now, Casey Affleck, which has 1,000 words in his Personal life section, of which 700 are devoted to a single accusation and civil lawsuit. It even includes details from the lawsuit itself, with a link to the case pdf file. Which could imply that during the pending civil case, where money is demanded, WP gets to be used as a scandal sheet, affect careers and reputations, and likely cost the target of the material serious financial damage. It also implies criminality.

The editors who contributed to that allegation section included about 10 different people, some newbies and some old hands. But the editors who recently worked on the article generally include some very experienced old hands, yet none made any changes and left it in.

For one of the sexual allegation editors I've come across, who did not work on the Affleck article, but many others, I posted some suggestions over a month ago, but they never replied and discontinued their editing WP soon after my message. And I'm not sure what this means, but a large percentage of cites used on the many sexual allegation sections rely on British newspapers, although the article is usually about an American actor. In the case of Marlon Brando, the 300 words about an allegation all came from a single British newspaper. Is that an issue?

So what guidelines, if any, are relevant for what seems a long list of obvious violations? In case someone suggests posting a problem BLP article here for review, since I'm banned from the bio pages, that hasn't had any effect as yet as noted in my earlier unban request. In fact it had the exact opposite effect, as the few changes I made to fix those violations got reverted. --Light show (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You could stop trying to find end-runs around your topic ban, and maybe spend some time figuring out why it was imposed. --Calton | Talk 07:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Calton. @Light show: since your TBan applies specifically to any edits relating to biographies of any kind, how is asking a long question here about biographies not related to biographies?! Put it another way: how is it not a violation? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. Enough's enough. I propose Light show is blocked for violating their topic ban. I propose that block is indefinite, but may be appealed after no sooner than six months. Once the block expires or is lifted, the topic ban would remain in effect. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think I could support this, but I'd prefer to first try amending the ban so that it is not subject to the usual exceptions in BANEX - that is, a blanket ban from all edits related to biographies without any exceptions. A quick skim shows Light Show does have some useful-looking edits in the time since the ban was put in place, they just need to stay away from biographies. @Yamla: would you consider this as a first step? GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would. Let me amend my wording and we'll give this another shot. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. GoldenRing suggests we amend the wording of the topic ban, and so therefore I suggest the following. Light show's topic ban is changed to read as follows: "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed, and about the WP:BLP policy itself or its application on Wikipedia. This is a blanket ban without any exceptions normally permitted." This would replace the existing topic ban on biographies, and would be indefinite in duration. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Light Show clearly doesn't get the scope of the exceptions and continues to claim them where they don't apply. The alternatives are escalating blocks for each violation or a straight indef as initially suggested above - I'd like to give this a go first. GoldenRing (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, support block special wide TBANs with no exceptions don’t work and are simply delaying the inevitable. They are a bad practice to get in the mode of making, lead to more drama, and more wasted community time. If we need something this restrictive the person really has no businesss editing to begin with. I support Yamla’s original proposal: it is both more fair to them and will waste less of our time in the long run. Also note, I would prefer no action at all to this TBAN for the reasons I just stated. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree about the block - looking through Light Show's history, while the existing TBAN was in place, they worked fine on other non-BLP topics. The TBAN would not deny them the ability to work elsewhere though obviously, if the topic starts touching on BLP , they should be aware to extract themselves from dealing with anything related to that; being able to do that would show good faith effort to abide by this proposed TBAN. Failure to do so, then a block is a logical final step. --Masem (t) 13:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is that specially-crafted sanctions don't work, and only create more work for enforcement. Even if they are acting in good faith, the fact that we have to craft a special remedy to allow them to edit shows they've reached the point where they have become disruptive to the point of blocking. If others don't agree with that, then I'd just prefer to let them off with a final warning than craft a new sanction that is likely to fail. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with TonyBallioni, and I'm honestly about an inch away from just imposing a flat indef here. This very discussion, the non-appeal-related comments at Light show's appeal, and the edits to the articles that weren't to remove blatant vandalism or BLP violations were all already violations of the existing topic ban. If Light show does not intend to abide by the topic ban to begin with, making it even tighter will make no difference. So, let me ask, then, Light show—now that you know what you did violates your topic ban, do you intend to stop doing it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• When I was topic banned from Sellers, although I was a primary editor, and was complimented by the only other primary editor for improving the article, the ban was due to simply talk page discussions with the three new editors. There were no accusations about uncivility, edit wars, PAs, ABF, socketry, NPOV, or any bio issue, on my part. But I was banned solely because I complained about some new editors' revisions. After the ban took place, I never made any edits or even commented on the talk page. I obviously fully abided by the ban.

