Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 141 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 19 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	49	73
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

 Done Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 91 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 11 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7750 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Hi, fellow administrators! I'm currently going through the database report of indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and I see numerous IP addresses that have not only been blocked indefinitely but over 10+ years ago. I had some questions I wanted to ask, as well as some specific blocks I wanted to ask about adjusting their block duration to eventually expire. First question is: If the administrator of a company or department requests the IP to be blocked, do we still do so indefinitely? What about blocks like this made 9, 10, 11 years ago? I also saw an indefinite block on this IP with a summary that there was consensus at ANI to block - was this indefinite as well? What situations today would call for an indefinite IP address block? What blocks on this list should stay as-is? I think the issue with many of these old indefinite IP blocks is that (I believe) WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted after many of them were made. I wanted to draw some attention to this database report, and get input regarding what's on this list. I think that many administrators will find that indefinite IP blocks set by them were by accident (such as myself - I had one listed here). Any input, feedback, opinions, and assistance regarding this list would be very much appreciated; I've been running into old blocks like these, and I feel that I should at least take some initiative and re-evaluate them if they don't reflect today's etiquettes, norms, and guidelines. Thanks, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of these IPs are still assigned to the organizations that requested the blocking. What I am more interested in are the criteria by which we decide when to act on such a request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, since you recently blocked a school's IP based on an OTRS ticket, probably you ought to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My own indef block is a special situation, and I think it was a good decision — at one time, it was common for Toolserver bots to edit logged out by mistake (e.g. you'd see an IP clerking WP:UAA), despite the clear requirement at WP:BOTACC (in other words, this was a mistake, not ignorance or bad-faith bot operation), and this was one of the IPs they used, so I indef-blocked it while permitting logged-in editing. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 - Jo-Jo Eumerus - I also am interested in how we act upon requests from the organization or owner of the IP address as well. The issue I see with many of these database report entries is that the blocks are indefinite, made over 10+ years ago, with no diff or ticket number in the block summary (so it can't be reviewed), and by administrators who have long since left the project and are no longer active here. I've modified a few blocks from this report that I definitely don't believe need to be indefinite in duration anymore (old blocks and in the situation I just described); I'm interested to hear input by other admins and to get an understanding of indefinite IP blocks as a whole. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The older OTRS blocks were reviewed in 2014. Some essential reading (IMO): this stuff. I'm personally content to leave an indef-block alone where the school admin has requested a block and the IP remains assigned to the school. I probably wouldn't make any new indef blocks on request, unless there was some guarantee of a review. CAT:OP, which is typically excluded from the database report, has been in a horrible state since forever. So yes please more eyes on these blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz - I plan on going through this list to make sure that any indefinite blocks that have been set are still necessary. I've already started pinging some administrators on their user talk pages about old blocks and asking for their input about setting a definite duration. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, sorry about the edit conflicts. I've requested checkuser on the IP I blocked (to see whether it's still being used by approved bots) and on the approved bots (to see what IPs they're using), and I'll unblock this IP if it's not in use and block other IPs if they are. {{Toolserver IP}} instructs admins to indef-block the IPs in question, but if the Toolserver IPs are no longer used by WMF, we'll probably need to unblock all of them. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend - Don't be sorry; it happens and it's nobody's fault. Thanks for responding to my concerns here and for your input. This is good information that I didn't know much about, so I appreciate it greatly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've filed an WP:ARCA request about the two IPs that were blocked as arbitration enforcement; one was blocked in 2014 and the other in 2008, so I'm guessing that neither one is needed anymore. Also trying to learn more about the Toolserver IPs and the IPs currently being used by the bots. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure some of these can be unblocked.

• User:90.217.133.223 blocked four years ago and is a dynamic Sky Broadband IP, this will have been reallocated since then.
• User:63.232.20.2 was used for block evasion, but that was eight years ago.
• User:198.135.70.1 is a public IP used for vandalism but, again, is seven years old.
• Orangemike has blocked indefinitely a lot of IPs for WP:NLT because "these should be indef", but many of these are also dynamic.

• Might be worth going through them and knocking off ones like this. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• As stated in the block reason, the school contacted OTRS and wanted to have Wikipedia blocked entirely for that IP. Not sure what input I can really give, seeing as they requested it and I found no reason to decline their request. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac - I don't see anything wrong with that at all; I'm just wondering about the duration of such blocks and if we should be doing so indefinitely. The past indefinite blocks made many years ago seem quite unnecessary to me. Even if we modified them to a duration of 3+ years from today, I feel that it's better than keeping them blocked forever. Now we have IP blocks that are over a decade old, and certainly don't need to apply anymore - even if it was by request from the IP itself. I don't see why I couldn't go through this database report, verify that the IP is still in fact under the same ownership (and if not, unblock), and change these block durations so that they start counting down. I've already changed a couple from being indefinite blocks to a duration of five years from now. It's still quite a long time from today, but those blocks will at least expire someday, which I think that all IP blocks should eventually do. What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't really give a long thought-out answer because honestly I've never really given it any thought. If a school/institution specifically says "here are our IP addresses, please block them" I think we should honour that agreement until such time as they cease holding that IP. Now, something like 168.11.200.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was a "until we fix the issue", sure, go for a shorter duration.

Maybe for the existing indef's from schools that are 5+ years old we should reach out to the sysadmins and ask if they still want the protection.

Maybe in the future when we receive such OTRS/etc requests, we should ask if they want indefinite protection. My guess is that they would say yes, but at least it would give us justification for the indef.

