Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

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

  • Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

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.

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]

Talk:Carter Page#Request for Comments on House Intelligence Committee Testimony and other sections[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carter Page#Request for Comments on House Intelligence Committee Testimony and other sections (Initiated 72 days ago on 9 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report? (Initiated 70 days ago on 11 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on naming of Chinese railway line articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on naming of Chinese railway line articles (Initiated 70 days ago on 11 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes#RFC (Initiated 62 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Energy East#RfC on contents of pipeline[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Energy East#RfC on contents of pipeline (Initiated 53 days ago on 28 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Church of Satan#RfC about Church of Satan membership figures[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Church of Satan#RfC about Church of Satan membership figures (Initiated 62 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes (Initiated 57 days ago on 24 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Transit system icons in nav templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Transit system icons in nav templates (Initiated 63 days ago on 18 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#RfC: Russian metro line article titles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#RfC: Russian metro line article titles (Initiated 42 days ago on 9 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places" (Initiated 58 days ago on 23 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fatima#Request for comment: Fatima or Fatimah[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fatima#Request for comment: Fatima or Fatimah (Initiated 49 days ago on 2 December 2017)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Zoë_Quinn#RfC - infobox image[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this requires a multi-close due to the length of discussion but anyway would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zoë_Quinn#RfC_-_infobox_image (Initiated 46 days ago on 5 December 2017)? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide#RFC on inclusion of recognition by US States in Lead[edit]

(Initiated 13 days ago on 7 January 2018) The Armenian Genocide is a contentious topic and is covered by WP:ARBAA2, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor close this RFC. Billhpike (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#Request for Comment – parenthetical comment on the status of Jerusalem in the infobox for Israel[edit]

(Initiated 20 days ago on 30 December 2017) This is a RfC within a broad subject that can often be contentious. Nevertheless, it appears that this RfC has reached a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks. OtterAM (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Popoff#RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Popoff#RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud" (Initiated 50 days ago on 1 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Meghan Markle#RfC on Ancestry Section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Meghan Markle#RfC on Ancestry Section (Initiated 48 days ago on 3 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names (Initiated 40 days ago on 11 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bitcoin#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal (Initiated 48 days ago on 3 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Istvaeonic languages#RFC. Merge? Split? Re-name?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Istvaeonic languages#RFC. Merge? Split? Re-name? (Initiated 43 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Useful idiot#Request for Comment on Oxford English Dictionary[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Useful idiot#Request for Comment on Oxford English Dictionary (Initiated 41 days ago on 10 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Hair's breadth#Request for comment on prominence of "red cunt hair" in this article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hair's breadth#Request for comment on prominence of "red cunt hair" in this article (Initiated 47 days ago on 4 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music#The image in the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Classical music#The image in the lead (Initiated 42 days ago on 9 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC on advocacy for black gun owners[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC on advocacy for black gun owners (Initiated 45 days ago on 6 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem#RFC on Jerusalem and US recognition[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jerusalem#RFC on Jerusalem and US recognition (Initiated 45 days ago on 6 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#RfC for 130 Jewish studies scholars[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#RfC for 130 Jewish studies scholars (Initiated 37 days ago on 14 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Policy update proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Policy update proposal (Initiated 43 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on forming possessive form of singular names, MOS advice simplification[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on forming possessive form of singular names, MOS advice simplification (Initiated 39 days ago on 12 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word (Initiated 43 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Request for comments on MoS shortcut redirect categorization[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Request for comments on MoS shortcut redirect categorization (Initiated 37 days ago on 14 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RFC_about_album_years_in_navigation_templates[edit]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 8 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RFC_about_album_years_in_navigation_templates. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 December 2017) Could someone please assess the consensus in the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools when it hits 30 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cary Grant#RFC on Inclusion of Infobox[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 18 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cary Grant#RFC on Inclusion of Infobox? Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?[edit]

(Initiated 19 days ago on 1 January 2018) The topic of discussion is a largely populated category, so if all of the articles in it are going to be taken to AfD it will take additional time. I suppose the articles could also be speedy deleted but will let an admin use their judgement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC_for_Wikipedia_Is_Not_a_Laboratory_Version_2[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 1 December 2017) Will an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS[edit]

(Initiated 29 days ago on 22 December 2017) This has run its course, with a clear consensus.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:30, 19 January 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]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables.[edit]

(Initiated 99 days ago on 13 October 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables. Thanks, Tvx1 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look a this?Tvx1 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1 If you feel the consensus is for the change (or is obvious), there doesn't have to be a formal closure; you can just do the change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I prefer a formal close. I see a broad consensus, but since I proposed the change in the first place it would be a rather inappropriate if I’d claim a consenus in favor of it.Tvx1 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Carleton Knights football[edit]