The same sequence of events took place for Stanley Kubrick's bio, where the other primary editor thanked me a number of times during the time we worked on improving it. Some casual visitors even took to time to comment about the improvements. But here again, after the same editors joined on re-editing much of the article, there were some differences of opinions, naturally, but they all took place on the talk pages. And only after I again complained about the same three editors, was I banned. After the ban, I never edited the bio or commented on its talk page.

So those are my two previous topic bans, and in reply to your question about whether I "intend to stop doing it," on bios generally, I think my actions should imply and answer.

As for the new issue about banning me from any WP editing, I think it's coincidental that my actual edits and other related improvements are never an issue with the ban proposals, including this one. They only arise as a result of my posting discussions about articles or editors, a fact I mentioned here a while back, which no one disputed.

But it honestly never occurred to me that coming to AN and asking a straightforward and highly pertinent question such as a Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections, would result in not getting even an attempt by anyone to answer, but would again lead to a new ban proposal. I hope I've answered your question. If anyone has any others, feel free to ask.--Light show (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that your removal of sourced content from generally good RSes on mainspace BLPs under a claim they were "obvious" BLP violations (and thus not subject to your existing TBAN) is what is at issue here from the prior discussion? It's not how you used talk pages after the fact, but that you don't seem to recognize the concern that these are not considered "obvious" violations and thus you violated that prior TBAN by doing those actions. --Masem (t) 18:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to explain at the top of this post, it was "obvious" to me. The word itself means "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent." When I first asked the editor on their talk page, it was because their edits were clearly single purpose, and with the multiple guideline references shown to them, were understood to be violations. Hence, obvious, at least to me. That editor never responded. In any case, what's "obvious" is usually a matter of opinion. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• While I appreciate Yamla's attempt to craft a topic ban with no loopholes, I believe that Light show has shown quite convincingly that they're incapable of following any broad topic ban where biographies are concerned, and, like TonyB, I think another ban is just delaying the inevitable. Considering the long history of problems with this editor, resulting in 4 topic bans running concurrently, I think the next step is not another TBAN, but a block, a course of action I was considering suggesting in the previous discussion, just up the page. Unfortunately, I think that means an indef block. If the indef block is lifted in the future, the 4 topic bans should remain in place, or that might be an opportunity to tighten up the current TBAN as a condition of unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this as well. This is a clear violation. Clear. Rewording the ban ex post facto just to emphasize that this is a violation seems pointless. The phrase "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed" is about as explicit as you ever need to get. There's nothing in there that would indicate it is open ended for allowing a thread like this. Adding redundant wording as if the original wording is unclear is just a waste of time. The wording isn't unclear. I say block for a clear cut TBAN vio. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am simply not a fan of indef blocks when it comes to long-time editors ......as its easier to follow one account vs multiple scoks. No way do i believe an indef block would stop him from editing Wikipedia. Deal with and finding alternative accounts will waste more time then just monitoring this account.--Moxy (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Clear cut violation. Last time they were blocked for one week; this time I have blocked for one month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that is fair and proportionate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Can a Mobile phone vandal be dealt with?

