Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

(Initiated 764 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor:  Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 108 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 106 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 106 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 46 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 40 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 31 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

(Initiated 1 day ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	27	27
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	10	34	44
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 263 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 86 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 81 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 27 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 8 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (55 out of 8273 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Knafeh 2024-08-19 03:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: restore previous protection Daniel Case Draft:Inanimate Insanity 2024-08-19 03:28 indefinite create reduce protection level Discospinster Ogaden 2024-08-18 22:00 indefinite edit,move Long term disruptive editing and sock puppetry. Semi PP not effective. Going back to EC. Ad Orientem Ukrainian conscription crisis 2024-08-18 20:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Draft:Kelly Cooney Cilella 2024-08-18 20:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Freedom of panorama (US only) 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2547 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Alumni 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hamad City 2024-08-18 12:39 2025-08-18 12:39 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree Battle of Zakho 2024-08-18 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Iraqi–Kurdish conflict 2024-08-18 11:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Nabatieh attack 2024-08-18 10:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Palestine 2024-08-18 10:27 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq King of New Age 2024-08-18 09:54 2024-09-18 09:54 create Repeatedly recreated Johnuniq 2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election 2024-08-17 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jihad Mughniyah 2024-08-16 21:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Draft:Frank Guiller 2024-08-16 19:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Pokrovsk offensive 2024-08-16 19:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Ad Orientem List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023-2024 2024-08-16 17:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Newsletter draft 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Message 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Coordinators instructions 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Invite 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/invite 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024 2024-08-16 15:54 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Harriet Sandburg 2024-08-16 12:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Fluff My Life 2024-08-16 02:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Template:Image Comics 2024-08-16 02:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Sadly Never After 2024-08-16 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Jessica (Rick and Morty) 2024-08-16 02:36 2024-11-16 02:36 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident 2024-08-15 20:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast 2024-08-15 20:33 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Wikipedia:Moto E22i 2024-08-15 20:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Steps (pop group) 2024-08-15 19:41 2024-11-15 19:41 edit,move Persistent block evasion The Wordsmith Steps discography 2024-08-15 19:40 2024-11-15 19:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry The Wordsmith Gal Gadot 2024-08-15 14:22 2025-02-15 14:22 edit Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Sudzhansky District 2024-08-15 06:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Sudzha 2024-08-15 06:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq

Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited

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

---

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would clarify that editors are not permitted to use automated tools or bot accounts to issue discretionary sanctions alerts. The community is encouraged to review and comment on the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions

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

Login help needed, please

Howdy guys, 12-year wikiveteran and daily editor here, old man now and apparently have gotten really stupid with age or else somebody has screwed up my account. Yesterday or the day before I was logged out automatically (I thought) and the system asked me to make a new password, which I did by a small variation on the one I've used all these years. Well now the new password does not work, nor will the system send a reset email to any of my 3 email accounts (I forget which one I started with on Wikipedia).

I've already read the info at Help:Logging in and Help:Reset password, neither of which were very helpful. I would really rather not create a brand new account and lose continuity with my 12 years of edits. Can anyone help me out here? Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password? -

"Otherwise you will have to create a new account under a different username. After doing this, if a user page and user talk page were created for the old account, it is advisable to make them redirect to the equivalent pages for the new account. (To carry the content and history of these pages over to the new location, you can use the "move" function—contact an administrator if assistance is needed.)"

so basically unless you used WP:Committed identity then your only option is to create another account,

You could be anyone and as such we can't really help - The account hasn't made any edits after the 4th so it's not been compromised - You'll either need to try & remember the account details or create a new account. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. Yes, I read the Help article, and I just hoped somebody might know an easier way to get around this problem. What I really don't understand is why Wikipedia apparently does not recognize any of my email addresses, all of which I believe I've had since before I joined the project here - that is very strange. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you don't have an email set. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AEmailUser&target=Textorus says: "This user has not specified a valid email address.". SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Well crap, maybe I never entered my email address. That bites. Well after dinner tonight guess I'll be creating a new account, and probably will be back here for help moving the old content & history over, as the Help page says. Thanks SQL. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we ought to change our registration process. We permit new registrants to register without specifying an email address and I'm not proposing to change that. There may well be legitimate reasons for someone to wish to register without specifying an email address. However, I think such a decision should be accompanied by a warning in big red letters with exclamation points, explaining that while they are permitted to register without specifying an email address, they will absolutely unequivocally not be able to update their password should they forget it, and many, many editors have learned this the hard way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Textorus, you might be able to get help from the tech staff on this one. Even though you don't have a committed identity (hardly a requirement to resolve a problem like this), they could take other steps to confirm that you are the account owner, like checking the most recent IP used by the account against the IP used to make the request. They can be reached by filing a ticket at phabricator.wikimedia.org (you may need to make a new account to do that). Good luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An aside to this: I've never heard of MediaWiki forcing someone to do a password reset - does anyone know anything about that? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I never remember it happening before on WP - I just figured it was the New Normal. But I may try the phabricator thing, though looks like they are pretty slow to respond to queries over there. Thanks Ajraddatz. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajraddatz - Apologies my reply could've been clearer but you're correct it isn't a requirement - I only mentioned it as it could've helped that was all. –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reedy: any insight in to this, such as any updates to badpasswords that may have gone out? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it could have been phishing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Some recent attempts at phishing have been made using malicious js, but the user doesn't appear to have any local js files, so it's probably unconnected to what I'm thinking of. But it may be a different sort of attempt. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajr: Sysadmins can force people to reset their passwords via command line command, but last incident that happening (IIRC) was in 2013 with wiki replica problems. — regards, Revi 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is Textorous. I was under the impression that it is not possible in these circumstances for the new account to have the history of the old as it would in a normal rename.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Soooo... Poking around a bit. It does seem that Textorus had an email address confirmed all the way back in 2006. But the field in the DB is blank, and no way to easily find out what it was... Or when it was changed.

On the 3rd May, there was a login to enwiki, and very shortly after a password change. On the 4th July, a successful login was made to enwikiquote. I see one revert shortly after... [1] - Do you remember logging into the English Wikiquote? Are you still logged in if you visit it?

The other option is with the web of trust... Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life? Anyone that can vouch that you are who you say they are? And as such, any that I, or other people I trust, can use their authority to verify you.

Reedy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the checkuser confirmation, why do we need any further proof? At this point, either we should be saying "sorry, you can't get back into your account" and preparing to grant Textorus' user rights to a new account, or we should be focusing on ways to get him back into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparent hoax and vandalism by User:Defensecontributor

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

---

Apologies if this isn't the right or best place to address this; feel free to move this or let me know of a better venue!