I guess what I'm saying is that indefinite blocks might not be a bad thing, but I agree with your initial concern that there should be justification for such a move. Maybe a yearly check to ensure that the indeffed IPs still belong to the original "owners". Maybe I'm giving too many maybes. Maybe. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't think we should follow the school's wishes here for an indefinite block. If they don't wish students to be editing Wikipedia, that's their business to enforce. If the IP is editing constructively, why should we block it? (If it's not, that's quite a different story.) I certainly don't think we should overrule our usual blocking policy when it comes to indefinite IP blocks at a school's say-so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I'm okay with honoring the request from the administrator of the organization if the IP has a history of disruption and abuse and such disruption is currently ongoing, but any such blocks should be temporary and definitely not set to an indefinite length. I agree that we should not overrule our blocking policies (not just in this situation... but in general, really). They're there for a reason. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ran a quarry to filter some additional indefs, the list is at about 285 with ~15 admins being responsible for a third of the blocks:

1. User:Orangemike: 15
2. User:Jimfbleak: 12
3. User:TigerShark: 12
4. User:Yamla: 6
5. User:NawlinWiki: 6
6. User:Jayron32: 6
7. User:Mackensen: 5
8. User:Ponyo: 5
9. User:Netsnipe: 5
10. User:Materialscientist: 5
11. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me: 4
12. User:Infrogmation: 4
13. User:Kudpung: 4
14. User:Good Olfactory: 4
15. User:Andrewa: 4

SQL^{Query me!} 00:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many, though not all, of my indefinite blocks were from before WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted. I have reviewed and lifted the six blocks I placed. One (or two?) were at the request of the administrator of the IP address, but I can find no evidence that the IP address is still assigned there. --Yamla (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I probably phrased that badly. Thanks for looking into yours! I'll update the list periodically. SQL^{Query me!} 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take offense. It's worth having the blocking admins review these blocks, as a first approach. But I think eventually, other admins are going to have to review the rest. Just getting mine out of the way. :) --Yamla (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like my five remaining blocks were all for open proxies and aren't related to past checkuser activity. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas on how we would even begin unblocking User:00.00.00.00? Software automagically changes it to User:0.0.0.0. SQL^{Query me!} 01:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SQL -  Done. I used the API to find the original block log:

API response {"id": 281857, "user": "00.00.00.00", "by": "Gurch", "timestamp": "2006-10-20T09:41:50Z", "expiry": "infinity", "reason": "username", "rangestart": "0.0.0.0", "rangeend": "0.0.0.0", "autoblock": "", "allowusertalk": ""}

...and I used the block ID from the API response as the parameter to unblock the user:

API response {"id": 281857, "user": "0.0.0.0", "userid": 0, "reason": "Remove block to stop IP/User confusion with database report"}

The block log shows that I unblocked 0.0.0.0 and the page is definitely confused... but this was the sure method I could come up with that would actually unblock what was blocked. It's weird, because I went through the block log to find the block of this user, and nothing exists during the timestamp of the original block... So... I think the logs are going to look wrong... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you could publish the full report, SQL? I'd like to review any accidental indefinite blocks on IPs that I placed, but they're not easy to locate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I just ran the full query and searched the API response for any blocks that were made by you - nothing came back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are more under Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. The one listed under my name is incorrect; it was reblocked by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply by andrewa

I can only see two blocks at User:SQL/indefip that I made. I've reviewed both of these and the comments I made at the time. [1] [2] Both are soft blocks of IPs that were at the time assigned to educational institutions. And you don't know this, but both user talk pages are permanently on my personal watchlist.

It seems to me reasonable to leave those blocks there indefinitely, in view of the history before the block. And I note that Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (referred to above as if it had modified the blocking policy) is an information page. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

From Jayron32

Feel free to unblock any of mine. They are all so long ago as to be likely not needed anymore. --Jayron32 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jayron32.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Ponyo

It has never been my intent to block an IP indefinitely and is likely a result of choosing the wrong drop down option when blocking an IP and their registered account back to back. Feel free to unblock the 5 attributed to me. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo!  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from The Bushranger

Huh, I actually have one in here, way back in 2012 when the only grognard editors were pterodactyls. Pretty obvious it was a case like Ponyo's where I mis-clicked the menu, so I've gone ahead and unblocked it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for following up and for taking a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Lankiveil

My only entry is an oversight block, of User:74.143.90.218. I invite opinions on whether this is a dynamic IP and thus potentially safe to unblock. The same IP was used by the same individual over a period of at least a year to post oversightable material, so I'd rather not unblock it unless I am absolutely certain it has changed owners. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Lankiveil - Did you pull a WHOIS on this IP? It's ISP is Time Warner Cable with a 74.142.0.0/15 direct allocation, which looks like a Residential HSI connection to me, so it's most certainly not a static IP. It can certainly stay the same if the modem never disconnects past the DHCP's lease period (typically one week), but the IP can change if conditions are met (mostly with disconnecting the modem or changing services). So if it helps at all: It's possible that the IP can change, but it's normal to see it stay the same for a long period of time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Warner Cable dynamic IPs can stay the same for *years*, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::As a former Time Warner Cable residential customer, just a heads up - I held the same IP for roughly 2 years. SQL^{Query me!} 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, that does appear to be a static IP assigned to the business portion of Time Warner. See the "biz.rr" in the record here. Cross check indicates that it is static. That IP block was an acquisition from Insight Communications and I believe that the business static lines would have been preserved and not reassigned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - Ah, shit. I didn't dig that far deep; guess I should have :-). I didn't notice the business registration - thank you for pointing this out to me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I thought that it was residential home cable, but given that the account was posting the same nonsense over a period of months, I was a bit dubious about taking the block off. Thanks for the information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

It’s that time of year again. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday, 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Saturday, 00:00, 28 October 2017 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 00:00, 1 November 2017.

Please review the candidates' statements and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like all the winners of the election to know in advance that I voted for you, and I'll be coming around to collect my compensation soon after you get your crowns and sceptres from Mr. Wales. (Payment can be postponed in favor of future considerations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at my PayPal account and through the $100 transfers that I've received, I think I know who will best serve the community on the Arbitration Committee to the best of their abilities, and with they will have my full support. The Rambling Man, Your payment didn't go through. Would you like to try again with a different credit card? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - To answer your question, yes - that is American Dollars - $100. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I'm not sure I have a sufficient number of $100 bribes to buy myself into this one...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Nah. That $50 money order you sent me before your RFA was returned as stolen. My children went hungry that day, I ran out of gas on the turnpike, and I got a zit on my chin, and it was all. your. fault. Katie^talk 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - Wait, no gas, no food, ...and you got a zit?!! I'm sorry... that money order was good, I swear. Nonetheless, for the inconvenience, I'll credit your bribery funds $50 and I'll give you a coupon good for 10% off the purchase of a support vote in WP:RFB. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't vote in those elections, anymore. After I returned to Wikipedia in May 2014, the voting system was already changed. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. Your account dates from 2005, you have almost 200,000 mainspace edits, and you're not currently blocked. What stops you from voting? I don't think your one-year ArbCom ban in 2013-2014 disqualifies you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The voting system itself was changed, while I was away. Ya can't just poke a dot next to a candidate's name, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure you can. There are three dots for each candidate, "Oppose", "Neutral", and "Support", and you just poke the dot you want. Any candidate for whom you don't poke a dot stays "Neutral". What about that would prevent you from voting? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't trust the "Go to the voting server" bar. That route wasn't there, back then. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the problem isn't that you can't vote, it's that you won't use the system that's been set up for voting. What do you imagine are the possible problems that could come up by being redirected to the SecureVote page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