Is it possible to range block an unregistered Mobile phone editor? The same individual continues to vandalize the articles Rashtrapati Bhavan, Indian order of precedence, List of Presidents of India, List of Prime Ministers of India & List of current heads of state and government articles. If it's not possible, then what about permanent semi-protection? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah protected everything for now. SQL^{Query me!} 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SQL - These articles were protected the other day, but I've see these thrown into the same protection request twice since I closed the original one. This makes it request number three... I'm really curious as to why these articles being constantly put in requests, and after I've already taken care of the original one. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help mass messaging Signpost

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

---

Would an admin please contact me on my userpage so we can send a mass message for the current issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Bri:, I've made you a massmessage sender, this should solve the problem? Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Fixing ping @Bri:. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you ☆ Bri (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP Discretionary sanctions template needed

At new article: Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark. Possibly American Politics DS as well. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t know how broadly people want to interpret the DS requirements, but this is not a biography (although it deals with something that happened to a recently-living person) and it only peripherally deals with politics. In any case, there has not been edit-warring or other significant problems at the article so it's unclear why DS are being requested. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Alice Dacuba (User:Corinne)

• Originaly posted on AN/I, but notices such as this are normally posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to inform the Wikipedia editing community that my sister Alice Dacuba, a Wikipedia managing editor, has passed away. I do not know her login information.

Please let me know if the appropriate person or people have been informed.

Thank you. -Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B168:B121:58B0:111F:6933:F549 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Carol, but what would be most useful for us to know is the account name your sister edited under. Do you know it? Bishonen | talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Carol, I'm so very sorry. Corinne was a fellow coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, and we had come to know each other off-wiki as well. Corinne's specialty was request articles, and her copyediting skill (second to none) was a factor in many Good and Featured Articles. I hadn't heard from her in a while, but RL obligations prevented me from following up. My deepest sympathy is with you and your family. Sincerely, Anne Miniapolis 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Prayers and deepest condolences. Memory eternal! -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Rest in peace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'll raise a cup of tea to you, Corinne. Rest in peace. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've requested a checkuser for verification. Corinne hasn't been here since mid-February, and the last email I received from her was in mid-January. Her passing is a great loss to the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my MediaWiki account block from 2012.

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

---

On the MediaWiki site, I was blocked indefinitely in 2012 for sockpuppetry and cross-wiki policy violation. Jasper Deng has not yet replied to my message on his talk page. I think I need to be unblocked because I know better now and I can use the Wikimedia sites in a way that follows the policies unlike my 2012 self. Read more on his talk page. Newman2 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not MediaWiki. I think you need to deal with this over there, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

But I can't edit anything else there aside from my talk page. Newman2 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing that we at the English Wikipedia can do. This is matter for MediaWiki to handle, and your talk page is where you would need to post such a request to become unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson

• Paul_Bedson (talk · contribs)

Hello, Another 6 months has passed and I am due another appeal to my community ban. I have had an idea that might be acceptable to arbcom and the Wikipedia community that could partially un-ban me and allow me to contribute my knowledge and artistic talents in a meaningful and non-harmful way. Why not try “sandboxing” me?

I thought to appeal my ban to the extent that I can only edit my sandbox and no live pages. I would only to be able to write or create images and maps in my sandbox for other Wikipedians and future generations to use as they see fit. This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet.

The first thing I would like to get on with, given permission is a map of the Levantine Corridor to improve your page on that.

Pending enough other suitable contributions and nothing disagreeable comes from this, I thought it might make a suitable way or rehabilitation?

I look forward to hearing what you think?

Thank you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unblock request copied here by SQL (talk • contribs) 6:07, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

• You're "due" another appeal of your ban? It doesn't work that way, the fact that someone can appeal every six months doesn't mean we have to reconsider the ban every six months. The major issues with this editor seem to include treating fringe theories as mainstream and adding original research, characterising that as "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is not encouraging. I don't think it's a good idea to make people waste time trying to rehabilitate this editor. Link to the last unban request. Hut 8.5 10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson is relevant for folks who are missing the context. I'm not seeing that anything has changed in this editor's ability to see why they got banned. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree. The ban was instituted for good reasons and I see no reason to lift it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Editing only outside article space seems a good idea, but "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet." means that nothing that would be created there would be usable anyway. I would decline this request. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Last year's appeal is here. I see nothing in this new appeal that changes my mind. I hope Paul will acknowledge that he is still promoting this work by Christian O'Brien[10] and this "Levantine corridor" fringe hypothesis[11]. It appears that he is still trying to find a way to promote his ideas and I don't think this would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. As for the map, we can't stop him from creating one elsewhere for us to use but I would much prefer one reliably published. Decline. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He is still using Wikipedia to promote his ideas, linking to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paul_Bedson&oldid=528710651 this old version of his userpage. This seems entirely inappropriate and it should probably go to WP:MfD. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock: rationale is at best illogical [He's not blocked on commons, so if he wants to contribute maps and images, he can still do so via his account there.] and at worst, indicative he doesn't understand why he was blocked. [He wants to contribute his knowledge about "a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn't caught up with yet", but Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.] DrKay (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'd say no. "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is classic WP:OR and shows that Paul still does not understand the problem. Knowledge that academia hasn't caught up with yet is of no relevance to Wikipedia (other than as neutral coverage of fringe ideas per se as fringe ideas, providing there is evidence of the notability of the ideas), and Wikipedia sandboxes are not appropriate places to engage in such original/fringe/alternative research. The place for that is, for example, peer-reviewed academic publications, and when academia has "caught up" with it (or rejected it, or whatever) then such material might be relevant to Wikipedia with due weight. Until then, this is simply the wrong platform for it, in any space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of user talk page while blocked