It appears that User:Defensecontributor is attempting to create a hoax article. A cursory search of the subject shows no hits and the "company's" "executives" are undergraduate students. This editor logged out and made similar edits, including adding one of those same people to the article of a real company. Unless I've missed something or made a mistake, this editor has clearly earned a block and a summary deletion of their hoax article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks for spotting this. The company seems real but based on the two editing histories, we can't trust anything the creator has written. Draft G3'd and editor indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the company exists but thanks for taking care of this anyway! ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Enforcement requests for General Sanctions

With cryptocurrency and professional wrestling added to the areas under community-authorized general sanctions, is there any enthusiasm setting up a board similar to WP:AE that would handle enforcement requests? WP:ANEW can handle violations of revert restrictions but is unsuited to discuss behavior and WP:AN does not have the organized structure WP:AE has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally the Arbcom system is better organized than the community system. The simplest would be to run a combined board, dealing with both arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. But that would be like crossing the streams and most likely Arbcom wouldn't go for it. You could also combine Arbcom alerts and community alerts just by issuing new two-letter codes for each kind of community sanction. (You would still say subst:alert topic=xx for new values of xx). Since the Arbcom alert system set up in 2014 is much easier to use than the former one this saves work for admins and others who want to give the alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a structured board would be an improvement over free-form ANI discussions, but combining community sanctions into AE would limit sanction discussions to admins, and limit non-admins to stand-alone statements with no threading. That works for AE because the admins in the bottom section, who are deciding on sanctions/no sanctions can thread, and the statements from non-admins are just informational, but a community sanction needs to be able to be discussed by all parts of the community, not just admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Kind of confused here. "Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case... Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions." It's still admins deciding on an editor's sanctions, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, Neil. I was thinking of community-imposed General Sanctions as being along the same lines as a community imposed block, which shouldn't be lifted by an admin without community approval, but it does appear that General Sanctions are defined in pretty much the same manner as Discretionary Sanctions. I've struck that part of my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have argued the same before - two similar yet (confusingly) different systems is needless bureaucracy Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining the alert systems into Template:Alert, provided the documentation of the template makes clear these systems are distinct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with setting up WP:AN/GS, which could also handle appeals in a more structured way if those ever happen. Right now there doesn't seem to be a clear way to request GS enforcement besides ANI, which of course defeats the point of community authorized discretionary sanctions in a way: its not as streamlined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with a new board, but it should be structured in some way (though it may need 2-3 different templates for enforcement/appeals/complaints); unstructured complaints are handled as well as possible at AN/ANI and I don't think a new forum will help with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with moderate enthusiasm. I think a parallel system would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would prefer lumping in with AE to reduce bureaucracy, but would accept a new board begrudgingly. I've been reminding various patrollers that summary deletions of pages where the creator has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest and tendentiously resubmitted drafts at AFC are available under the blockchain sanctions if they ask me. There should be a centralised venue to report these -- ANI doesn't seem to be the best fit. MER-C 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• If it could be merged with AE, but with it's own non-Arbcom-dictated process, that would be idea. However, Arbcom is usually not receptive to having their creations messed with. Assuming that's the case here, I would support a similar enforcement venue (WP:GSE?) to provide structure and a wee bit of decorum.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should minimize the confusion and send these reports to WP:AE. Most people probably can't tell the difference between AN and ANI; how will they tell the difference between AE and a GS-specific noticeboard? We should organize Wikipedia's bureaucracy in a way that simplifies work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, and Newyorkbrad: Pinging a few Arbcom members to see if we can discuss expanding the scope of WP:AE or if that's a total non-starter. I agree that having one board to handle requests for all discretionary sanctions enforcement would be a lot easier for editors. They don't care (or know) if the discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom or the community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The first, best, choice should be to centralize discussions at AE. There also needs to be a rationalization of notice requirements and procedures between DS and GS that implement DS. I would suggest expanding the DS/alert infrastructure to support GS/DS; not because it is the best option but because it is the simplest way to get things integrated. Alternately the community can come up with a simpler procedure and convince ArbCom to change DS to fit. This would, in my opinion, be the better option since the DS notification system is, frankly, an over-engineered nightmare of cognitive dissonance. Regardless, handling GS at AN it ANI would be counter-productive to say the least. Jbh ^Talk 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm going to talk to the Committee/clerks about allowing community sanction discussions at AE. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I responded to Kevin's email, but I also want to give some thoughts here. I think sending these to AE would get quite confusing. All of our instructions surrounding AE include notes that decisions can be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, something which is not true for general sanctions. Also, arbitration clerks can theoretically clerk AE and sanction editors there as a clerk action. While they generally do not, in favor of allowing administrators to clerk AE, they could. I suspect the community wouldn't want arbitration clerks having jurisdiction over general sanctions discussions, which is what would happen if we allowed general sanctions discussions at AE. The best thing about general sanctions is that they are community-imposed and managed, which is the ideal way to resolve any dispute, as far as I'm concerned. We're moving away from that if we send reports to AE, which is a noticeboard under the control of the Arbitration Committee. I want the Committee to be doing less when it comes to dispute resolution, not more. We're better-suited for things the community genuinely cannot handle, such as review of administrative conduct (until/unless a community-based desysopping policy emerges), privacy-related issues, managing the functionary team, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • How many arb clerks are not administrators? Wouldn't they need tools to sanction anyway? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Natureium: Five clerks (including myself) are not administrators. Most sanctions (like topic bans/etc.) don't strictly require the tools to impose, but I think what Rob is referring to is the authority of the arbitration clerks to maintain order on arbitration pages. Non-admin clerks can't impose discretionary sanctions, but if someone gets disruptive on the AE page itself (or any page that begins with WP:Arbitration), the clerks have some reserve authority to ban that person from editing the AE page under the procedures and ArbCom decisions. I don't think this is something that really comes up; in my nearly-three-and-a-half years, we have never exercised our authority on the WP:AE page. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I also responded to Kevin's email and I'll echo those thoughts here. General sanctions and arbitration sanctions are definitely not the same thing. General sanctions are enacted and enforced by the community using community processes, and discretionary sanctions are enacted and enforced by the Arbitration Committee when community processes have failed. If GS enforcement is sent to AE, that enforcement discussion is effectively being taken out of the community's hands. I think it's kind of a lazy way out if community decides to formulate sanctions and then community decides to have the Arbitration Committee deal with them. I believe AN is pretty well equipped to handle GS enforcement; it's (usually) less vitriolic than ANI and it's widely watched. Set up another noticeboard if that's desired, and let's have some ideas for DS alert rewording or revamping if desired, but leave the Committee out of community sanctions enforcement as much as humanly possible. Katie^talk 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support doing at GS and DS at AE. All of these "sanctions" exist for the same reason; to quell/prevent disruption and to deal swiftly with it, when it happens. We already have the infrastructure for the latter at AE. We may need to tweak the name of AE to something like "sanction enforcement" or the like. We probably need an RfC to do all this; I understand that the OP was just about starting the discussion and I am grateful for it being opened. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think I can speak for the Committee when saying it’s a hard no to doing arbitration enforcement on a non-arbitration page. We need jurisdiction over the enforcement of our past cases. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Rob, I think you may have expressed that backwards, the question was not about doing Arbitration enforcement on a non-ArbCom-controlled page, it was about doing non-ArbCom enforcement (i.e enforcement of community-imposed General Sanctions) on an ArbCom-controlled page (i.e. AE). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Jytdog talked about renaming AE as something different ("sanction enforcement"). I'm saying that will not happen, since it must be under WP:Arbitration to be within ArbCom jurisdiction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I see, I thought you were addressing the more general question. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie: There's no room for assuming admins and clerks will exercise a little bit of common sense here? An editor adds a request, an admin or arbcom clerk can mark it as falling under arbcom sanctions or community sanctions. Admins are going to go through the exact same process anyways. Arbcom sanctions are enacted by arbcom and requests for enforcement are dealt with by admins. Community sanctions are enacted by community and requests for enforcement are again dealt with by admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in weakening the clerks' ability to act on arbitration-related pages by bringing in non-arbitration activities and setting up some kind of rules about when they can/can't act as a clerk at AE. If we're going to be setting up such a divide, why not have an alternative noticeboard to minimize the confusion, bureaucracy, and jurisdiction issues? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: See Kevin's comment above regarding never having to exercise clerk authority on the AE page. Obviously Arbcom has final say but realize that this position is increasing confusion and bureaucracy for editors because you think somehow we're going to argue over jurisdiction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neil: I can certainly see the argument for reducing bureaucracy by having a single page deal with both types of sanctions, but I think there's also a good argument that the differing sources of authority -- ArbCom for arbitration-based Discretionary Sanctions, and the community for General Sanctions -- outweighs the convenience of having them take place on the same page, as combining them is very likely to cause confusion about who's ultimately in charge. The best solution I've seen in the discussion above is for a new administrators' noticeboard -- WP:AN/GS was the suggestion -- modeled on AE, with whatever adjustments are needed to eliminate the arbitration-specific aspects and language of AE. Folks seem to feel comfortable with the existing administrators' boards (AN, AN/I, and ANEW), and I'm sure they'd get used to AN/GS quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I originally proposed having a new noticeboard because I believed Arbcom wouldn't go for adapting AE. However I thought there'd be better arguments against the idea than "we need to show who's in charge". I realize denoting who has jurisdiction could be important for a small amount of requests but really, it's not that complicated or controversial. But I guess two boards is the way we're going. I just hope clerks and admins are courteous enough to move misplaced requests instead of just removing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's plainly not what I said. I said that having general sanctions discussions at a page that directs people to WP:ARCA for appeal will confuse everyone and that community-issued general sanctions should be reported on a page under the jurisdiction of the community and only the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of your comments were about clerking, jurisdiction, and control. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest moving to VPR before this thread gets too big Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