[Virtuously indignant at notion of paid voting.] Bishzilla as usual support all little candidates resident in her pocket. Come one come all! Best hurry before Bishonen make puny fuss. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series)

While checking on some non-free images, I came across Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) and Draft:Superman (1978-2017 film series). I'm not sure why but it appears that they were created by same new editor. It looks they didn't know quite how to move the page to fix the hyphen/ndash issue they had with the title of the first one they created, so they simply created it again. Not sure what to do here. Does the first one Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) need to go to MfD or can it just be tagged for speedy deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, it doesn't really matter because they're never going to pass AfC - we've already got an article Superman_in_film and they'd just be deleted A10 as duplicates. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've G7'd Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) because the creator wrote they were marking it for deletion. Normally if a user makes a cut-and-paste move we would do a history merge, but it wasn't necessary in this case because the creator was the only contributor before the cut-and-paste move, meaning there were no attribution issues to resolve. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite and Jenks24: Thanks to you both for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, if the creator of a page does a cut-and-paste move, and they're the only editor who has edited the page, then all that is necessary is to turn the original into a redirect. There's no point in a histmerge if the attribution links to a single individual. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Pretty sure that's what I said. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Misread your original post. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI backlog

WP:SPI is badly backlogged. We sure miss Bbb23! Bless his heart, he posted today - for the first time in more than a month - and closed a complex SPI case. But he says his time for Wikipedia still extremely limited. Any other checkusers willing to step up and handle some of these requests? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only a single endorsed request for checkuser, and it's a relist. The call-out needs to be made to Clerks to review the 6 checkuser-requested cases and Clerks and Admins to review all of the rest of the open categories. There is always a shortage of Admins willing to jump in due to the burnout to reward ratio; it's a slog.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Clerks, admins, we need you! --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the kind words, Melanie. I dealt with the relist, so there are no more masters in the endorsed category. CUs, in particular the new energetic crop, have been doing a terrific job. As Ponyo gets back up to speed, she will make her usual dent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, seeing your name pop up in my notifications was like Christmas come early. Second, I'm getting older - this is me "up to speed". There is no other gear!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All I wanted for Christmas was to see Bbb23. :-) Katie^talk 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

People know my thoughts on backlogs on here. OK, quick win time - isn't the admin newsletter due soon (1st of the month, I believe)? Along with the standard movers and shakers section, a quick paragraph about the most backlogged areas along these lines: SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. That'll hit 1,000+ user pages and maybe reach a few who aren't as active on this board. I'll even draft that bit up, if someone shows me were to go (fnar, fnar). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/12. Nihlus 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: AIV is never actually backlogged. It has a bunch of denied requests that most admins would prefer to leave stale than template deny. The solution to the AIV backlog is for vandal fighters to stop reporting good faith users. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And to stop reporting after two vandal edits. Points #2 and #3 on that board are too-often ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly also not to use AIV as 'WP:REQUESTS FOR BLOCKS', for random socks, impolite editors, and POV warriors. SQL^{Query me!} 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the random sock reports as long they're obvious. Better than clogging up SPI or ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is that they aren't usually very obvious. And when declined, someone else usually follows behind and blocks anyhow - validating, and even encouraging the reporters misuse of AIV. SQL^{Query me!} 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditto x2 @UAA — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 19:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on AIV never being backlogged. It normally gets backlogged around 12am-10am UTC. Nihlus 19:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And most of those reports are bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nihlus and Tony. I've updated the newsletter. Feel free to change anything. Hope that helps. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you probably don't need to mention RFPP. Backlogs there tend to get dealt with very quickly; they seldom last more than a few hours. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, it has been raised here a few of times in the past months. Can't do any harm to mention it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, RFPP gets backlogged for more than 24h (often Saturday European morning - may be the majority of the admins are from North America?), and, indeed, I had to post here a couple of times in a couple of months, and I have also seen others bringing it here. A good thing is that it is actually easy to handle RFPP backlogs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't making it up! Right, we'll give this a go and see if there's any improvement. I know that can be hard to quantify, but a reducation of requests here would be a good benchmark. Although, there might be a spike between the 24th and 26th of next month. Christmas is now cancelled. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Update of Administrator Confidence Survey results

The Administrator Confidence Survey results have been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and to plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in learning your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making at Wikimedia Foundation and by the English Wikipedia Community.

You can discuss the comments on wiki on talk page or by email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hey fellow admins, I don't have time at present to handle this, so I thought I'd bring this here in case someone has a few minutes. SSangeertha and Sangeertha satkunarasa appear to be the same person. I don't know if they're doing this to circumvent scrutiny, or if they're just totally confused, but both of these accounts have created:

• SSangeertha
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)
  • Puvi (actor)
  • Puviarasu Muthusamy
• Sangeertha satkunarasa
  • Draft:Puviarasu Muthusamy (2)
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)