I think it's a commonly held understanding (I cannot find the exact policy quote for some reason; hopefully someone can help me out) that generally speaking, when a user is blocked, their user talk page should only be used for submitting unblock requests. However, there are also instances where the user decides to not appeal the block, but during the duration of their block, they may sometimes have some minor discussions that aren't strictly related to unblock request, and in some cases suggesting uncontroversial edit requests. WP:PROXYING is potentially ambiguous about this practice: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits (bolded for emphasis). I would like to invite some insights and clarifications over this subject. This is related to User talk:Joseph2302#Edit request 2. Alex Shih (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ah. I see Yamla has revoked TP on account of proxying; I wondered when that would happen. The thing is, that in this particular case—not withstanding one's interpretation of the policy—Joseph2302 is making such edit requests because I think I'm correct in saying—they have never been told they should not. See, for example, the last block, for two weeks in January: [12], six edit requests—one even answered by yours truly (but see my comment in which I ~predict this situation!)—and misuse of talk was never raised by an admin (or, explicitly, anyone).
  As to the broader interpretation of WP:PROXY, I've read that as saying that one can make the requested edits but (perhaps a bit like a sock's edits?) one takes personal responsibilty for them...not that that is anything like what the policy actually says, as the last portion you quote is actually rather hard to parse (any idea what "independent reason" an editor might have for wishing to make an edit, blocked or not? Or non-independent for that matter!). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  They have been explicitly told now, via utrs:21060. SQL^{Query me!} 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I considered revoking TPA myself after the first request, but it had already been answered. If this was not a vested contributor the revoking of TPA would not be in question, but would be seen as normal. Yamla acted correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's slightly more nuanced than that; and I hope I'm misinterpreting you when you seem to be saying that you would have revoked talk-page access rather than immediately explain why their request would not could not and should not be fulfilled. There's more: in this particular case, not only has an editor not been told to refrain from a certain behaviour, but they arguably have custom and practice actually telling them otherwise. Although I agree that J2302's block history makes his a bloody shitty hill for me to fall on  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WTF, we haven't got an article on that?!? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  In almost any other instance, I believe that TP would probably have been revoked, and the proxying editor might receive a reminder about proxying. SQL^{Query me!} 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Arguably the history makes it more likely that he should have had TPA revoked because we had reason to believe he would still be doing it as he kept doing it previously. Like SQL says, in almost any other case, that would have been what happened. So, no, you aren't misinterpreting me. I would have revoked TPA and explained why just as Yamla did. He wasn't appealing his block, he was trying to edit around it. If he wants to appeal his block himself, he is now free to do it through UTRS where it will be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected I was not. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point on past experience is also fair though, I'd agree with Jbh below that I wouldn't have lengthened the block personally, but given that in the past he had made so many requests, it seems limiting them while providing an available appeal alternative through UTRS would be fair: it allows for access to appeal while also preventing what would be the equivalent of 12 edit requests if he went at the same rate as the last two week block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is extremely inconsistently enforced and seems to be based on what admin has eyes on the talk page and how many "friends" the blocked editor has. Edit requests not related to the block might get talk page access revoked for one editor while another editor will get the same type of requests fulfilled (sometimes by an admin). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also a fair point. I think we are pretty consistent on this with editors who are not established: you get to use your talk page to appeal a block, not ask the reviewing admin to make changes, and doing so would normally get TPA revoked for an editor with less experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: No, actually there's no consistency anywhere. I've seen blocked IPs (that I haven't blocked) carry on productive conversations with other editors about content. No one is complaining so I leave them alone. My rule of thumb is that if you're not continuing to push for the edits that got you blocked, and you're not engaging in any other disruption, and no other editor is complaining then I'm basically going to ignore what you're doing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether it was appropriate to revoke TP access or not, resetting the block under these circumstances was both an overreaction and grossly unfair. The user not only received no warning that their behavior was inappropriate but one of their requests was just performed by an admin and they evidently made the same type of requests during their last block. Yamla would you please set the block back to the original expiration time. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reset to the original block time (assuming "1 month" is a "calendar month" and I can do math correctly; if not, please anyone else modify the block). I obviously think it's a form of block evasion to attempt to edit by proxy, but I see there's at least some ambiguity here. I think it should be unambiguously prohibited and should result in TPA revocation. I think allowing such proxy edits tends to encourage outright sockpuppetry; that is, setting up accounts to get around the block, but where edits are suggested rather than made directly. Or the same via IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• • To clarify my position (Why?—Why not!) I do actually agree with Yamla's stance on this, academically—a blocked user's talk page is, or should be, for discussing the block and that (kind of thing) alone. Editing by proxy does somewhat smack of not taking the block seriously, as if "OK, I'll get someone else to do it." My particular beef here was the principle of prior warnings generally combined with the recent history specifically. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Proxying is not something we want to encourage, but in this case it was encouraged, so we can’t really blame this user for it despite their other problematic behaviors. I think I’m going to open a discussion about the broader issue of proxying at all at WT:BAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proxying for blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request: Nfitz

