Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert[edit]

(Initiated 104 days ago on 2 July 2018) Comments have stopped coming in for a while, though it won't hurt to let this hit the full 30 days. It would be very helpful if this were carefully assessed. It is not a proposal to actually implement a particular bot, but an advisory RfC to ArbCom on what such a bot might do (and not do, and why), and what issues with current WP:AC/DS practice are inspiring the desire for such automation in the first place. ArbCom has promised to take the RfC under careful consideration as community feedback. Actually, one closing option would be to simply close it without an admin analysis, instead explicitly reserving that assessment to ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Archived. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Revisiting the perennial US/U.S. debate[edit]

(Initiated 101 days ago on 6 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Revisiting the perennial US/U.S. debate? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Archived. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#RFC[edit]

(Initiated 90 days ago on 16 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Quneitra Governorate#RFC on map version[edit]

(Initiated 89 days ago on 18 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quneitra Governorate#RFC on map version? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Trypophobia#Should we only use a source's exact wording and/or quote extensively from a source (free or not)?[edit]

(Initiated 86 days ago on 20 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trypophobia#Should we only use a source's exact wording and/or quote extensively from a source (free or not)?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cathy Newman#Merge Peterson interview section?[edit]

(Initiated 86 days ago on 20 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cathy Newman#Merge Peterson interview section?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Millennials#RfC about the editing the lead on the Millennials article[edit]

(Initiated 83 days ago on 24 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Millennials#RfC about the editing the lead on the Millennials article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#George Cross Disambiguation[edit]

(Initiated 81 days ago on 25 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#George Cross Disambiguation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC about the article's lead section[edit]

(Initiated 76 days ago on 30 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC about the article's lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018–present)#RFC on article content[edit]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 31 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018–present)#RFC on article content? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Joan Freeman (politician)#Request for comment regarding family[edit]

(Initiated 74 days ago on 1 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joan Freeman (politician)#Request for comment regarding family? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks[edit]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 2 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Bank of New York Mellon#Request for comments on Historical data section[edit]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 2 August 2018) Legobot removed RfC template. Would an editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Bank of New York Mellon#Request for comments on Historical data section? Disclosure: I have a financial conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of BNY Mellon as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Danilo Two (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Without an article[edit]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 3 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Without an article? See the "RfC" subsection. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#DAB schools with commas or brackets?[edit]

(Initiated 72 days ago on 3 August 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus for this RfC? jamacfarlane (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#DAB schools with commas or brackets?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Suspected perpetrators parameter RfC[edit]

(Initiated 72 days ago on 3 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Suspected perpetrators parameter RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  • It has been archived. -The Gnome (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pennsylvania's 7th and 15th congressional district special elections, 2018#Keep merged or separate?[edit]

(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pennsylvania's 7th and 15th congressional district special elections, 2018#Keep merged or separate?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Caucher Birkar#RfC about Caucher Birkar's nationality in the lead[edit]

(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caucher Birkar#RfC about Caucher Birkar's nationality in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)#RFC: Which table should be used[edit]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 6 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)#RFC: Which table should be used? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington#RFC on first sentence of article[edit]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 6 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington#RFC on first sentence of article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#RFC for stub mountain articles[edit]

(Initiated 68 days ago on 8 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#RFC for stub mountain articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric this has been "closure in progress" for 20 days :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I hereby initiate a request for WBG to get closer to closing. Face-smile.svg -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should this article mention Trump's trip to Moscow in 1987?[edit]

(Initiated 67 days ago on 8 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should this article mention Trump's trip to Moscow in 1987?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson#RfC: Climate science[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 13 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jordan Peterson#RfC: Climate science? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Creation of a new category for consensus summaries[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 14 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Creation of a new category for consensus summaries? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cleveland, Texas#RfC: 2011 rapes[edit]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 17 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cleveland, Texas#RfC: 2011 rapes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation#Request for comments on the opening sentence[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 19 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation#Request for comments on the opening sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning[edit]

(Initiated 56 days ago on 20 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC on list format[edit]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC on list format? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize the need for an administrator with experience in closing controversial discussions. This is the fourth structured discussion in a row on this article, and we need a thorough and decisive close. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 208#RfC on single subsections[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 208#RfC on single subsections? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia#RfC on the manual of style[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia#RfC on the manual of style? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute#Request for comment on NPOV and sourcing[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute#Request for comment on NPOV and sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Human evolution#RcF on Denisovan 11[edit]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 26 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human evolution#RcF on Denisovan 11? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Request for comment[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Rfc on Character Names[edit]

(Initiated 46 days ago on 29 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Rfc on Character Names? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)#RFC on Patten[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)#RFC on Patten? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on use of Morning Star as a source[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on use of Morning Star as a source? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Hamas#Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas in the lead[edit]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 4 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 6 September 2018) Consensus is pretty clear, but as this will result in a large number of page moves, I thought it would be best to get it formally closed by a third party. Cheers, Number 57 23:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