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

---

Good day (or whatever it is for you),

hereby, I am appealing my topic ban once again. I was „indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed.“ Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Back in Spring 2017, I created a controversy surrounding the use of SI units in Wikipedia automobile articles that lead to a devastating conflict during Summer and Autumn. Now, one year later, I consider my own behaviour unreasonable, stubborn and sort of obsessive. I have wasted months desperately attempting to change consensus, ending up fighting against several other authors – which led to the topic ban and even a 6-month-block. Frankly speaking, it was stupid and did not only cause days of frustration for just myself. Therefore, I wish to apologise to everyone who was involved back then. I do not intend to return to my old behaviour and I am willing to accept the concept of consensus. Before drastically changing or even attempting to change well established ways of „how to do it“ I will ask other editors. At this point, the topic ban is not required anymore since I do not wish to harm any further. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossible, sorry. You were originally indefintely topic banned in July 2017. In October you were blocked for 24 hours for violating that ban. After what can only be called either selective deafness or pushing the boundaries, Boing! said Zebedee extended your block six months. You also had your talk-page aces revoked. So, in fact, the only reason, for all intents and purposes that you have been able to adhere to your topic ban is because you were blocked? I think this is one of those cases, where, although officially you could (as you are doing) appeal within six months of it being issued, in fact, I think we would want to see six months of editing in uncontroversial areas. In other words, demonstrate that you can edit outside of the problem areas without a block enforcing it. Let's say: the next appeal no less than six months from today? I propose that, but, no problem—the community may say otherwise. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too soon. You were blocked for topic-ban violations on 2017-10-09. That block was for six months. There was a subsequent block, on 2018-05-01, but that was by your own request and definitely not something that should be held against you. My concern here, though, is that since 2017-10-09, you've made no edits to articles at all. As such, I don't think we have any significant evidence of you editing constructively. I want to be clear, I am saying "too soon" rather than "oppose". I'm glad to see your comments here, they indicate that you are a good candidate for having the topic ban lifted at some point. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with Yamla. I'd like to see a few months of positive contributions to articles. I think they are knowledgeable, and have potential to be a solid contributor, but I'd like to see some evidence before lifting the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defence: Virtually every article here contains units of measurement. Therefore, I feel like I cannot edit Wikipedia without violating the topic ban. This means that I have adhered to the topic ban by not editing Wikipedia at all. Just a quick reminder: The block in October was imposed because I had asked user:1292simon to refrain from adding Original Research to the article Flathead engine which was then considered automobile-related. I had not expected the ban to be this strict. Since I really do not want to violate the topic ban once again, I have stopped contributing. I do not want to risk another block and I cannot see where the boundaries are. To give you an example: I am working on engine articles a lot and the original Diesel engine was not designed as an automobile engine. In fact, due to it's technical limitations, it was impossible to use the Diesel engine as an automobile engine. (To make it easier to imagine, I am talking about something like this). So, initially, the Diesel engine was not related to "automobile". However, since working on the article flathead engine led to a block, I expect that editing the article Diesel engine would also lead to a block. To be fair, I am exaggerating this by using this example, since starting in the late 1920's, Diesel engines became popular as engines for lorries which are definitely automobiles. But what if there is something else? Just a tiny little something somewhere in an article that I might not even see? Would you consider that a topic ban violation? I mean, there are just too many things that are somehow related to the topics that I am currently banned from. Accidently editing something that has some unit of measurement somewhere or is somehow related to automobiles would be a reason for another block. No matter whether it is an accident or not. (And consider that people would hardly believe me when I say that it was an accident.) At least, that's what I think is the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I don't think that it would be a reasonable idea to start editing Wikipedia at this point with the ban still in place. Maybe you have not seen this and I admit, it's hard to believe something that is in German (I suppose that most of you do not understand German), but in the German language Wikipedia, I am contributing almost every day and other editors mostly consider me a good author. I am known for high-quality articles and properly cited sources. In fact, I am even a Mentor for new users. I mean, why would I be a Mentor if I was a "problem user"? I admit that I have made a mistake by completely ignoring consensus. I thought that the rule "sources > opinions" would apply here. But it turned out that I caused actual harm and I regret that. Actually, I have learned that those people who I thought were hostile, are reasonable editors. I even found myself working together with Andy Dingley on Commons; he helped me categorising my photographs properly. Yamla, you have said that I am appealing too soon – I think that almost 12 months later is not too soon. During the time period in which I was blocked, I have learned a lot and while I have not contributed to the English language Wikipedia, I have created several high-quality articles in the German language Wikipedia, two of them being featured articles. Yes, it might seem like nothing was going on in the past few months, but my mindset has changed. Definitely. I think it would be nothing but appropriate and fair if I stayed away from automobile articles for a while voluntarily in case of an unban. I neither want to harm nor annoy anybody, I would definitely re-start Wikipedia slowly with editing occasionally. Maybe I find some minor mistakes here and there which I would correct, maybe there are new things I am interested in. I'd also like Alex Shih to comment since he was involved in the process back then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly. Look at WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Yes, tons of articles have measurements in them, but parts of those articles not dealing with measurements aren't covered by your ban. For a random example, Van Wert County Courthouse has measurements of area (infobox) and the height of a statue, but as long as you don't touch those parts or add something measurement-related or automobile-related, you have no more restrictions on this article than anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The appealing too soon refers to appealing too soon after the previous declined appeal, particularly when this new appeal doesn't really address the points raised in the previous appeal. Like I mentioned before, if you cannot write in a more concise manner, you are still going to frustrate everyone here. For the record, I would support suspending instead of lifting the topic ban on the condition that it may be re-imposed by any uninvolved administrator with good reason at any time. The slow edit war over not redirecting User:Jojhnjoy to your new username however is really bizarre, but I suppose it's not explicitly against policy; although it can reasonably interpreted as evading scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: There are many unconstructive edits that are not against any specific policy but fall under various rubrics like disruption, incompetence, and NOTHERE. At a minimum his wanting to say that he's retired on that page instead of the redirect causes problems for other editors if they try to follow a link from his former username. I've warned the editor to leave the page alone, and I'll enforce my warning if necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too Soon You caused a lot of unnecessary drama that was only ended with a long term block. I am glad you recognize this and your opening statement accepting responsibility is encouraging. However, I have to agree with those who think this is too soon. Come back next summer (2019). For the record you are not prohibited from editing articles that contain units of measurement in them. The TBan only applies to articles where units of measurement constitute a substantial aspect of the article or attempts to edit actual UM in an article. If you want to improve RMS Titanic, which does contain UM, i.e. her gross tonnage length beam etc., no one is going to ding you as long as you stay off those statistics and don't start counting rivets or port holes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think some of the comments here are understandably confusing Johannes Maximilian and will come back to haunt everyone. If the topic ban is to be interpreted as all edits related to automobiles and all edites related to units of measurement, both broadly construed, then Johannes should not be able to edit the UM in the Titanic article. If one administrator says he can but another doesn't know that and blocks him for violating his ban, how is this Johannes's fault? Unless we want to change the ban, it should mean what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, the ban says „broadly construed“; what is that supposed to mean in the first place? How broad is it? You are saying I am interpreting it too broadly. In the past, I had interpreted it the opposite of "too broadly" – and I was blocked. I really want to be more careful, but thank you for your reply. Alex, well, you are right that I am not really being concise, but trust me, you are not the only one who has told me. I appreciate your suggestion of suspending the topic ban instead of lifting it at this point and I think that this is a good idea. My old username was horrible and I prefer to abandon it. My "old" edits are still visible under Special:Contribs/Johannes_Maximilian so I cannot evade scrutiny, even if I wanted to. But I understand that one could reasonably interpret it as evading. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, in my comment above I pointed to the Titanic article, I am stating that JM may not edit any units of measurement. As long as he stays off that, he is free to edit or discuss the rest of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Ad Orientem, I misread it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is premature and that the best way forward would be to edit in areas not covered by the topic ban, which is almost all the encyclopedia. The OP was blocked in October for violations of the topic ban, that block expired in April. The OP has only made a handful of edits to Wikipedia since, apart from topic ban appeals these were all in user or user talk space. The topic ban doesn't cover all articles containing units of measurement, it only covers articles which are about units of measurement or edits which add/change units of measurement in other types of article. "Broadly construed" just means that the OP isn't likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous cases and can't use hair splitting to justify making edits which arguably fall under the topic ban. If someone can show through constructive editing that a topic ban is not needed then the topic ban is likely to be lifted. Hut 8.5 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't forget that the ban also covers "automobile"; automobile means something like "moving under own power" and that covers any kind of vehicle as well as things that are related to that. There are so many things that can be found in a vehicle that could be related to "automobile". I could start contributing again – but who guarantees me that editing articles like Diesel engine for instance would not get me blocked? What if some editor who has no idea sees me editing and asks an administrator who has also no idea to get me blocked? Laymen would most likely associate Diesel engines with "automobile" because they don't know that the Diesel engine was never designed for automobile use (which is something I cannot even blame them for). In fact, the section of that particular article that describes the air-blast injection is quite poor and I have got plenty of books lying around covering that topic. I could contribute a lot there. But I believe, that, even if I cite a source that clearly says that air-blast injection cannot be used for automobiles, some people would still say that it is a topic ban violation and I am very sure that someone would block me. So I'd rather not edit at all. Anyways, any support for Alex Shih's proposal of suspending the topic ban? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering this into the ground. Automobile has a common meaning. You shouldn't make any edits related to automobiles. The edit you hypothesize about diesel engines would be included. Really, what difference does it make that diesel engines were supposedly never designed to be used in cars? The point is they are. There are huge areas of the encyclopedia that are not even remotely related to automobiles that you can edit. I get the sense that the only articles that interest you are those covered by your ban. I don't favor a suspension of the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• That is exactly what I mean. Air-blast injection has nothing to do with automobile. And yet you are saying it is covered by the ban. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