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

---

 Administrator note Nfitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remained indefinitely blocked pursuant to this community consensus roughly 5 months ago. They are now requesting an unblock, which I will copy here for community review. See also Nfitz's talk page for relevant discussion, some of which I've copied in the collapse box below. Swarm ♠ 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Original request:

Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent supplemental comments by Nfitz

To be honest, I didn't really look at the calendar or the guidelines/policies much. Focusing on them too much is where I've gone wrong before, so I've tried to be a bit more holistic about it since; that being said, looking now at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK I see no reference to 6 months, or time periods in general. Various time-frames were bandied about in the subsequent AN endorsement here, but no particular time-frame appeared to have clear consensus nor was clearly endorsed as far as I understood. As someone in the AN discussion pointed out, indefinite could be next week, or next year, or longer. The block occurred on October 14, 2017 ... about 24 weeks ago; I guess that's not six 30/31 day months ... do the extra 14 days make much difference User:Fenix down? Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of talk page use other than my contribution to the AN discussion, and the log of articles I was intending to edit. Not really too sure what to say about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last August I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me, and on August 16 I made a fundamental AFG failure about the motives of another editor here, mistaking ignorance for prejudice. That lead to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated; my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea; between that, and the various medications being used to treat it, my judgement was impaired. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to my wife's comments about snoring, several years ago. I'm a bit young really, for this to be a problem, and was relatively fit, not overweight, and in good health - which checks almost none of the warning sign boxes for this. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the onset may have coincided with my first child a decade ago - so that the normal sleep deprivation of that life change, masked other things. Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track. I've done some work on other projects in my absence; not as much as I'd hoped. Though less in the last couple of months - I was hit hard by H2N3 flu, which I'm still suffering the after-effects of after 2 months, and work has been crazy. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention current projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet). Trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. Try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create Samuel Benjamin Marlowe, check 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, and add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line. I hope to update Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!) and other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• As I have commented on Nfitz's talk page already, I will be brief here. In principle I support lifting this block; I don't think Nfitz has fully understood the reason why everyone around him was incredibly frustrated, so I have outlined some potential remedies here. My perspective is that Nfitz has the tendency of being unable to neither see the point nor get to the point, and then goes on to be obnoxiously verbose without knowing when to disengage. However, I sincerely believe he is willing to address these concerns, which is the spirit of any standard offer in my opinion. Is this block still preventative? Perhaps, if we are just too tired to deal with another potential time sink. But if there is ever a positive chance to reintegrate a long time editor back to the community, personally I would opt to take a leap of good faith. Alex Shih (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Nfitz has been unblocked to allow participation in this discussion. Please reinstate block if this appeal is declined. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Close at AN; subsequent admin behavior

I filed at ANI which was closed by Paul August (talk · contribs) with a note No need for administrative action. and with edit note Close nothing needed here.