WT:Manual of Style/Video games#RFC: Standardization of "eSports"/"esports"/"e-sports"[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 10 September 2018) Legobot came along and removed the notice. We would appreciate a closer for proposal B and proposal C. I closed A as being a no-go and D as being reasonable only when WP:CAPITALS/MOS:TM are necessary. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Here_(Alicia_Keys_album)#RfC:_Should_the_critical_reception_section_be_trimmed?[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 12 September 2018) Please determine a consensus for this recently expired RfC (Talk:Here_(Alicia_Keys_album)#RfC:_Should_the_critical_reception_section_be_trimmed?) Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Naomi Osaka#RFC about nationality / ethnicity in the lead[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 13 September 2018) An early close would be appreciated. If it turns out that there is a consensus to include certain content in the lead, then it shouldn't be kept out indefinitely just on the basis that "there is an ongoing RfC". The article is semi-protected because of the issue. The RfC has been running for a reasonable time, and nobody has posted to it in the last seven days. It is long-ish and at times heated, but a close should not be difficult. Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to close this RFC early, given how contentious it has been and the edit warring that led to the formation of the RFC in the first place (I am the initiator of the RFC). IffyChat -- 10:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the point in keeping open an RfC when nobody is contributing? There has been enough contributors and enough discussion to determine a consensus. A close might have the effect of ending edit-warring; keeping it hanging certainly won't. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It is now over 30 days. Nobody has contributed to the poll since 1 October (day 17). Protection has been removed and edit-warring has already begun. Somebody please close this ASAP. Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank#Merger proposal[edit]

(Initiated 555 days ago on 7 April 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge at Talk:Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank#Merger proposal. The merge was proposed 18 months ago, has several comments (none in the last month), and relates to a page with active arbitration remedies. Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#How to/should we add a Wikidata item link to Authority control[edit]

(Initiated 131 days ago on 5 June 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#How to/should we add a Wikidata item link to Authority control? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Now archived, at here Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#Wording for sentence in lead on racial stance[edit]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 August 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#Wording for sentence in lead on racial stance.Casprings (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 19 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (18 out of 1443 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Talk:Aziz-Anzabi 2018-10-14 18:24 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
Westland, Michigan 2018-10-14 08:56 indefinite move Persistent vandalism DrKay
Garden City, Michigan 2018-10-14 08:54 indefinite move Persistent vandalism DrKay
Lubna Valiya 2018-10-13 18:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
Gucci Mane 2018-10-13 10:46 2018-10-20 10:46 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Anarchyte
T.I. 2018-10-13 10:40 2018-10-27 10:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Anarchyte
Arjuna 2018-10-13 08:53 2018-11-13 08:53 edit,move excesspive pendulum sockpuppetry with tremondous POV disruption and copyvios SpacemanSpiff
Karna 2018-10-13 06:29 2018-11-13 06:29 edit,move long term disruptive editing in pendulum swings, and sockpuppetry, copyvios SpacemanSpiff
Deepak Kumar 2018-10-12 20:59 2019-03-16 18:30 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry JamesBWatson
Seneca High School (Illinois) 2018-10-12 16:11 2019-10-12 16:11 create vandalism Dlohcierekim
List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior 2018-10-11 21:51 2018-10-14 21:51 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Oshwah
Swarda Thigale 2018-10-11 20:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Caknuck
Swizz Beatz 2018-10-11 16:01 2018-10-25 16:01 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo
Swizz Beatz production discography 2018-10-11 16:00 2019-01-11 16:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo
Estienne Family 2018-10-11 10:23 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: sock pupptry moving here from French Wikipedia Yaris678
Ensign College of Public Health ECOPH 2018-10-11 09:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
Ensign College of Public Health 2018-10-11 09:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
Asim Munir (soldier) 2018-10-10 21:24 indefinite move Dodger67

Topic ban review request[edit]

I was topic banned from American politics articles on 9 January 2018 (not 2017 as the editing restrictions list says) for BLP violations relating to Donald Trump. Whilst I have no real interest in editing articles about Trump, I would like to edit\create article not permitted by my "broadly construed topic ban on American politics". In the last few months, I have been mostly creating biographies for Women in Red, and there have been a few times when I've wanted to create articles about American women, but been unable to do so, as they have a vague connection to American politics. I understand the reasons for which I was topic banned and blocked, and since then have been wholly compliant with WP:BLP, as demonstrated by the 31 biographies I have created this year, of which 25+ of them are BLPs. I ask the community to reconsider my topic ban, as I believe that my editing has demonstrated that this ban is no longer necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Two questions:
  • You're OK with the Donald Trump topic ban remaining in force, right?
  • There seems to have been a certain level of impulse control problems thru March. Are you confident those are not going to recur?
--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This would work better if you provided links, Joseph, like this, or at least pinged Alex Shih. There, I've done both for you. It's difficult for people at AN to comment on a sanction that was apparently (?) decided at UTRS, see my link. For instance, I have difficulty understanding whether Alex is saying only that the topic ban from Trump pages can be appealed after six months, or that the "voluntary" (?) ban from American politics can, or need, also be appealed. Exactly how voluntary is it? I hope Alex will clarify. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
I don't know how kosher it is to reproduce verbatim UTRS logs, but since there's no private info involved, I trust I can do it here:
UTRS context, slightly trimmed
Alex Shih@2018-01-08 21:23:31: 