If anyone has some time to look into this, I'd consider it a favor. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Robert McClenon, as he's had some exposure to this and may be interested in scope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the drafts, as the person had blanked and added AfD tags to them. Seems like it's been consolidated to one article now. I doubt the multiple accounts are an attempt to avoid scrutiny since they edit the exact same things and are so similar that it's pretty obvious they're the same person. ansh666 08:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for delete those articles how am i improve puvi (actor) i want to deactivate my account Sangeertha satkunarasa how to deactivate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSangeertha (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SSangeertha: I don't think it's possible for you to deactivate or delete a Wikipedia account once it has been created per WP:UP#Deleting and merging accounts. If you created multiple accounts in error, you probably can just pick the one you wish to continue using, and simply stop using the other one. If you are planning on never editing Wikipedia again with any account, then you might be able to request a Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, but it doesn't sound like this is what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Sangeertha satkunarasa per the request above. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SSangeertha - For advice on how to improve an article, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb - Duplicate articles, in my experience, are developed for two main reasons. The first is to avoid scrutiny, either to re-enter them after they have been deleted, or to overwhelm or confuse the AFC reviewers, or in more complicated situations. The second is simply in good faith by an inexperienced editor. The former is more common, and often but not always involves sockpuppetry, but the latter is not that rare, and we should assume good faith unless we have reason to suspect subterfuge. This is clearly a good-faith case, since the author has asked for help and blanked the duplicates. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun (Extreme partiality, vandalism and censorship)

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

---

• Using of repetitive inline templates to vandalize the article : Tavaana: E-Learning Institute for Iranian Civil Society
• Censorship of the historic background of the mosque door approved by the official website of the mosque Great Mosque of Kufa. The Hadith is mythical and imaginary but is the base of the door name.
• Wikipedia:Content forking in the article : Iranian Constituent Assembly, 1949 to Iranian legislative election, 1950 and moving the first article to Iranian Constituent Assembly election, 1949 caused the wikidata link to be broken on the corresponding Farsi article. (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17005976&action=history) The subject of both articles is same in 1949 and 1950 but the user tries to fork them.
• more and more I have seen repetitively in different article histories

I remind the username Pahlevun (Pahlevan) means "champion" --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And I remind the admins reading that the editor who uses the sig "IsNotNationalist" is actually User:IranianNationalist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Who has been blocked for violating 3RR on another article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And is now continuing their non-nonsensical and borderline-incomprehensible complaints on their talk page. Is revoking talk page access or extending the block indicated in such a case? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I took away his talk page access since he was just using it as a venue to continue the dispute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Eyes on article

Admins may want to put some extra eyes on the Matt Lauer article. Major news in the U.S. Could see some increased activity with BLP issues. --Jayron32 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Request clarification of WP:BLANKING policy

Resolved

I’ve been an IP editor on Wikipedia for quite some time under various IP addresses, so please don’t question the legitimacy of this thread.

Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I’ve seen numerous blocked users remove content from their user talk page, or even blank it altogether. This is allowed by policy, with the exception of declined unblock requests. However, I’ve seen numerous administrators and other users who have reverted the blanking of a blocked users talk page by the user themselves, often with rollback or another automated anti-vandalism tool without providing an edit summary or other notification. First, that is blatant misuse of rollbacker userrights (in the cases of rollback) since talk page blanking when done by the user who the talk page is for is not vandalism. Additionally, since users are allowed to blank their talk pages, blocked or not, it is incorrect for the admins/users to revert them, let alone revert them as vandalism.

Sometimes, administrators even go so far as to change the block settings to include “cannot edit own talk page” simply due to blanking that did not include declined unblock requests. The most recent example of this that I can find is Special:Contributions/Harry0gle. Admin TheresNoTime revoked talk page access simply because the user removed the block notice and some other content, both of which are perfectly allowed. To make matters worse, the first editor who reverted the talk page did not leave a notification nor an edit summary, and TNT did not leave {{blocked talk-revoked-notice}} upon removing TPA nor an edit summary. The removal of talk page access here was incorrect. Period.

Another, older example of this is Special:Contributions/Ryan_HoganBruen's_life. Again, they removed content from the talk page that did not include declined unblock requests, yet multiple users reverted them and Favonian then revoked talk page access for no apparent reason. At least Favonian left the talk revoked notice, but no notifications were given prior, and, notifications would not have even been needed in this case or the case above since the blankings were perfectly allowed.

TL;DR I would like to request a clarification of the WP:BLANKING policy that allows users, blocked or not, to blank their talk page with the exception of declined unblock requests. I’ve seen admins and other users not allow users to blank their talk pages in accordance with this policy, and therefore I would like to know whether or not the policy has changed and just failed to be updated, or if we are looking at cases of misuse of rollback, or, at the worst, a case of WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. 159.122.86.43 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in the specific case of User talk:Ryan HoganBruen's life, I hit the revert button while trying to review the unblock request, though I grant there was an hour from the blanking to my revert. Users are normally free to remove anything they want from their talk pages, with a few exceptions. An exception is a decline for a currently-active block. At least once in the past, I (incorrectly) reverted such blanking when it turned out the block had expired a few hours before. I believe policy should prohibit blanking of block messages, too, not just declined-unblocks. This is particularly true of users like Ryan HoganBruen's life who are blocked indefinitely. I want to be clear, though; that's what I think policy should be. It isn't what our policy currently says, to the best of my knowledge. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree; block notices should be required to stay as long as the block is active. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Harry0gle's talk page blanking was reverted (twice), let alone revoking talk page access, as policy specifically allows the talk page to be blanked. Perhaps There'sNoTime can explain? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch both, that was a daft TPA revoke in Harry0gle's case - I was asked by an editor to do so, and didn't give due thought to the action. Normally I am well aware of WP:BLANKING, to the point of reminding others to not edit war over the same sort of situation. I've undone my change of the original block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I revoked Ryan's talk page access and reverted, not because of blanking, but because of this silliness – the final confirmation that he had nothing worthwhile to say. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Makes total sense to me. That's just plain disruptive.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For me I must have had a slip up, I honestly recalled the guideline incorrectly an honest mistake and I appologize. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, I can't wait for that report. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

HAhahah... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this... Sorry, someone had to say it... DonIago (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New vandalisim to Net Neutrality pages

The articles which I asked protection for, Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law had been both vandalized and are still open to further vandalism.

• Net neutrality law
• Net neutrality in the United States

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll get an actual response at WP:RfPP, but I don't know if there's enough to justify protecting the latter article (at least yet). ansh666 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

School IPs and block evasion

How does one typically handle a {{SharedIPEDU}} that's evading a block?