But well, this doesn't lead anywhere, to make this clear, I am not going to make an edit related to air-blast injection. As you have said, it was a hypothetical thought I have brought up to explain my point. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your topic ban covers any edits "relating to automobiles". I'm struggling to understand how anybody would think that a type of engine widely used in automobiles does not relate to automobiles. Hut 8.5 16:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Air-blast injected engines cannot be used in automobiles. Just take a look at the edit I made at 16:36. If you happen to know German and still have questions regarding this, feel free to ask them here. But I think we should stop this here since the example I have made doesn't seem to make it easier for you to understand what I want to express. We would end up wasting too much time. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TBAN - The Wikilawyering is strong with this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per this (removed) diff; I'm not sure whether this is incompetence or wiki-lawyering. Either way, it doesn't demonstrate the competence or temperament for me to support lifting restrictions. This editor also appealed their sanction in April (before a rename) and should be prohibited from appealing for at least 6 months, with a note that if they do not make constructive edits, their appeal will be declined again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, since, to me it feels like nobody understands what I want to express. Hereby, I withdraw my appeal. Please, leave the ban as it is. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wall of text you don't necessarily need to read:

Extended content

Instead of removing my post I suppose that removing the opinions of uninvolved non-administrators makes more sense, doesn't it? I have explained why I consider contributing constructively is impossible with a topic ban in place that prohibits me from adding any kind of units. I consider edits constructive that cannot be done by a well programmed bot. I edit Wikipedia since I want to add content, I am not here for fixing typos and reverting vandalism only. „But Johannes, you have not edited since the expiry of your block! And you have less than 1000 edits.“ → See here. I know several editors who have accumulated thousands of edits by just reverting IP-vandalism and splitting up one edit into 20 tiny edits. I have created more than 140 articles, most of them being non-stub-articles. And I wonder why I have not been blocked yet for using time units in my signature. So I have two options: Option 1: Strictly adhering to the topic ban which means that I am banned from contributing to virtually any article → Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly Okay? Then here is Option 2: I don't edit in a manner that contradicts the purpose of my topic ban (to express it using the words of User:Bbb23: I mean editing in a way that is 100 % appropriate) but I violate the topic ban here and there (for instance by adding time units to my signature) (!)only for preventing myself from being forced into editing in a way that other editors would legitimately interpret as trolling. → Maybe someone finds a mistake I make and I get blocked indefinitely. I do understand what people try to explain to me. I am not stupid and I am not stubborn either. I know that at this point the appeal was declined. However, I feel like there is only very little understanding for my point of view, and, in addition to that, almost no understanding for the way I express things. „Your text is too long!“ Well, what else am I supposed to do? Just write "appealing my ban"? That would most likely get ignored. „You must contribute!“ I cannot do that because everything contains units. „You interpret the ban too broadly!“ *Asks another editor to refrain from adding original research and gets blocked for six months* Upps – too broadly, you say? Well, maybe someone might even consider it an attack that I have expressed my thoughts and feelings above. People have even considered it an attack that I have explained that my opinion is different from theirs. I have made the experience that people interpret things just wrong. Above, I say to me it feels like – that is just what I feel, it does not mean that this is actual reality. I am an open and honest person, I express a lot of my thoughts but I am not saying that any of these things are fact or right. I cannot determine the value of my own words. In a prior post I had explained why it is impossible to edit Wikipedia when being banned from editing units. That was just my opinion. Instead of telling me why my point of view had flaws or explaining when editing units was fine, my post got deleted for being too long. From my point of view it just seems like nobody really wants to deal with the problem I am facing. Not unbanning me but instead choking my words creates the least amount of work. Also, nobody wants to be responsible for potential damage I could cause. I see this every day in the German language Wikipedia. People are having issues and the administrators don't want to deal with it. Maybe I am just incompatible with this whole system? My mentality might be considerably different from other editors's? Or I am just not used to English language Wikipedia. Who knows. I will see if putting effort into finding useful edits I can make without getting blocked is any fun. But I seriously doubt that. Wenn du diesen Satz liest und verstehst, dann sprichst du Deutsch; Trollen beendet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Need help tidying edit history on prominent article

(Please see here for background -- it's a long and varied discussion, but for this topic, look for the comments from me and from Czar.)