Hello Joseph2302,

Thank you for your appeal. If I understand correctly, you'll be willing to accept 1) Commitment to BLP 2) Indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed 3) Temporary restricted from page moves until further notice?

While this appeal ticks all the boxes, because of your subsequent comments after the initial block and previous history in this area, the block can only be reduced to 2 weeks I think. Any similar violations like this would result in indefinite block without warning.

Let me know what you think,

Alex Shih
English Wikipedia Administrator	
-----------------------------------------
Joseph2302@2018-01-08 22:00:11:	

Yes I would be willing to accept: Commitment to BLP Indefinite topic ban on Donald Trump and related pages, broadly construed. I'd take this to mean most/all of American politics in the last c.5 years, plus anything otherwise related to Trump e.g. his businesses, media appearances about him such as the Apprentice, Temporary restriction from page moves (I guess temporary means 6 months or a year, or indefinite but can appeal after X amount of time) And I understand that 2 weeks is reasonable given the comments I made after the 1 week block was imposed. And that any similar incidents would result in an indef block. Obviously I would like to return sooner than that, but I understand the seriousness of the BLP violations and talkpage comments. <extraneous info snipped>
-----------------------------------------
Alex Shih@2018-01-09 03:55:12:

Hello Joseph2302,

No problem,
I will reduce your block shortly. Thank you for the prompt response.