Im4god persistently disrupted Church of God of Prophecy with edits like this, so I recently filed an ANI thread that resulted in JzG blocking the account indefinitely. I just noticed this edit, which is obvious block evasion and would easily lead to a {{uw-sockblock}} if it were made with an account, but for one thing it was a day and a half ago, and secondly the IP is registered to a community college and makes edits on lots of topics. Should this just be reverted and ignored (I already reverted it), or is a block somehow appropriate? This is the first disruptive edit by an IP since January 2016 (and there were several IP edits since then that undid disruption), so there's no way that we should be semiprotecting it right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Close RfC

Hello, proposing that someone close an RfC located Talk:Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations#RfC:_Whose_photographs_should_be_included_in_this_article? Hopefully this is the right venue to request. I have voted in the RfC so maybe I am not allowed to close it. The RfC is about two weeks old and I think consensus has pretty clearly been reached. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed parts of the RFC, but wasn't sure about the remaining one, so someone else should check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

1. The proper mechanism is at WP:ANRFC. 2. I have replied on the article's talk page, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancient User Sub-Pages

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

---

Hey all, I came across three ancient user sub-pages from both my account now and predecessor handle "Husnock". These are unused pages and should be deleted. The last one seems to be a page someone else created without my knowledge. Delete them please! -O.R.^Comms 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Husnock/RebuildProjectSpecialRanks
• User:OberRanks/Meadowoods
• User:OberRanks/new article

All deleted as a user request to delete pages in their own userspace (CSD U1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Mass U2/G6 deletion request

I have created User:Train2104/bad userspace moves off quarry:query/23382, which is a list of all redirects from userspace to mainspace where the page name of the origin is the same of the target, and the user account does not exist. These are most/all the result of pagemove namespace-mistakes. Could someone please delete them all, as U2 and G6 obviously created in error? (feel free to find-replace the noredirect templates to plain wikilinks, if it makes your script easier to handle) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... (want to check whether they are all indeed U2 eligible) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The database claims so... This list is those whose eventual mainspace target is different from the redirect name, perhaps the result of two moves. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

For example this one is not U2-eligible. I would say it is also not G6-eligible (probably needs to go to MfD)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, bunch of actually existing accounts there. And there is no magic word to tell whether an user exists... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really strange. I joined the user table to see if there exists a user name by that page name, and it reported no. That's bizarre. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still very useful, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The usernames the query reports as existing all contain no spaces. Could it be something to do with the way spaces are stored or processed, possibly that underscores are returned by the page name query and the usernames contain spaces, not underscores? Peter James (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick way to tell whether a username exists is to look at the "Tools" menu on the left when you're viewing the user page - if the account exists there's a "User contributions" link, and if it doesn't there isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(I've looked at about a dozen in the list, and only three of those accounts do not exist - the rest do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC))

It also shows when you try to edit the user (talk) page. But in this case Train2104's list does not show this information, making reviewing these requests a pain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have already done everything down from H, and Jo-Jo Eumerus has done A and B, so that we only have five letters to handle.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a part 2, but it seems to contain more false positives. I'm going to try to see how to better filter them. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd AE sanction appeal

An AE case was opened against me yesterday[3]. I violated AE 1RR sanction on Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations here [4]. The AE case cited AP2 as the underlying Arbitration case. However, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted that he had placed the 1RR restriction per the BLP arbcom case, not AP2. BLP wasn't raised as an issue in the AE discussion. For the 1RR violation on the article, TonyBallioni unilaterally proposed a 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. In fact, Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented that he considered that my edits were furthering the cause of BLP but not beyond 1RR infraction. I asked TonyBallioni for diffs related to BLP as DS are not arbitrary and must fall within the scope. He did not answer the request, rather he closed the AE with DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. and logged it under BLP discretionary sanctions.

This seems rather Kafkaesque in that the punishment is to stop BLP disruptions but the infraction was edit warring over non-BLP contributions and no BLP issues listed. Putting aside the current debate about 1RR as a DS, creating a BLP topic ban over non-BLP edits seems to overreach. No other admin proposed a BLP topic ban. It seems odd that Roy Moore was placed under a 1RR AP2 DS by TonyBallioni while Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations was placed under 1RR BLP DS and the sanction was a topic ban on American politicians. Anyway, the sanction didn't seem to have consensus on the AE page and it looks to me as if the punishment was created to fit a poor DS choice rather than to address the violation. Imagine I edit warred on Roy Moore with exact same edits, no reasonable admin would issue a BLP discretionary sanction because BLP wasn't applicable, they'd just block for edit warring. Common sense would dictate that the same thing on a page that isn't a biography warrants similar treatment, not imposition of an out-of-scope discretionary sanction. This is the admin version of CRYBLP when it doesn't exist.

Please remove the sanction. I don't plan on editing that article again. --DHeyward (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: If you're not editing the article again, why do you want the sanction removed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it prevents him from contributing to other BLPs. It's a very broad topic ban considering this one is the only one he is cited for.--MONGO 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@MONGO: DHeyward is a big boy, he can answer his own questions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