A week or so ago, I restored the previously-deleted version of this article. The article was getting covered in the news, and I felt it would be helpful for the news-reading public to have access to the earliest versions of the article, which were deleted. However, there was an unfortunate side effect, pointed out by Czar: the new edit history tended to lead to the erroneous conclusion that they (Czar) had deleted the article, when in fact it was another Wikipedian. Czar described to me how to restore the condition I had found it in, and last night at about 3am New York time, I tried to do so: re-delete the entire article, and then click through 815 checkboxes to restore only the revisions that came after the initial deletion.

However, when I clicked "restore," I got an error message: "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem..." I believe restoring so many revisions in one click is what lead to a problem, as the site seemed to work fine other than that.

Could a more technically-minded admin please advise if there is another way to accomplish the same goal? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your restore went through properly, as you can see at Special:Undelete/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. —Cryptic 17:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct...sorry for the false alarm. There are two restore buttons, and I thought the one I clicked to make that happen was a full restore of all revisions. Using the other button is what lead to the error described above. Still confused by how the software is supposed to work, but glad to see the article is now as it should be. Thanks Cryptic. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Captain Occam unblock request

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

---

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked Captain Occam in April as a normal admin action based on this AE request. While it was an normal admin block, I think it should be reviewed by the community since it took place with the consensus of uninvolved administrators. I am neutral on the outcome of this unblock request. The unblock request is as follows:

As I've said in a few other places, I accept that my block itself was valid, and if it had been a standard one-month AE block I'd have waited it out rather than trying to appeal. However, considering this was my first topic ban violation, I think that a one-month block (or three months, which is now how long it's been) would have been a more appropriate result than an indefinite one.

Blocking me for a month had been the initial consensus in the results section of the AE report about me, until MastCell presented his argument that I should be indeffed based on what he thought my motives were, which shifted the direction of the discussion to make the outcome an indefinite block instead. This matters because MastCell probably is an involved admin with respect to the R&I arbitration case, and shouldn't have commented in that section. Shortly before my block I discussed this matter via e-mail with a member of ArbCom, Euryalus, and Euryalus offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to refrain from further participation in that section of the report. I don't have the space here to present the evidence for why he's an involved admin (and my interaction ban prevents me from discussing some of it in public), but I've shown this evidence privately to Penwhale and I invite his comment.

Since the decision to block me indefinitely instead of for a month was based largely on an assumption about my motives for helping to set up the psychometrics task force, I think it's important to point out that this assumption was incorrect. I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about proving something about their thoughts, but there's one piece of evidence that seems to have been overlooked: Everymorning, who created the task force and did most of the work setting it up, has a perspective about intelligence and behavioral genetics that's very close to the opposite of mine. If my goal had in fact been to advance my point of view on those topics, it would have made no sense for me to help set up a task force with him in charge.

At the time, it didn't occur to me that my involvement in this task force would be viewed as a topic ban violation, because I assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions. (That is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed"; the edits for which I was blocked involved human abilities and behavior but did not involve race or ethnicity.) As I said in the request for clarification that I made shortly before being blocked, now that I more accurately understand how the scope of my topic ban is interpreted, I intend to avoid all content at Wikipedia related to psychometrics or intelligence for as long as my topic ban is in effect. I didn't understand this about my topic ban in March, but now that I do, there isn't a danger of me repeating this particular mistake. I'm also open to the idea of disabling my Wikipedia e-mail feature, if the community feels that this should be an unblock condition.

My interests at Wikipedia are pretty eclectic, but other people can get an idea of what I'd edit if unblocked based on my editing history from January 2017 until I became involved in the psychometrics task force this past March. I edited articles related to religion, video games and books, and my editing history going forward will be similar to that. If I can muster the time and energy for it, I also hope to eventually raise William Beebe to FA status, having previously turned this article from start-class into a GA. (See the article's edit history from April 2010 to June 2011.) In the past I've also been one of the main people maintaining that article, so even if I never manage to get it up to FA status, I would like to at least continue making Wikignome formatting edits as I did here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this up for the community to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Captain Occam has pinged Penwhale and Everymorning, but not @MastCell and Euryalus: I've done that now, as I think they may well want to comment. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I changed it to no pings here (they were pinged in his talk though) and notified MastCell. Thanks for pinging Euryalus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unblock after having read the April discussion that led to the block and the associated evidence. Bishonen's observations back then were especially persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting CO's response here per his request, see this diff: [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I am utterly unimpressed with that "explanation". Captain Occam observes while defending his ally: "However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references." We do not need trolls posing as Nazis editing Wikipedia, and we do not need editors who defend those who engage in such reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - CO has been a perennial problem each time he's been given some ROPE, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that his behavior will be different this time around if he were unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not need another warrior using the project to push a favored point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on an unblock, for largely the same reasons given by the oppose votes so far. If an unblock happens, the TBAN should be on subjects related to race or intelligence, which is far broader than the DS area of race and intelligence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting CO's response to power~enwiki: [3] - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm still neutral. While the email-harassment issue that originated the complaint is sufficiently dealt with by the block so far, and there are less than 250 edits since 2011 (and nothing too problematic in them), the other defenses presented are so awful I can't support an unblock. Complaining that an admin is biased in your unblock request is a great way to get it denied (if there is private evidence, ARBCOM will have to deal with it), and claiming that a person isn't a neo-Nazi but is simply an online provocateur is not a reason for that person to edit Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that I consider myself involved in the current request because CO contacted me via a RL friend of mine. There are... a few things I'd like to point out: There are two things that CO wants dealt with by the the current unblock request: (1) an actual unblock appeal, and (2) consideration of MastCell's involvement with regards to the topic area. With regards to the unblock appeal: I'm neutral (because I consider myself involved). With regards to MastCell: After seeing what CO has shown me, I think MastCell should refrain from performing admin actions in the topic area. My observation of the whole situation is that while CO probably wouldn't mind being unblocked (perhaps with more restrictions as per power~enwiki's suggestion), he wants to have the latter dealt with as a higher priority. I would ask that this request is not closed so early so that both can be discussed at length. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why are we allowing an editor who was blocked precisely for hounding and lawyering and using offwiki communication to pressure users he disagree with away from the one topic that he is interested to use his talkpage request to hound and lawyer against an admin that has opposed him and his agenda in several instances with the decided effect of pressuring that admin away from the topic? His block was not based on Mastcell's argument but on his own behavior. Which he now continues.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing about his unblock. I guess I didn't say that I would still have been neutral w/r to the unblock even if I weren't involved. That being said, what he has shown me does lead me to believe that MC should refrain from using admin powers in the area. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• CO knows full well that a variety of off-wiki sites are available for harassing editors and there is no need for WP:AN to be used for that purpose. If an editor in good standing has an issue with another editor, the first step would be to discuss it on the the talk page of the person in question. If warranted, an editor in good standing could then post a new report here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm lead to believe, from what I was shown, that CO had a rough time determining how to do it w/o violating his IBAN w/ MathSci, namely because CO believes that MC is using admin powers in support of MathSci while being involved. Again, I feel the issue is complicated by the fact that CO believes MC's involvement changed the consensus of his block. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not proxy for a topic and interaction banned user. If you believe MastCell should be sanctioned, start a new section and present your evidence. Otherwise, do not smear editors in good standing with someone believes bad stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care about his block. (Frankly, I'm also not very happy that I'm constantly messaged, but that's a different thing.) The argument for MastCell's involvement is really weak, but it'd go like Trev makes this edit → Trev blocked within 30 minutes of NE Ent making an AE request with no other comments by MastCell → MastCell was privately contacted by Mathsci for dealing with editors under IBAN/TBAN in the area → ... I disagree with CO's sentiment that MastCell is always on Mathschi's side (this is such an example).
• That being said, MastCell doesn't have to (and I don't feel that strongly about MastCell's involvement), but if MastCell would voluntarily not use admin tools in the area just so that CO doesn't have a bone to pick, we'd be done here (this would also bypass any WP:INVOLVED argument). As is, one of the (weak) reasons for the appeal is exactly of that; removing that as a possible reason allows any sanction against CO to be on a more solid ground. Also, when is calling someone involved in a topic area smear editors in good standing? In my opinion, it's like how {{DS/alert}} is a notification that doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If MastCell were to do that then we would in effect have allowed a banned user to exact vengeance on one of his opponents after being banned *and* to continue to exert control over who edits in the topic area that got them banned in the first place. That is a very very bad idea. His very unblock request is a violation of the conditions of his topic ban - he should have no influence on the topic area what soever, includding in determining who is "involved". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock per NOTBURO and ROPE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• How does NOTBURO apply? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not taking a stance on this either way, but I'd like to point out that this is hardly the case where ROPE would apply either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: the review of the AE report that led to the block, along with the unblock request, suggests that unblocking would not benefit the community at large in this case. Additionally, the request fails WP:NOTTHEM and is suggestive of a desire to carry on a grudge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Request narrowing of ban