Alex Shih
English Wikipedia Administrator
--Writ Keeper  20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no issues with posting the messages, in fact I was about to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam I don't care about Donald Trump topic ban, since I don't plan to edit articles about him. And I had some issues in March which won't be repeated. Mostly I was being pointy which isn't the point of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Writ Keeper. I'm afraid I understand the situation less now, since there's nothing about a topic ban from Am Pol, voluntary or other, there, and yet Alex's log note contains such a ban. Does Joseph need to appeal it at all? Does it exist? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
  • In light of Joseph2302's response, I'm in favor of (a) lifting the AmPol restriction, (b) keeping the Donald Trump restriction, and (c) cleaning up the edit restrictions log with a link to this discussion for the Trump restriction. Part of the problem, I think, based on the layout of WP:Editing restrictions, is that restrictions that are not from ArbCom or a community discussion are, apparently, considered "voluntary" (in the sense that they were voluntarily agreed to in order to get unblocked?). So that might be what Alex meant. But yeah, that log entry is a little difficult to parse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don’t really have an opinion either way on lifting it, but narrow AP2 bans (i.e. Trump bans) have a habit of blowing up in faces and usually lead to blocks because no one can agree what falls under the narrower ban. For this reason I’ve come around to the view that American politics TBANS should generally be all or nothing. It prevents the inevitable “but I didn’t realize that admin X thought discussing a Supreme Court nominee is Trump related!” Unblock requests. Also, FWIW, I think this is one of the few situations where invoking ROPE might actually be appropriate: if Joseph vandalizes a page on Trump again, given the history, an indef is likely. That’s a lot easier to enforce than figuring out what is related to Trump and what isn’t.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, unlike ARBAPDS, the unblock statement is all American politics; what about abolishing the current topic ban entirely and replacing it with a ban on current politics? ["Current" to be defined carefully, of course.] This isn't the Macedonia naming dispute, with centuries or millennia of contention: it's all dealing with current people and current events. If Joseph can't be trusted to edit Trump but can be trusted to edit American politics unrelated to him (no opinion from me on whether that's the case), presumably he can be trusted to edit on issues related to John Hanson, William McKinley, and Estes Kefauver. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • While I'm not opposed to such a change, I'm not sure if it's really dealing with the issue that brought Joseph here. I had a quick look at their recent creations, and most of them seem to still be alive. Actually often the thing that makes them notable is fairly recent. So I'm not sure it's that likely making the ban post 1932 American politics will help much. I'd also note that the state of pre 1933 American politics means there's unfortunately not so many women which fall under such a criterion anyway. I also see Cullen328 says below that the ban is actually only on post 2013 so a lot more generous than the standard sanction and the point is moot. Edit: I see you mentioned 'current' to be defined carefully, I missed that before and assumed from your comments you were talking about a standard ARBAPDS post 1932 ban not an even more narrow ban. That's more worthwhile except that as said it seems it's already the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony that a "Trump-ban" separate from WP:ARBAPDS is a bad idea. I support lifting the TBAN unconditionally, with the understanding that if he does start making problematic edits related to Trump, it's likely an admin will re-impose the wider topic ban on American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump related, broadly construed, is a really vague term, and I would prefer to avoid such bans. I wouldn't care about keeping a ban on the Donald Trump page (that is a clear line and easily enforceable). Otherwise I agree with lifting the voluntary American Politics ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the Trump related topic ban was imposed by an administrator and that Joseph2302 is not asking that it be removed. What Joseph2302 is asking is that the broader topic ban on U.S. politics be lifted. That topic ban was voluntary, so in my opinion, Joseph2302 can unban himself at any time, with full realization that misconduct in this broad topic area will result in much stricter sanctions. I think that it is excellent that the editor put the matter forward for community discussion. I encourage him to keep avoiding Trump related articles, and to feel free to edit other political articles in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The talk page notice of the restriction did not accurately reflect the UTRS discussion. The voluntary restriction agreed at UTRS was about most American politics in the last five years, specifically referencing Trump related stuff. There is a vast world of American politics articles from 1932 to 2013 that need to be improved, that have nothing at all to do with Trump. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the American politics ban was meant to be voluntary as logged, and therefore intentionally wide (given the situation at the time); considering the history I think this discussion was indeed a good idea, and I concur with the interpretation of Cullen328 and Floquenbeam on my log entry. I would support going ahead and remove that sentence entirely and just keep the Trump topic ban intact, as Joseph2302 is not asking for it to be removed anyway. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the statements above, I'm opposed to the idea of modifying this topic ban — as long as you're doing anything related to American politics in the last five years, you're likely to run into something Trump-related before long, so there's way too much wiggle room. I'm neutral on "retain the current ban" versus "remove the ban entirely", but both of those are a good deal simpler and less ambiguous (and thus better) than the proposed modification. PS, given the introductory comments about article creation: what about making an exception for drafts? Most disruption in political areas seems to happen when people edit-war over existing articles; if you may edit in this field in draftspace only (and may talk with others about improving drafts you've created), I don't imagine that problems would result, even if it would be a bad idea to remove the ban entirely. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a consensus on this? Don't want to see this thread just archived. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose narrowing the TBAN, especially now. The TBAN was imposed as a compromise, resolving an indef for very unrestrained behavior, in a topic where we have DS because of too much unrestrained behavior due to the intense passions. While the request only discusses work on articles about athletes, it is hard to not consider the timing of this request, with the impending US mid-term elections, with so much Trumpian stuff going on. Given the timing, it seems unwise to narrow the TBAN now.
Additionally, the request doesn't acknowledge the stuff that led to this situation.
Looking at their block log they seem to have some hot button issues where they lose all restraint sometimes.
Please look at their talk page archive from when they were indeffed; they apparently straight up lied about prodding the Trump page and then did the BLP-violating move of a related page that led to a block. In reaction to that, they wrote some things (some now rev-delled) that got them indeffed and caused them to lose talk page access (relevant part of their contribs is here). The indef and talk-page access are what were resolved via the UTRS thread quoted above.
So they should stay away from US politics, especially now during the silly season. Better for them, better for everyone. We ~could~ consider a request after the mid-terms but it would need to come with way more self-awareness of the problems that led to the stuff in early January, and again, the OP doesn't discuss that at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Close?[edit]

  • I think there is consensus here. There is concern about the scope of Trump topic ban leaves too much ambiguity, which really is only a concern if Joseph2302 is/was an active editor in the American politics topic area, which isn't the case here I think. I have always maintained that topic ban enforcements requires discretion and also consideration on the merits of why the original ban was placed in the first place, and under this mindset I think removing the voluntary ban, leaving Trump ban intact and having this discussion as something to point to should problems occur, would be the simple and sensible way forward. Would somebody close this please? Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes back the following users to the functionary team:

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
erm... Katie, when did the selection process take place? I am surprised I didnt know about it. I had participated in it last year. Maybe it wasnt advertised enough/properly? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It was on both CENT and this noticeboard. And trust me, you should be glad you missed that clusterf***. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: Face-grin.svgusernamekiran(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks[edit]

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.

The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:

Sitewide blocks effect on a user

  1.  Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
  2.  Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.


Partial block’s effect on the affected users

  1. Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
  2. Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.


Partial block’s success as a tool

  1. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
  2. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
  3. Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.

Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Some measurement of whether blocked users attempt to evade their block through new usernames/IPs would be useful, though for obvious reasons that may be difficult to measure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add that to the list as a suggestion. Let me know if you think of a good way to do it! SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

TFA vandalism[edit]

By now many of you are aware of this ongoing vandalism. They are targeting Today's Featured Article, among any other random article. Vandalism on TFA is commonplace, but to this extreme I think we need to do something beyond relying on patrollers. Sometimes this remains for minutes, when TFAs get maybe 20-30 views per minute (judging by the last several TFAs). It looks awfully bad for the project.