'unconstructive' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Please don't hat my questions, DHeyward. If you want a topic ban removed, you should be able to answer questions like 'why do you want it removed'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than 24hrs on an article that's under 1RR. Yes, BLP came up, though indirectly. The "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions" means it's up to the closing admin to decide what sanction works best. If this had been taken to 3RR you might have gotten a two week outright block. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It was logged as a BLP sanction because I had placed the article under 1RR/consensus required to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article was "highly visible" under AP2, when the article was obviously a sensitive BLP article that would likely be subject to content disputes. DHeyward had a 3RR violation on a 1RR article and his self-revert appeared to be gaming the system by removing all of the content he objected to. When he responded to the AE post, he didn't see how his edits were about a living America politician (despite being on an article about probably the most visible American politician BLP scandal around). Given the large violation of the sanction (4 reverts on a 1RR article), and then a "self-revert" that removed all the content he objected to, this was a flagrant violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page, with no realization as to why they were an issue. Because of his response at the AE page, and here, focusing on the technicality of what was reverted rather than the broader disruption issues, I went ahead and made this a topic ban rather than 0RR.
  Re: logging it as a BLP sanction and the wording: since the page sanctions were placed under the BLP case authority, I limited it to living politicians rather than a broader post-1932 ban, which would have covered much more than this. If DHeyward or the community would prefer that this be logged as a AP2 sanction, I'm fine with making that adjustment, but I would have made the same topic ban either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever reading an admin threatening to increase a sanction when their actions were questioned. And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts. It was a 1RR vio and I admitted to that. Rewriting from scratch is not a revert. You can read my response at AE to see why. I admitted that it was a 1RR vio, why would you think anything in my response indicated that I didn't understand? --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• That article is a lose-lose situation. Wikipedia is wise to make it clear nothing on this website is to be taken as fact and these articles and especially spinoffs as the one in question are truly the worst rags on this website. Tony would be doing you a favor to ban you from that article and related ones, but seems excessive to implement a ban that is so broad.--MONGO 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts" - that is completely false. You actually made TEN edits to the article within 24 hours. FOUR of these were reverts, which is pretty plain to see. So no, I did NOT "count every edit". This is easy to check so I'm not sure what you're trying to pull here. This is a bit like when you reverted all the text you disliked and then claimed that was a "self-revert" which immunized you from 1RR. It's just straight up WP:GAMEing. Volunteer Marek  05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't plan on increasing the sanctions (I'm sorry if that sounded like that), and I certainly don't mind having my actions questions ever: I make mistakes and believe very deeply in admin accountability. My concern here is that you didn't understand (and still don't seem to) that your edits were disruptive on an article that was about an American politician and that this wasn't just a !RR violation, but a major one (4 reverts on a 1RR). I choose this sanction to do my best to prevent blocking you and also to keep the topic ban limited to the sanction area that I had placed the article under. I think it was justified because how large the violation was and then trying to game the system. I believe that this is a serious level of disruption on a very sensitive article and the willingness to try to game the system demonstrates the potential for disruption on similar articles that are under very similar sanctions. I did my best here to avoid a block, because I absolutely hate blocking good contributors. My goal here was only to prevent disruption, not to punish anyone.
  As I posted on the ArbCom page, my home internet isn't currently working and if I post tomorrow it'll likely be limited or not at all. I feel I've explained my reasoning here, so I'm comfortable letting others judge at this point. I just wanted to point out that if I don't respond, it isn't for ignoring anyone, but is for a technical reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since you didn't reply at AE to my statement, I can't understand why you think I don't understand it was disruptive. It violated 1RR. You don't seem to want to hear that this[5] isn't a revert. It moved and rewrote the material. It's still a 1RR violation but you are mischaracterizing it as 3RR. No content was removed. Lastly, Volunteer Marek is topic banned from all articles related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. That article prominently lists Trump as a person that believes the accusations are false and these edits are about a false accusation. Reverting banned editors is not a violation but again, you didn't address that when I raised it. It doesn't excuse my edit warring but it certainly is food for thought. In what way do I not understand it? My statement was that my edits were not related to BLP and were noted by Masem as a fix to the problematic edit by VM. BLP issues were not raised by anyone which should be a predicate for a BLP sanction. I have no blocks for edit warring in over 10 years editing so I think I get it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly a revert. You say "It moved and rewrote the material". Yeah. Rewrote it to remove the edits and text made by another user. That's a revert and you've been here long enough to know that. So stop pretending otherwise.

I am not banned nor have I made any edits that violate any sanction I might be subject to. Once again you are being deceptive and dishonest. This is a third instance of such behavior in this particular incident ( (1) Fake "self-revert" that actually was an additional revert, (2) False claim that I "counted every edit" rather than actual reverts, (3) That somehow my edits violate some sanction (they don't)). This is a pattern now DHeyward, and it amounts to WP:ASPERSIONS in addition to WP:GAMEing, which itself is sanctionable. Let me repeat - you are lucky to get away with the mild and short topic ban here. But by all means, keep going...  Volunteer Marek  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here's another falsehood. There are four reverts here. Up above you try to weasel out of one of them by claiming that it was a "rewrite" (which included removal of text another editor added, which still makes it a revert). That would still leave you with THREE reverts on a 1RR article. At WP:AE you claimed this edit was not a revert because it "The third on his list ([59]) was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit". Look at that edit. You are actually adding the rape claim that is not in the source. Quote: "her story led the post to believe she was lying about being raped by Moore". The version before your edit did NOT have the word "rape" in it. You just used a false edit summary which claimed you did something OPPOSITE of what you actually did, and then repeated that same falsehood at WP:AE. And since this also reverted other text (like the section title) it was most certainly a revert.

That makes it FOUR instances of outright deception and ... mistruthing, in just this one particular instance. Why should anyone believe anything you claim?  Volunteer Marek  05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that I look at your behavior here (I didn't bother reading your comment at WP:AE) and the way you repeatedly and false portray your and other's actions - when it's very easy to check - I actually DO think the sanction should be increased, per WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TEND and even WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  05:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

People can read the diff. That one edit is not a revert, the others were and I don't dispute it. You are still subject to the Trump topic ban[6]. The iban was lifted. Are you not ... banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. The lede prominently features President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore,[13] and accepted Moore’s denials of the alleged conduct. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes they can. So let's go through the diffs again:

• In this edit you falsely claim to be performing a "self-revert". Actually, you're just making another revert, restoring your own preferred version. This deception was noted by admins at WP:AE (User:MastCell and User:GoldenRing)
• In this edit you falsely claim that you are "removing" a rape allegation. Actually, you are ADDING a rape allegation to the text.
• In this statement you falsely claim that the above edit (which you already lied about) was not a revert. But in addition to you adding (not removing) the rape allegation, you are clearly ALSO making other changes. Like changing the section heading and restoring your own version of the text. It's clearly a revert.
• In this statement you falsely claim that " VM counted every edit rather than reverts". No. You made TEN "every edits". I reported the FOUR which were reverts. This is easily checked at article history [7]
• In this statement and in your comment above you falsely claim that I am violating a topic ban. I'm not. In fact, you brought this up at AE and nobody took you seriously. In addition the admin who placed the restriction agrees. You can always file a new WP:AE report against me and ask. Well, except you can't, cuz that may violate YOUR topic ban.

You've been on Wikipedia for some time. You know what a revert is. You know what an edit summary is. You know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. And just generally, as a mature adult, you should know what a lie is. You're trying to WP:GAME the system by making these false claims. This has already been noticed at WP:AE by a couple administrators, and here you are providing more evidence as to the nature of your behavior.