I would request the narrowing of the ban that was imposed on me, so that it would include only high schools. This is the only place where I fell amiss of the community, on three issues: poverty-related background, religious post-nominals, and spiritual activities. I came into the dispute thinking that policy and guidelines controlled content questions, and that administrators would judge the merits of the arguments in the end. It was only at the end of the dispute that I learned that content issues were settled by a vote. I fully accept this now, and I will be wiser in defending or letting go of my edits in the future.

Failing this request, could I receive permission to merge my deleted material below onto the ten websites listed, with possibly new references. In these cases I was going by the principle that institutes should be moved to a separate article when they take excessive space in the university article. And when reviewers accepted these articles (and many more) I thought that they found the institutes notable in themselves. In the future I have the benefit of what I learned from the 34 proposed deletions of my articles this year.

Here to Regis University; here to Fairfield University; here to Boboto College; here to Creighton University; here to Hekima University College; here to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai; here to Thiruvalluvar University; here to St. Xavier's College, Jaipur; here to Catholic Church in South Africa; here to Immaculate Conception Church (New Orleans). Jzsj (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time due to their stubborn refusal to accept consensus and our well-established guidelines. He mentions a small example above: he persisted with his notion that adminstrators adjudicate content disputes despite being told that is not the case repeatedly, and he continues to confuse consensus with a "vote". The worst disruption was in connection with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School only because he chose to dig in his heels there. I lack confidence that he will not begin disrupting other articles about educational institutions if the topic ban is narrowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than being "told ... repeatedly" that administrators do not interfere in content disputes, this issue was muddled by repeated suggestions that I appeal to administrators, and it was generally the same few people who tried backing up their insistence with general references that were not specific or probative. I thought that this would end up in some form of mediation where an administrator would look at all the evidence and see that the three issues involved were religious issues and there was nothing specific that favored those who opposed me. The focus never seemed to me to be on the issues but on a few who opposed me producing the votes, and that is what I thought an impartial administrator would see after looking over all the evidence. Also, please explain what you mean by "the worst disruption"; that seems misleading to me since it is the three issues at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (which I listed at the top here) that were the topic of the whole discussion. Jzsj (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-Unconvincing.∯WBG^converse 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? What part of what I say do you need me to support from the pages referenced above? Jzsj (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose User is already blocked twice for violating his topic ban regarding education and schools. And he has already got a narrowing for his ban, as he is allowed to enter the discussion when school-articles he created are nominated for deletion. It is clear that Jzsj completely missed the message of the ban. The Banner talk 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... or as he works on dozens of articles he might inadvertently edit one that pertains to the school ban, broadly construed. Jzsj (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) There is more than 200k of discussion directly related to this editor's threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2. It was probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Wikipedia. And even in this relatively short thread requesting loosening of the topic ban I already see traces of some of the same problematic behaviour (walls of text, pointing the finger at others, and requesting that those not agreeing with him explain things repeatedly or in more and more detail). As with Cullen, I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jzsj, per WP:OFFER, the earliest you could have asked this, had your behavior been impeccable, would have been September 7. Due to your blocks, that is now December 3, 2018. You've not been properly informed of the standard offer. Now you have. Suggest you withdraw this as premature. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll let this play itself out. I'm not in this for myself and once I know the rules I try to stay within them. But there was a lot of misdirection in the NDCR dispute, as per my opening statement and followup, with those agreeing with me much less committed than those who opposed me. When I redid the list at the Catholics portal I found only about ten active, most all turning their interest to antiquities, expressing frustration with efforts at more recent issues. I rather do what good I can on more current articles, within the processes that are in effect, and then let my conscience be the judge. Jzsj (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cyberpower678 pinged as blocking administrator. This is amazing. The OP comes here, denying blame in the fiasco that got him blocked, still pointing fingers, deflecting blame for his blocks...this is approaching NOTHERE. When informed if the usual way of handling appeals of indef topic bans, he chooses to continue to ABF, IDHT, and BATTLE, the exact things that got him TB in the first place. All while asking to have his ban restrictions lowered. Again, just amazing chutzpah. Cyberpower (or any uninvolved admin), I'm asking you to close this with a clear explanation of OFFER, and due to what has clearly been exhibited in this thread, a date of January 10, 2019 as first date of appeal. Or should we start an indef block discussion instead (per CIR/NOTHERE)? Jzsj, at some point you are going to have to show you understand that the problem is you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish this topic ban was not needed and I would like to see Jzsj keep contributing to traditionally underrepresented topics. If Jzsj were to show a pattern of making constructive contributions that cite independent and reliable sources, I would support lifting the topic ban. However, as this this AfD shows, Jzsj has not demonstrated such a pattern of constructive contributions, so I'm forced to continue supporting the topic ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

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

---

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

I am requesting admin attention at this MFD (and MFD is as contentious as AFD) for three reasons:

1. Off-topic personal attacks between author User:James500 and User:Hijiri88 who appear to have bad blood.

2. Personal attacks by User:James500.

3. The silly claim by James500 that at 30 Centigrade it is too hot to coMpose a reply. Go to the library. He may be trying to confuse Americans who use Fahrenheit, but that’s 86F. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing that MfD again and have not edited it for some time. I have no wish to interact with the other user again. If you want me to provide diffs to support any claim I made, I can do so, but I think it would just re-escalate something that is already over, as far as I can see. I cannot "go to the library" as I am housebound due to illness and that temperature is more than I can bear. James500 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this seems like a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument. James500 is very inclusionist, though for some reason he doesn't use the standard bolded keep-delete !votes at AfD, preferring non-bolded "Oppose" or "Notable" votes when he supports keeping articles. Overall he is possibly the most quixotic AFD participant since Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oppose" does not mean "keep", it means "anything but deletion". It just means that a target for redirection or merger exists, but I haven't checked for notability. The closest thing that I could write would be "redirect or merge or keep" with no preference expressed. I am not quixotic. As a general rule, I am the one finding the sources when others do not seem to know how to use a search engine properly, I am the one checking the academics' GScholar h-indexes for WP:PROF when no one else looked, and so forth. I do a valuable job at AfD and you are lucky to have me. James500 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @James500: You'll want to read WP:FLOUNCE a few times. Keep that ego in check. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have to say "It's warm outside" is one of the weirdest rationales for opposing an MfD I've ever seen. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It was crushingly unbearably hot inside as well. It was the longest hottest heatwave for some time. The Metreological Office has been issuing health warnings because of this: [4]. It has been that bad. James500 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't consider it to be an off-topic personal attack to point out that the essay under discussion is representative of a battleground mentality that its author has demonstrated in other recent, closely related, discussions. I specifically cited diffs claiming a grand deletionist conspiracy to destroy the encyclopedia, a claim that was until yesterday repeated on the page in question. If other editors consider it a personal attack, I will bow to consensus, apologize, and not repeat those kinds of comments.