I know it's a perennial proposal, but do you think it'd be okay to put TFA under pending changes protection, procedurally, until we get this vandalism under control? This way everyone gets to at least edit, and I assume it being the TFA, pending changes would be tended to quickly. I have other ideas that don't involve any form of protection, but they're quite complicated. It would be great to do something. The edit filter is not cutting it.

Reminder that the vandal may be reading this discussion. MusikAnimal talk 03:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is fairly common for us to apply semi-protection to TFAs when it becomes clear that they are attracting vandalism. The question here, I think, is about pre-emptive protection; and we already do that in a sense, by applying move-protection to all TFAs (the bot does this). I would certainly be okay with applying PC protection at the first sign of trouble. I'm a little reluctant to support pre-emptive PC protection simply because the load on PC reviewers will increase considerably. MusikAnimal Is a TFA-specific, IP-specific, image-specific filter possible? Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what I really want -- to make the filter TFA-specific. If we can do that we'll be in much better shape. Unfortunately there's no way to detect this right now. We'd need the bot to add an empty template, maybe {{TFA placeholder}} (or something), or even just a comment somewhere in the wikitext. The filter would also have to ensure only the bot or an admin can add/remove the template/comment, which is possible. I think having this identifier could be useful in the future for other vandalism-prevention, too, so maybe it's worth the trouble of implementing it? MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: My technical knowledge is limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if such a filter would be based on a template that had to be inserted into the TFA text, I think it would absolutely be worth implementing, as it could then be manually added to other main-page entries that were targets of image-vandalism, too. As such I think it's likely to be a worthwhile investment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I like this idea. It's potentially better than pre-emptive pending changes protection as it would allow for more good faith editing to be done in real time and potential vandalism edits to show a warning to the user. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Would you be interested in having TFA Protector Bot perform this for us? It should be rather simple to implement; at 00:00 UTC put <!-- TFA --> in the wikitext, I guess at the bottom. Then remove it the following midnight. If you are too busy I can pursue this, but I figure since we're doing this for counter-vandalism reasons, TFA Protector Bot seems most fitting.

Unrelated oddity -- the system edit count of TFA Protetor Bot is currently at 22 edits, but the bot has clearly made many more than that. MusikAnimal talk 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

LDS terminology issues[edit]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [1]. It seems this may have initially been released in August, though there has been a recent influx of Wikipedia updates based on this, possibly due to the recent General Conference. Per our standard practice, Wikipedia does not automatically follow those guidelines. Some parts of it may be applied to articles if they become common usage, other parts may not even in that situation (I doubt we will be updating articles to refer to this group as the unqualified "Church of Jesus Christ" in the foreseeable future). A variety of LDS-related articles have seen updates from well-intentioned new editors that have had to be reverted as a result. I request that administrators consider themselves aware of this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No! I refuse to be aware! :-) Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." Is part of this new? I know they've discouraged the use of "Mormon" for years, but I don't remember hearing discouragement of "LDS Church". Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I heard about this several months ago. Yes, some of this is new and I seriously doubt they will convince the general public to drop the use of Mormon or LDS. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Private Eye used to refer to Reverend Dubya of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I did see that in the news, but doubt anyone outside that religious organization will give any heed to it.16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs)
  • funny that they would post that on “mormonnewsroom.org”... just sayin’ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible troll bot[edit]

Please examine the editing history of Lyhendz (talk · contribs). Has made similar nonsensical edits to the talk pages of several articles, mostly on Russia-related topics. Has ignored warnings and obviously needs to be blocked, but I'm curious to know if this is a bot, and if this kind of thing is common in wikipeda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef; this one IMO is a clear NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well obviously, but is it a bot? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a rogue Wikipedia vandalizing, chess playing robot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They were never offered to pass a Turing test, so that we do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, Troll Bot sounds like the latest must-have toy for Christmas. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: thanks for investigating further, I knew there was something odd going on, this is not just a common garden vandal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Disabling thanks spam[edit]

These two three accounts, while blocked, have been spamming multiple admins (including myself) with unwanted "thanks":

Is there some way to disable this? It's more of a minor irritant than a high priority. Thanks, GABgab 23:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There's MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist --Vexations (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe users can thank other users while blocked. All three users you listed above were pestering people with the thanks function before they were blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright/attribution question re: U1 deletion in userspace[edit]