Appeal should be rejected, additional sanctions should be placed for these kinds of dishonest shenanigans. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So VolunteerMarek is under a article ban and two Ibans yet they are here screeching for further penalties against you? That's cute.--MONGO 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mongo, since you're not here to contribute to the discussion, please go away. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok...just find your arrogance to suggest that DHeyward is NOTHERE when you yourself are under a topic ban and two Ibans to be rather humorous, which is sad considering I concur with DHeyward that the article in question appears to be one that you are trying to make into your own little POV coatrack.--MONGO 06:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a short duration topic ban and an IBAN which are completely unrelated to this issue. DHeyward violated a discretionary sanction and was sanctioned for it. Now he's here trying to spin and twist in a dishonest way (see above). Where exactly am I being "arrogant"? You sure you're not just trying to deflect attention from your buddy's misdeeds? Like I said, if you don't really have much to contribute here, then find some other places to annoy people. Volunteer Marek  09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar case today, the admin said the article Patriot Prayer fell within the same topic ban as Volunteer Marek and therefore reverting James J. Lambden(Lambden and Marek were tbanned) and the reverting editor wasn't subject to 1RR.[8]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the edits you did that was used as an excuse to see you sanctioned was this removal which MrX claims there is strong consensus for it being in the article. The section you removed was a story involving the Washington Post that was published by...the Washington Post...in other words a first party source. Since when are first party sources used especially on a sensitive subject such as this article. I'd say your removal was fully in keeping with REF, BLP and NPOV and followed the sprit of sourcing especially pertaining to BLPs as documented in this section of identifying reliable sources. I see on the article talkpage others mentioned this issue had been widely reported outside the Washington Post, but in the version you removed from the article, only the Washington Post source was used to substantiate the claims. On the talkpage there are several who claim there are many sources in the MSM besides the WaPo, but offer none in the article at the time of your edit.--MONGO 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If the story has been widely reported by sources other than the Washington Post, then it seems to me that the best course of action is to add two or three of the best of those sources to the article, rather than complaining about it here. But some folks seem to love endless debates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet no one did so when DHeyward took it down it only had the WaPo reference, so his action was correct. It was restored by MrX still lacking further sourcing.--MONGO 08:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of you, MONGO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Im not adding it in...even with supporting cites I think that section misdirects to equating Moore as having something to do with the situation with the WaPo.--MONGO 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So you repeatedly mentioned the lack of citations, which were readily available, even though your real objection was on another basis? That seems strange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the claim the other sources were readily available...those that wanted that passage included did on the talkpage. Yet those wanting inclusion never added them to the article text, not even when they reverted DHeyward who took down the version that lacked the other references. Getting back to where we were here the issue was brought to AE by one with a currently checkered history themselves, and hardly room to complain about others, and the sanction was applied with excessive zeal and misdirection likely due to their inability, not unlike your own, to identify and apply a reasonable and prudent resolution.--MONGO 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've read every single comment in this thread about three times and I'm still not seeing a legitimate reason to overturn. You admitted to breaching 1RR, and you were legitimately slapped with a DS for 1 month. Apart from not liking that, what exactly is your grounds for the invalidation of a legitimate DS? Swarm ♠ 09:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a BLP topic ban when the only comment for BLP by admins praised my edit as correcting a BLP. BLP sanctin, whether AE or not, should not punish editors that have improved. A 24 hour block would be over now and there's no reason to suspect it would be longer. This is AE overreach and the admin version of CRYBLP. How does a broad and long BLP punishment stop a single page incident that didn't involve BLP edits? ArBCom cases are named and scoped. --DHeyward (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I have explained to you three times now, you violated 1RR (and pretty massively) on a page where 1RR had been placed under the BLP case authority. That is why it has been logged and worded as a BLP sanction: you were causing disruption on a BLP article so the goal is to prevent disruption on similar BLP articles. There doesn’t need to be a BLP violation for you to be sanctioned for causing disruption on a BLP page where you violated specific page level sanctions. You are essentially asking that the page level sanctions for 1RR only be enforceable if it involves a BLP violation, which would make them almost useless at preventing the disruption they were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might benefit the project to observe the repeated dishonesty here in the service of a partisan goal. This is merely the latest component of a long-standing pattern of behavior. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Why are we banning users from BLP for erring on the side of caution with BLP? DHeyward said he wouldn’t edit that article anymore so the purpose of this sanction no longer exists. I also agree with MarkBernstein’s comments about partisan goals (aspersions aside) but not regarding the editor he intends. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• He's NOT "erring on the side of caution with BLP". He's erring on the side of misrepresenting sources and his own and others' edits. He's also erring on the side of making four reverts on a 1RR article, then getting cute by pretending that an additional revert which removes all the text he doesn't like is a "self-revert" so it's all good. Volunteer Marek  17:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's right. It's been a string of deceptions and fact manipulation:

• This edit in which he added a fraudulent claim in with other legitimate claims, probably in order to discredit all of the claims. He even spiced it up by adding "rape".
• This blatant lie, repeating his fist revert and calling it a self-revert.
• Falsely accusing me of violating 1RR at AE.
• Wikilawyering to find a loophole in discretionary sanctions, so that he can go back to business as usual.