I do not consider this a "deletionist vs. inclusionist" debate, because I do not consider myself a deletionist: if a page written by a self-identified deletionist that made similar polemical attacks against other users, I would have !voted the exact same way.

I do consider James500's remarks about me to be personal attacks, but not ones that rise to the level of AN yet, and I think it should be my prerogative to report such things when they involve me. I've seen enough drahma come out of this MFD already, and I don't want to spend any more time thinking about it (it was bad enough that I was reminded about literally the worst thing that ever happened to me in nine years editing Wikipedia).

Can someone just close this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(On what should be an entirely unrelated note, I grew up in Dublin, Ireland, where the maximum forecast temperature today is 21℃, which is I understand quite hot for my hometown, so I have almost no natural tolerance for heat, and currently live in Osaka where the minimum temperature tonight will be 26℃ and tomorrow at around noon it will climb to 33℃. So I have probably more reason than almost any other editor of English Wikipedia to complain about the heat -- the only others with more would be people used to an Irish-style temperate climate who currently live in the desert -- and I agree it makes no sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )

I once had to defend myself against a completely frivolous edit warring allegation in the middle of Australian summer, where temperatures can often exceed 42 degrees, and the only things I had to complain about were the wikilawyering and malice of the litigant, not the ambient air temperature. So I'm not super impressed with "I object! It's 30 degrees outside!" Reyk _YO! 08:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I ran a brief Google check and found that the difference between Dublin and Osaka is rougly the same as the difference between Osaka and Riyadh (I was a little surprised to see that Riyadh is apparently hotter than Cairo...). That's what I was referring to with "the desert". I assume that "often exceed 42 degrees" refers to the inland areas that could reasonably be compared to Riyadh in terms of climate, but I'm barely capable of Googling the current weather where I am, let alone looking up average temperatures in multiple regions where "how's the weather now in X" won't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if you're in a country that is used to hot summers, with everywhere having AC and whatnot, you're probably far better equipped to deal with 42℃ then us poor Brits are with 30℃. It's not easy. Fish+Karate 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the MfD as consensus to userfy. It's about 12 hours early, but I think the debate has run its course and all that's going to happen now is more yelling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Apologes

Hi all,

I have been working up some suggestions for the policy and associated advice on apologies in dispute resolution. I am not an Admin, so I am wondering how in practice you handle the issue. Would any of you be able to reply to the two specific questions below?

• WP:CIVIL states that an apology can not be demanded. Are there any occasions in practice when such a demand does get made and have to be met? For example if an editor is required to withdraw a direct legal or personal threat, can – or should – their retraction ever be required to include a sincere apology?
• There must surely be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand"? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• By definition, there is no such thing as a forced sincere apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen many many instances where people were told "you should apologize". I am always a little wary of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when people are told to apologize. A forced (or requested) apology shows only that someone is intelligent enough to realize an empty apology will serve their goals better than egotistical stubbornness. I may be more cynical than the typical admin, but you can at least count on the fact that I won't harass you to get an insincere apology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Userpage and talk page protection request

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

---

A recent CU has determined that I have been recently IP editing in breach of WP:IPSOCK but some other accusations have come up. As such, I am currently not to edit Wikipedia and am requesting a protection of my userpage and talk page closure until I am officially permitted to edit by the arbcom or checkuser. If my account gets blocked, please leave the user email feature on as I am currently in contact with checkuser and may need it to contact them later on. But until then I am not to interact or receive message on Wiki of any kind and so would appreciate my talkpage be closed as well. Nothing else is needed. Thank you for your assistance.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not in a position to dictate that. Talk page and userpage is not protected with this kind of request unless there is proof that it has been misused by other editors by carrying out prohibited activities such as vandalism. Although email and talk page access is revoked once the editor is sitebanned. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: You are not blocked and checkusers don't tie IPs to named accounts so I don't know what you're referring to there. I have removed the "indefinitely blocked" templates you placed on your user and talk pages as they're misleading. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli. Lorstaking (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli, please read the SPI and comment in the appropriate section as requested. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for Korny O'Near

Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be having trouble dropping the stick at Talk:Imran Awan. He hasn't been able to convince a single person, yet he keeps going on and on, with a major case of WP:IDHT. I propose a six month topic ban from the Imran Awan page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have diffs of what disruption is being caused, as I can't see on that talk page what would justify an immediate, full-on topic ban. Particularly as he's not disrupting the article, he is discussing it on the talk page. Fish+Karate 12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I could give you a list of diffs, but it would simply be all of his statements on the talk page, interleaved with diffs where everyone else disagreed with him and posted multiple requests that he drop the stick. I don't see that as being more useful than just reading the talk page, but I will compile the list of diffs if you want me to.

I agree that he has not been disruptive on the article. The problem is him not dropping the stick on the article talk page. Should I wait until he hits 1000 comments without convincing anyone? He clearly is not going to stop without administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I see 17 comments over four days by Korny O'Near. That is 983 comments less than 1000. That being said, I ask Korny O'Near to recognize that they have failed to gain consensus among the editors on that talk page that their concerns are legitimate. No one agrees. At a certain point, each editor must recognize that consensus is in the other direction, and move on. This appears to be that time, Korny O'Near. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Yaser Abdel Said.png

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

---

Can this image be replaced by File:Yaser-said.jpeg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:3512:1C14:CC50:2CF2:8817 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest it on the talk page of the article, Talk:Yaser Abdel Said. I suspect given the image is a computer-amended aged version of this wanted criminal, then it shouldn't replace the other image (which is an actual image) but it could be added somewhere to the article, if licensing allows. Fish+Karate 12:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Taiwan-related vandalism

Just a note for all, I spotted a bunch of this while clearing the backlog at WP:RFPP, there seems to be a wave of unconnected (I think) IP addresses making fluffery edits about how awesome Taiwan is. Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The common factor seems to be amending articles to describe Taiwan as "democratic industrialized developed country of Republic of China (Taiwan)", then a bunch of other peacockery. I guess all we can do is semiprotect, but just so people are aware if you come across it, that it's not an isolated incident. Cheers. Fish+Karate 12:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar IP-hopping peacockery about Taiwan was noted here. Kanguole 12:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar to the point of being identical, good spot - [10]. Fish+Karate 12:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

move initiated 3 weeks ago, time for admins to decide.

Hey there. Please assign someone to make decision on this move

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaporizhia#Requested_move_22_June_2018

thank you 46.200.143.183 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone here is a volunteer, including the admins. No one gets "assigned" anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Could an Admin please give Cristiano Ronaldo full protection, so much disruption at the moment due to media reports about his future. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Fully protected, two days. Just too much reverting going on on that page. Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter

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

---

Per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#EEng and canvassing and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request, did Ymblanter resign under a cloud? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at BN, which is the proper place to determine this. ansh666 23:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Concurring with Ansh666, this is a matter for the bureaucrats to deliberate. They can even do this by disregarding all or any of the non bureaucrat comments at WP:BN if they wish - it's their page, their mandate, whatever a discussion here at ANI may conclude. By the same token, Guy, unless there is egregious cross-Wiki behaviour of the kind that requires a global block, what gets discussed on another Foundation project about this issue has no relevance here and we're not obliged to go over there and take a look. Genuinely sorry to disagree with you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Regarding my Account

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

---

Dear administrators,

I am here in response to an SPI Filled against me for being a sockpuppet of multiple accounts. As you can see the on-going discussion and my comments there as well, I want to say something here and to ask some help as well. As much as I regret that those accounts were mine, when I joined Wikipedia in 2013, and all accounts were created in same year using Proxy. As I was in China where Google and other search engines can not be used unless you are using VPN. So my first three accounts were blocked, and I admit it was my mistake because I didn't know any better regarding policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. And recently it came to my attention that before creating a new account for a user who have been blocked previously, must have administrator(s) permission to edit further on Wikipeida and this was the fact I was unaware of. I want to explain little on that, that my this account was also created using proxy when I was proxy exemption back in 2013. I continued because I didn't face any warning, until two days ago, when I filled a SPI for a user who instead filled for me. Now this was certainly a set back for me, because all of the accounts were in 2013, and they were blocked immediately in same year, except the last one. It has been more than four years I am editing Wikipedia, and never been accused of misconduct and warned for. Yes initially I upload copyrighted images and they were deleted as per regular policies and I was not warned, because I stopped and became more focused on who to edit, and with time I have learned to edit safely and I have contributed over ten thousands edits so far, and created over 200 pages, and recently promoted an major article to FLC solely, well all of my edits are not up-to best but they allowed me to continue my work.