I have a question about deletion and content licensing. Earlier today DBigXray requested deletion of their userpage under criterion U1 (user-requested deletions in user space) and I obliged, because we usually just do these when the user requests it. A few minutes later DBigXray recreated the page with what was essentially the same content as before deletion. Does attribution require the history to be restored? As far as I can tell from the deleted history DBigXray is the only significant contributor, aside from other users reverting vandals. Is it alright to leave this alone? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to be a bit careful though, because someone actually added some content six years ago. Ultimately however, I don't see any real problems with what's already occurred. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for confirming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Main page photo[edit]

The photo of Paul Romer on the Main Page has the dimensions of the new, cropped photo on Commons, but is in fact the older one. Just look at my sandbox (and I don't know why my sandbox shows two different photos). wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo This parameter "width=100" is the only difference I see between the two images. rest everything is as expected. and After I added it , they are the same. It might be possible that your browser was using an old version of this image that was already downloaded, well clearing the browser cache or checking this link from another browser are two ways to fix it. Cheers.--DBigXray 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: This phenomena can be seen virtually anytime an image is overwritten; it briefly shows the new copy with the dimensions of the old. Some time back, a serial vandal kept uploading the same vandalism photo repeatedly to Commons, and when I would replace the image with text (to prevent it from being added to articles), it would briefly show the text squished to the dimensions that the photo had been. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, seriously[edit]

Look at the last line currently under DYK, the bit about reading on the toilet. Is this serious? It almost seems like someone has snuck a joke onto the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bathroom reading is a valid article that met the DYK criteria, so why should it not appear? This is not really something for the administrators' noticeboard, however; perhaps you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Fish+Karate 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed per valid concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. Looking into a rather ridiculous claim poised to hit the main page tomorrow as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
And reremoved by another admin after getting consensus (a small consensus, but the main page and DYK on oit is time critical, so hardly time to start a full RfC first...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Dweller: can you stop WP:WHEELing please? GiantSnowman 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dweller had (and has) consensus, so that's not wheel-warring? Fram (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not WHEELing GiantSnowman. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm about the most consensus-reliant Wikipedian you'll find. I couldn't WHEEL even if I wheely wanted to. But that DYK stank. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think either of us WHEELed really. I reverted an admin action because I disagreed with it, and took the discussion to the talk page, which is normal WP:BRD. Dweller then undid my reversion based on a rough consensus from the discussion at ERRORS, which I suppose is fair enough, although it would have been better if they'd asked me to undo my own action per normal protocol. I still maintain that the DYK didn't really stink, any more than my feces did when I last went to the toilet, Smiley.png but hey-ho sometimes you get outvoted in these situations.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sheesh. Who knew that whether poop smells or not could be so controversial (this filter immediately comes to mind)... Face-wink.svg Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RblbZQth0KE --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"In one celebrated instance farting became a source of safety instead of fear. A boy in Jungian analysis used flatulence to create a ‘defensive olfactory container’ to protect himself, skunk-like, against fears of disintegration and persecution and to create a ‘protective cloud of familiarity’ when threatened. The clouds started to lift after the analyst blew loud therapeutic raspberries back at him (Sidoli, 1996)." [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that sounds like a DYK hook I might actually click...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Range block assist[edit]

Handled--Ymblanter (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock that will cover:

...and more within that range? I've reported this guy before here in June, but this most recent flare-up was brought to my attention by Vivek Ray. The vandal submits gibberish, typically in the form of film titles and actor roles in Indian cinema articles. Often months or dates will appear in the garbage he submits. He is quite prolific. Some examples:

I don't know if he's doing this by hand or has some mechanical assistance, but he's definitely got some kind of a system going on. Anyway, a long-term range block would be appreciated. I'm probably going to have to create some kind of informal LTA page on this guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • 103.252.25.32/27 has been blocked before; I'd like someone to check for proxying. Not that that really matters much for my block--given that the last one was for three months, I made this a one-year block. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed edit to User:Kiko4564[edit]

I propose that the banned user template on his userpage be replaced with either {{banned user|link=[[WP:3X]]}} or {{banned user}} as the current text is incorrect. I've not posted on his talk page as it's semi protected. 51.9.92.58 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for catching the error. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edit summary[edit]

Done by RickinBaltimore. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could any admin please delete this disruptive edit summary?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ)[edit]

I am requesting a set of admin eyes on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kamal Mustafa (DJ) and on its talk page and at User talk:Legacypac. The interchange between the author, either User: SiddiqFarooq or User: DJ Kamal Mustafa (possible sockpuppetry), and the nominator, User:Legacypac, is a little ugly on the part of the author, who is accusing Legacypac of hate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&type=revision&diff=863685448&oldid=863684572&diffmode=source in which the author tries to erase the interchange.

Articles for Deletion is often pretty heated, but Miscellany for Deletion can get ugly too. This is just a request for a set of admin eyes for the remainder of the seven days (and of course for closure at the end of the seven days).