I found that close surprising, as two admins had noted that there was substance to my OP, and asked Paul about the close at their TP - the whole thread is here: User_talk:Paul_August#ANI_close. After Paul replied I asked him to reopen it or refine his close, and noted that the behavior is continuing. and Paul asked me for diffs: What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please.

Given that the ANI was about Colin's overwhelming focus, forumshopping, and vituperation on one issue and one person really, a simple glance at Colin's contribs at that time would show anyone trying to understand what is going on that this was still happening, and I tried to explain that. I also noted that I would not seek a close review, as Colin has toned down the worst of the behavior. As far as I was concerned the conversation was over.

At that point SandyGeorgia showed up and helpfully posted Colin's 11 recent contribs (these)

To my surprise, as you can see in the thread, in Paul's next message they continued to ask that I provide diffs; and continued, and in their last note to me, they have threatened action because I have not provided specific diffs. So I am kicking this here.

I suppose reasonable people can differ as to whether action should have been taken at the ANI, but I do not see how a neutral, competent admin can not see that someone can see a continuation of the behavior discussed in the ANI via a glance at Colin's contribs, on their own, or via the link that SandyGeorgia placed directly in the thread (and one can add CANVASSING behavior to what was already discussed at ANI, based on those diffs).

But especially as I had said I was not challenging the close and was willing to let this lie, I find Paul August's behavior to be some kind of drama-stoking badness.

I was not looking for more drama, but since an admin turned a question about their close into something absurd, I am giving this to you all. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, you were accusing editors of continuing bad behavior following the close. Something that, if it were true, as the closing admin, I would not look upon favorably, and I might need to take some action. So I asked you for diffs of any edits, after the close, which you found problematic. I asked politely three times, the last time adding “I'd really appreciate it”. Your response to this was “Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close”.

Providing diffs was apparently something you were unwilling or unable to do. In my view making unsubstantiated accusations of your fellow editors, to an admin acting in their official capacity, is a serious matter. I tried to tell you that on my talk page, I see nothing “absurd” in that.

I’m still willing to look at any evidence you're willing to provide of continuing bad behavior. But in lieu of that I really do think you owe the editors you accused an apology.

Paul August ☎ 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ynhockey

Admin User:Ynhockey (who, by all accounts is WP:INVOLVED wrt WP:ARBPIA) earlier today moved 2018 Land Day massacre to 2018 Land Day incidents.

Before he did that, he, AFAIK, used his admin powers (at 20:46, 31 March 2018) to delete 2018 Land Day incidents (with edit line: (G6: Deleted to make way for move)) and (at 20:52, 31 March 2018) to delete Talk:2018 Land Day incidents, again with the edit line (G6: Deleted to make way for move).

I have asked him to undo the move, as he is very much WP:INVOLVED, (See User_talk:Ynhockey#Your_move..), but he seem unwilling to do so.

Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to explain repeatedly to you that there does not appear to have been any use of admin powers and that this is what happens when a page is moved over an unedited redirect. I've demonstrated that you have deleted redirects in the same way when making moves, but unfortunately this appears to have fallen on (probably deliberately) deaf ears.

Ynhockey's move was a revert of a controversial move, so I see no need for him to revert. Number 57 22:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ynhockey used the admin delete button in order to move an article page. Non admins cannot undo his move, only admins can do that. (You have to delete 2018 Land Day massacre before you can undo his move.)

And if the article name was so controversial, then certainly there could have been admins who were not WP:INVOLVED who could have move it? (Btw, the article started its life under the name of 2018 Land Day massacre) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)