Having said this, I accept it was on me, that I should have find out, and report here for using this account, but i cannot go back in time and correct things. And it may sound off, that I am here when SPI was filled, why I didn't acknowledged this earlier, the only truth is that I didn't know back then, otherwise I would have asked for permission, and I do't know how to prove that. I have been on this platform for over four years, working and giving my time, like everybody else, and this account and my work here is very dear, I have always edit in good faith, was never in dispute, and reported where I thought was necessary but never indulge in edit warring or abuse. So here I am asking for your clemency, and pardon. I should have known better and should have learned better regarding policies and rules more. But as I was never warned or given any notice after that, I didn't give any thought for this. You can look into my history, my edits and my accounts you will know.

And the SPI that is filled against me is out of personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors, who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring in India-Pakistan issues, as they constantly try to remove contents from Pakistani related pages. I haven't lie before, I won't lie now. I am here only when I get to know this. If this SPI weren't filled, I would not have know otherwise. So as soon as I know I am here, I know it is hard to believe that I am here for four years and how come I didn't know, but thats the eap of faith and trust I ask from you all, looking into the history of my edits in past four years. Thank you! Nauriya, Let's talk 03:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Without replying any further to this forum shopping, I would point the above blatant personal attacks and violations of WP:ASPERSIONS such as "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring". This statement alone justifies an indefinite block. Not to mention your mass copyright violations and breach of multiple accounts. To others, read my comments and from well established editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize for writing that, I didnt mean to attack or meant anything derogatory. I already explained my defence. And this also proves me that you are here commenting and watching me all the time. Its like tracking. Nauriya, Let's talk 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• What are your actual intentions behind these personal attacks? I have this very general noticeboard added to my watchlist for years and I have edited it before.[11] Why you didn't even bothered to notify the editors that you are attacking here? Your false grief in this section extends beyond deception. Launching another attack after making false apology for the minutes earlier attack confirms your unreformable problematic conduct. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sdmarathe, your comments here and at SPI are so extremely combative that they approach disruption. I really suggest that you back off and let uninvolved editors and administrators handle this matter. This editor has admitted that they socked five years ago and has apologized. Your bubbling anger makes it difficult to assess the validity of your other complaints. Cool it, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Admitting sock puppetry after being caught as sock makes no difference. It is supposed to be done earlier. Falsely alleging others of sock puppetry is outrageous. What are your comments about them filing baseless SPIs against editors they have never interacted nor investigated themselves? As well as the attacks on ethnicity by making a range of false accusations. Now that's something we need not to ignore. Also, in reference to "5 years ago" - The editor is still violating WP:SOCK as his not only one but 3 accounts are still blocked indefinitely and one of that account was blocked for sock puppetry.[12] thank you Sdmarathe (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you did not take the friendly advice that I offered, Sdmarathe. That is duly noted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol

Universa Blockchain Protocol was deleted with the speedy deletion rationale "Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto." The speedy deletion is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol.

This noticeboard implemented general sanctions for blockchain and cryptocurrencies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#General sanctions proposal.

There is disagreement about whether Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue. The speedy deleting admin recommended a speedy close, writing, "wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard". The DRV nominator disagrees, writing, "WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all." I'm posting this here to notify the WP:AN community of the DRV discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Update on YouTube feature linking to English Wikipedia articles

Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.

The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.

You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): thanks for looking into this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was convinced on IRC to compile the (currently little) information available on this here, despite having never made a project space page before. Feel free to add to it or laugh at my attempt. Natureium (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by blocked editor

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

---

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) was subjected to a community block about two months back, and has since been intermittently adding comments about me to his talk page, since he blames me for his being blocked (despite it being a community decision). Most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with him or his block,[13] and is just the result of him digging up dirt on me. The edit summary listing the many ways my accuser(s) uses Wiki as a 'Battle Ground', is within the scope of reasonable use research for appeal of my Block[14] seems really questionable -- has anyone ever been unblocked for saying "The guy I blame for my block is a bad dude, so you should unblock me"?

I initially tried removing some of the worst of it, but was reverted.[15] Since I'm the target of these comments I'm obviously biased, so I'll leave it to the community what to do with this. I don't personally believe it rises to the level of revoking talk page access, but removing the offending content and issuing a strong warning about what he can and can't do with his talk page while blocked is in order.

I messaged User:TonyBallioni about this yesterday, but I emailed him about an unrelated issue at around the same time, and I'd really rather not be more of a burden on him than I already have been (the header on his talk page, his recent edit history, and some other stuff all imply he probably doesn't want this on his plate at the moment). Tony: you can just ignore my most recent message on your talk page and I don't expect you to respond here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this because of real life commitments that have limited my ability to do more than basic things on-wiki recently, so sorry I can't comment further. I'm pinging Cyberpower678 as the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note that when I gave him the obligatory notification that he was being discussed on AN, he responded by writing a bunch more comments directly addressing me and pinging me to tell me to stay off his talk page.[16] This request to stay off his talk page was redundant since the whole reason I came to AN was that I heard him the first time, and given that he knows I was obliged to notify him of this thread it comes across as deliberate abuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I requested that he stop (See User talk:C. W. Gilmore#Please stop) and he agreed. I have placed a similar request on your talk page which you probably have not seen yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I assume by "yet" you meant as of your writing the above, and not as of me reading the above. If the latter, then no, of course I saw the message on my talk page first. :P

Anyway, thanks for dealing with that. I think we're probably done here, so if anyone wants to close this...?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

After promising me that he would stop talking about Hijiri 88, C. W. Gilmore continued talking about Hijiri 88 and as a result had his talk page access revoked. Good call. He then sent me a Wikipedia email talking about Hijiri 88, which I of course ignored. I just put in a request to the blocking admin suggesting revoking his email access as well. I usually keep AN and ANI unwatched, so if he comes up with a completely original idea that has never been tried before involving cloth foot coverings, please drop me a line on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that I 100% expected the email result, given that his first interaction with me was to email me and tell me how awesome I was for "getting" his first "rival" site-banned (even though, there as here, it was a community decision -- the whole affair was described in detail in my OP comment on the linked ANI thread). I also have very little faith in the "editors who were blocked partly for harassing Hijiri in May 2018" group not engaging in off-site and email harassment of me, given some of the other stuff that coincidentally came to my attention at within the last few hours. Email access should probably be revoked from CWG, as he's not going to stop this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Year link removal with Twinkle

G'day all, I was trying to remove just a couple of links to 1914 from the Military of Australia portal and accidentally removed many I shouldn't have. Please accept my apologies for this. Is there any way to mass revert my changes so others don't have to do this singly? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I've reverted all my edits now. Once again, apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For info/future reference, I think Wikipedia:Rollback would do this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)