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the accounts accused everyone at Wikipedia of hating Muslims and Pakistanis - not just me. I restored the deletion of a whole section of my talkpage, and am managing the situation. The accounts have little interest in Wikipedia except to promote the DJ so I've not sought any Admin action other than a CSD and to force a rename of the one acct. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
JamesBWatson has left a message on DJ Kamal Mustafa's talk. I have left an agf-sock on both DJ Kamal Mustafa's and SiddiqFarooq's talk pages. This may need to go to ANI and SPI. DJ Kamal Mustafa has said Yap i accept that i edit my page with my team what I'm saying is I'm adding notable links of those newspaper who have already wikipedia pages if I'm not notable then those pages shouldn't be too as simple as that.

Topic ban[edit]

I was topic banned almost two years ago from witchcraft. I would like to appeal this ban. I haven't violated the ban. Once I made an edit but quickly reverted. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you could provide a link to the discussion that led to your ban, that would be helpful to those participating in the appeal discussion.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum (topic ban discussion) Asterixf2 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not plan to edit Malleus Maleficarum. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it would also be helpful to express where you went wrong and show evidence of how you've behaved since the ban. Just saying "I want to appeal the ban" won't help anyone in determining if the ban is still necessary.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I was editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asterixf2#Malleus_Maleficarum when I met with the very persistent, strong and, as I see it, irrational opposition from user Ryn78 related to some specific points. This is the last version of the page without the controversial additions by Ryn78: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&oldid=749385708. The article has since deteriorated and the "Reception" section is still hidden in an html comment. Since that time I was not involved in any disruptive behavior or prolonged discussions. I failed to drop the stick. Asterixf2 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In attempting to present the case for lifting the ban, you have in fact presented the case for keeping it. You are still exhibiting one of the key attitudes that led to your ban: a conviction that you are RIGHT, and anyone who has a different view from you is "irrational". Also, despite being invited to "express where you went wrong" far from doing so you have dedicated most of your latest post to expressing how wrong you think another editor was. The only token gesture towards indicating that you know what you did wrong is the brief and unelaborated statement "I failed to drop the stick"; as far as that goes, it follows three sentences, together amounting to about ten times the length of that one, in which you express your view that you weren't wrong, and that the problem was another editor who was being unreasonable I'm not sure how you could better demonstrate that even after two years you have still not "dropped the stick", as you call it. In fact, you have done a remarkably good job of showing in a few short sentences that you still have exactly the attitude that led to the ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course I was correct but it was said that being correct is not enough. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Following the imposition of the topic ban, the editor was absent for 18 months. Since their return to editing, they have worked on a few articles. One of those is Martin Delrio, an article clearly related to witchcraft. They have violated their topic ban by making six edits to this article this month. I am very concerned that they will resume and continue their disruptive behavior if they are allowed to edit witchcraft articles without restriction. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis directly above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I reverted those changes. Article Delrio was the one I meant when I mentioned above the changes that I reverted. I simply forgot about the ban once again after starting this discussion. This is because I edit multiple language versions. All my changes were reverted by me. Asterixf2 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You reverted your substantive change regarding witchcraft only after I mentioned it here. How could you have "simply forgot" when you were editing that article in recent days? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see JamesBWatson has helpfully expressed my thoughts better than I could. I agree with his assessment, and I oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

190.90.140.43[edit]

BLOCKED:
by Fox — JJMC89(T·C) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please block. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Change in oversight team[edit]

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Keilana (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Keilana for her years of service.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Rob13Talk 16:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC) x-post: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change in oversight team

Peculiar use of talk page[edit]

Hello admins. Is there anything that can be done at Talk:Terry Hall (singer)? For several months an IP has been making comments about being the article subject's wife. Initially I interacted with the editor, and tried to explain how Wikipedia works (i.e. sources preferred over personal testimony), but I gave up when they started accusing me of destroying their marital status. Despite nobody else interacting with them, this anon editor is continuing to have a conversation (with themselves) about this matter, and the talk page has veered off, shall we say, into uncharted territory. I haven't posted this at ANI because I believe a bit of sensitivity is required with this matter, and I don't think it would particularly help to post the standard editor notification on their page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) I would recommend blocking the IP per WP:NOTFORUM. SemiHypercube 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to clean up the talkpage by deleting the offendingnmaterial citing WP:NOTAFORUM and keep doing so until the IP gets the hint. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel confident that they will get the hint. The term obsessive springs to mind. Can the page not be protected also? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No crystal ball is needed to see that hints will not be taken. I would have deleted the last section (Representations of his family) but others have replied. If deleting the stuff is considered undesirable, the page could be manually archived and further material repeatedly removed with occasional explanations on the current IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As the IP account was making legal threats regarding the removal of this material, I have blocked it for a year. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they were making legal threats as such - they had, supposedly, already contacted the British police and Home Office regarding this, with no impact on anyone here. But never mind. We shall have to see if they start using other IP accounts - they've used at least two so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please check deleted contributions[edit]