This is not the first time we've seen this kind of behavior from DHeyward at American an Politics articles. Here is an example of him making a false claim about a source, then when it's proven that his claim is false, he drops out of the discussion like it never even happened. This topic ban is long overdue.- MrX 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Coming to my talkpage to grave dance after DHeyward was given this topic ban demonstrates clearly you are NOTHERE to work collegially.--MONGO 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... nobody "grave danced" on YOUR (not even DHeyward's) talk page. MrX was just responding to you going around doing a lot of smack talkin' about other editors behind their back. I mean, it wasn't even addressed at DHeyward but at you, and your comments, directly. How hard is it to tell the truth folks?  Volunteer Marek  16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. It was right after DHeyward was sanctioned. You two calling people liars, doing nonstop character assassinations here and elsewhere deserve whatever wrath you get. The admin corps doesn't seem to want to reign either of you in...but that doesn't surprise me one iota considering their track record for blatant bias.--MONGO 16:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The topic ban is for living American politicians, most of the controversial ones are under a similar page level restriction (1RR/consensus required). It is not a general BLP sanction, and I don't like that it is being presented as such here. If this had been an AP2 case it would have been a American-politics wide topic ban rather than simply dealing with living ones, and I did try to limit its scope in that way. The reason for it still exists: the editor made 4 reverts (and yes, I've examined them many times), and then tried to game the system by removing all the content he objected to against talk page consensus. Given how volatile that behavior is and the attempt to game the sanction, I felt, and still feel, that a topic ban is warranted to prevent further disruption on articles about American politicians, which are obviously an extremely controversial topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why not apply it to that one article then? The shotgun approach prevents him from helping improve other articles. DHeyward has done a lot of good for the project, especially on breaking news articles, and this is how he’s rewarded. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe it would help if you converted this to an explicit AP2 topic ban as it usually is applied. That might help reduce the ambiguity in the minds of some regarding whether this is a BLP topic ban. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I had originally applied this as BLP restrictions to the page because it was clearly contentious about a living person, and where content disputes could be expected, because I wanted to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether or not it was a high profile article under AP2 since it was a split from the main Roy Moore article. I logged DHeyward's topic ban as a BLP sanction because it was for a violation of that page level restriction, but I think I made it abundantly clear in the message and here that it only dealt with living and recently deceased American politicians, not every living person.
  If DHeyward would prefer this to be logged as an AP2 topic ban, then I'm fine with that, but I think the sanction is still valid as applied: he violated a page level restriction he was aware of, and I limited the topic ban to the topic area which the case had been placed under sanctions for (BLP). There was clear disruption occurring on a living American politician's page, and my goal was to prevent it from spreading to others given how large a violation of the restrictions it was. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. Maybe this is a general argument for always imposing the standard sanctions for BLP, AP2, or whatever case applies rather than tailoring them to specific circumstances. It might mean the editor in question is subject to a more stringent restriction. But this isn't the first case where I've seen confusion when an admin tried to work out a less broad sanction. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't that defeat the purpose of them being discretionary? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

The article Srebrenica massacre has been tagged as WP:POV by a single-purpose account. I have removed the tag, with an explanation and an invitation to the editor, XerJoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to explain their thinking. They have reinstated the tag. I think the situation could benefit from other eyes than mine. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid we have an instance of WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm already watching and reverted the re-addition of the tag and left a further message on XerJoff's user talk. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ACE2017 MMS

A very large (50000+ targets) mass-message run will be sent out later today for the WP:ACE2017 notifications. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination#Almost_ready_to_send and reply there if you have any concerns. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated, intentional copyvios and refusal to remove them

I've never quite encountered a long-time editor such as this fellow, and certainly not one who refuses to remove likely copyright violations and then intentionally puts up more of them as a dare. This concern is regarding User:Director and the following edits as well as the warnings placed regarding each one: copyvio #1, request to remove, response to request results in copyvio #2, my response to second copyvio. Because there was no response at all to this, I left a warning on the user's own talk page here, his response was this and then this at the article talk page with further copyright violations.

The editor has a pretty extensive block log (longer than mine, which one doesn't see every day, admittedly) for edit warring, harassment, personal attacks, and disruptive editing: [9]. I have not reverted the copyvios in question as I'm limiting myself to 1RR and in the event of blatant vandalism, only. If it turns out I'm making something out of nothing and shouldn't have filed this report, my apologies for doing so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Its all true. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked (48hr), revdel'd. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, just to clarify something you stated (but has since been removed via your own revert) - is removing a copyvio seen the same as removing vandalism? In other words, would it have been an acceptable use of 1RR for me? Mind you, while I am on a 1RR restriction, I have imposed upon myself my restriction of 1RR to be in the way of blatant vandalism. However you reply, I'm not so sure exercising my 1RR in this instance would have done anything more than raise tensions and possibly start a disruptive edit war on the part of the other editor. Thoughts? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I blocked partly because of the WP:COPYVIOEL violations, but also because Director was being pointy and intentionally being disruptive with their further replies. We've all linked to a funny image at one time or another, and if you hadn't said anything probably no one would be blocked right now. It was a bad call for you to call them out on their youtube video, but they crossed the line by following that up with multiple minor copyvio violations. It probably wasn't your intention, but they took the bait (i.e. they dug their own hole). I'd be more cautious in the future, because there's no point in this whole song-and-dance when immature comments can just as easily be ignored entirely. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. And no, that wasn't my intention at all. I never considered it a possibility he would respond like that. Like I said in my initial post above, I've never encountered an editor who has done something like that before. Truthfully, I was quite shocked at the response. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Director does stuff like that. He's also a master at the not-quite-personal-attack - when you ask him to stop, he dares you to report him. This discussion [10] (the RfC I opened prior to the one that you opened) is just chock full of such antics directed at me:

• Me: "Do you think it might be possible that you could express an opinion about which photo is the most appropriate to use in the lede without violating the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, or is that asking too much of you?..."
• Director: "If you believe I've violated NPA, you know where to report me..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As to the question of removal of copyright violations: In clear, blatant, unambiguous cases - yes, they need to be removed quickly - and in my opinion, even while ignoring revert limits; however, before you decide this for a specific case, you need to be sure it is a copyvio - and not text released under a free license (and perhaps copied to an unfree site while ignoring licenses). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And if User:Winkelvi could adjust their signature to something more readable, that would be fine. This is regarding their last sojourn to this noticeboard, where an admin suggested to them that "you should change your deceptive signature - people shouldn't have to hover over a single character just to find out who the hell they're talking to." Cheers! SerialNumber54129 08:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections

Has the voting been restarted? I received a notification about the Arbcom elections a few hours ago and when I went to double check that my vote has remained submitted I find that apparently nobody has voted so far. Am I just getting an error or what's the deal here? I know hundreds of us had already voted so I'm confused as to what's going on. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The voting is taking place on the WMF SecurePoll, not the enwiki SecurePoll. You're looking for [11]. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thanks Rob. What's happened is that when I click the voting link it takes me to the en.wiki voting server first and then later transfers me to the WMF server when I try to vote. As I'd already voted I went to the results first. So when I clicked "SecurePoll" there it took me to the en.wiki results rather than the WMF results. Good, my vote, along with all others, still exists. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I've updated the header on Special:SecurePoll to reference that the logs may be on the other server with a link. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)