They have tagged various pages for deletion (as well as requesting bans for some users), generally without providing any reason. Despite there not being any reason, Wesley Duncan was deleted for a while which I only found out by accident. Can an administrator check the deleted contributions from these IPs to see if any other pages have been deleted? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The only edit that is in either of their deleted contributions is to User:JocelynLPIA/sandbox/Jake Porter. ~ GB fan 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GB fan: thanks. That page is actually about https://jakeporter.org/meet-jake/. I don't know if he's within the scope of WP:NPOL and what was written on that page, but it may be useful. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki effects?[edit]

If account creation is blocked on a certain IP in one wiki, does unified login prevent the creation of user accounts from that IP on any wiki or just the home wiki? DrKay (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just the home wiki where the block is placed. It can also prevent automatic account creation on the home wiki where an account is previously created on another wiki. Global blocks (and global locks) affect all wikis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problems with List of One Piece episodes (season 19) episode summaries[edit]

I just did a spot check of three recently added episode summaries[3] and confirm ed that they are word-for-word same as summaries on multiple other websites, a direct violation Wikipedia's copyright policy. Looking at the edit history of the list, this same IP range has added several other summaries that are very likely to be copyright violations as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 19)#Copyright violations about how to remedy the situation. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RfPP is backlogged[edit]

Handled. Thanks Vanamonde. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am going to start at the top of the list. If someone wants to start at the other end maybe we can meet in the middle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

On it. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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

My user talk with Faux-nez ![edit]

Hello Face-smile.svg, I come here because I have a dilemma (according to your policy). As the problem is in french on enwiki, I am also looking for someone who speaks French to help me (miminum Fr-2). so...

Vous parlez donc en français pour lire un texte d'une IP (69.174.249.79) qui vient me demander sur ma page de discussion enwiki (User talk donc) de modifier une page sur frwiki. Il ne peut le faire puisque cette page est en semi-protection étendue (3 months and 500 edits). Mais pourquoi il vient m'écrire sur ma page anglaise ? Simplissime ! Cette IP ne fait que des modifications sur des entreprises sur enwiki et frwiki (je n'ai pas les outils pour contrôler tous les wikis). Je n'ai pas su faire un lien entre ces entreprises ou une société mère. Mais je suspecte fortement un Puppet (Faux-nez chez nous). Je pense que vous avez la même politique sur enwiki. Si c'est le cas un blocage global devrait être envisagé. Il doit utiliser un VPN. Probable qu'il ait utilisé plusieurs comptes et/ou plusieurs IP et qu'il vient me démarcher pour faire le "sale boulot". Plusieurs articles sont protégés du même vandale et la page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs devrait fortement vous intéresser. Les administrateurs de frwiki me lisent ici pour déterminer leur marche à suivre. D'ailleurs, un admin global ne serait peut-être pas superflu. Je donnerai une réponse vague demain sur ma user talk, en teneur :

:Bonjour [[User:69.174.249.79|69.174.249.79]] [[Image:Waving.png|20px|Bonjour]], :Tout d'abord merci pour le compliment. J'espère seulement que vous pourrez me lire avec une IP. Vous me parlez d'un article sur Wikip<big><u>'''é'''</u></big>dia (francophone donc), vous pouvez m'écrire sur cette partie de Wiki<big><u>'''m'''</u></big>edia, [[w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Eihel|ici donc pour discuter en français]]. Alors rendez-vous là bas {{smiley}}. Salutations.--~~~~

C'est bête, il ne savait pas à qu'il avait à faire "The best patroller in Wikimedia".Sarcastic.gif
He only touched one page on frwiki, but there are already several articles in his history on enwiki. I let you decide and {{Reply to|Eihel}} because I can not follow all the discussions of all the wiki. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy translation:

An IP user (69.174.249.79) has come to my talk page on enwiki to ask me to change an article on frwiki. The IP can't do it because the page is "extended semi-protected" (3 months and 500 edits). But why write on my talk page on enwiki? Simple! This IP only edits articles about companies on enwiki and frwiki (I don't have the tools to check all the wikis). I wasn't able to link these companies to each other, nor find a parent company, but I stronly suspect a sockpuppet. I think you have the same policy on enwiki. If that's the case, a global lock should be considered. The IP must be using a VPN, has probably used many accounts and/or many IPs and is asking me to do their "dirty job". Many articles are protected from this vandal and the page w:fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs on frwiki should highly interest you. The admins on frwiki will read this thread here to decide what to do next, and a global admin would probably be useful. I plan to answer the IP tomorrow on my talk page, something like:

Hello 69.174.249.79. First, thank you for the compliment. I only hope that you'll be able to read this, being an IP. You are talking about an article on the French wiki, so you can write to me over there in French. So, see you there.

It's stupid, they didn't know they were dealing with "The best patroller in Wikimedia". Sarcastic.gif.

Isa (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)