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2017) Should the following archival documentary be included as an external link at Carleton Knights football? "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talkcontribs) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 December 2017) Please disposition Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disposition"? Makes no sense to me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Redrose64:, please assess the consensus and close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 North American winter#Proposed merge with 2017–18 North American cold wave[edit]

(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Talk:2017–18 North American winter#Proposed merge with 2017–18 North American cold wave. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a government agency a RS for statements attributed to the agency?[edit]

(Initiated 9 days ago on 11 January 2018) This is a RS inquiry that has only been open 24 hours, so I hesitate to come here, but I think is pretty cut and dry (plus, in 3 more days it will have cycled into the archives so there doesn't seem to be a benefit in waiting a full month as with a RfC). Could an experienced editor review it to determine if there is or is not a consensus that a government agency's own website is a reliable source for quotes directly attributed to that agency? Thanks, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I object to this request for closure. More input is needed to gain a fair consensus from the community. 24 hours only? No. It does not seem so cut and dry based on the few responses so far. As they say, Wikipedia has no deadline. What is the rush? Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. It does get auto-archived in three days, though, so - given the backlog - by the time someone gets around to this it probably will have received all the feedback it's likely to receive. And, since this is really quite a minor point (should a reliability tag appear at the end of one sentence in a single article) it might not necessarily be a good expenditure of energy to drag this out for too long? Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of Byzantine emperors#Merger proposal[edit]

(Initiated 106 days ago on 5 October 2017) Would an experienced editor assess whether there is a consensus and this proposal can be closed? Thanks! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (16 out of 1084 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2018/Current consensus 2018-01-20 04:43 indefinite edit List of consensus per page restrictions Coffee
Talk:Fire and Fury/Current consensus 2018-01-20 03:54 indefinite edit List of consensus per page restrictions Coffee
Talk:Fake News Awards/Current consensus 2018-01-20 03:54 indefinite edit List of consensus per page restrictions Coffee
Paik system 2018-01-19 22:55 2018-02-19 22:55 edit Persistent vandalism, user is gaming autopatrolled. JzG
Marshalltown, Iowa 2018-01-19 20:20 2018-01-26 20:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 78.26
JC Gonzalez 2018-01-19 14:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: G5 recreation by sock Berean Hunter
Shiva Ayyadurai 2018-01-19 08:04 2018-01-26 08:04 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather
Draft:HotelOnline 2018-01-18 21:53 indefinite move Prevent further premature moves to main space by UPE / COI accounts Anachronist
Rupert Lee-Browne 2018-01-18 21:23 2018-04-18 21:23 create Repeatedly recreated happened so quickly, I’m going to protect with expiration in a few months Beeblebrox
Price tag policy 2018-01-18 19:19 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Clpo13
Paul Krugman 2018-01-18 05:13 2019-01-18 05:13 edit Arbitration enforcement/WP:ARBAPDS - BLP violations and other long term disruption about an article relating to the current state of American political affairs Coffee
Talk:Matthew Nimetz 2018-01-17 03:03 2018-01-24 03:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Fabrictramp
Matthew Nimetz 2018-01-17 03:02 2018-01-24 03:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing Fabrictramp
Vinnie E. Parma 2018-01-17 00:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NeilN
Donald Trump 2018-01-16 14:08 indefinite edit reinstate extended confirmed following brief full protection Favonian
List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes 2018-01-16 10:38 2018-07-16 10:38 edit,move Persistent vandalism Fish and karate

Brief reminder[edit]

Just a note that the Neelix cleanup is still ongoing, and in recent months seems to has stalled out. We're down to a 4 digit number of pages needing eyes, including a small handful of Ancient Greek redirects; the full list of remaining ones is at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6. Figured a note here might get a little attention, and since this is something that'll actually go away when it's done it has all the good feeling of accomplishing something without the accompanying Sisyphean nature of other backlogs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

November 2015 that all kicked off. I'm glad that dozens of volunteers haven't wasted their time with this since then instead of just nuking it all at the time. Oh, wait... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I can’t believe it still isn’t done. I’ve deleted a few thousand of these pages myself. And the user who created the whole issue has quietly returned to occaisional editing without the slightest consequence for creating this disaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Every time I dip into this I'm freshly amazed at the sheer level of fuckwittery (FràMy Last Duchess, anyone?), and the sheer amount of time it's wasted—it's just taken me 20 minutes to delete 100-ish obvious cases, and I can delete directly without the timesink of one editor tagging and another editor reviewing the tag. Someone remind me again why Neelix hasn't been shown the door? ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Door was a redirect to stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. The time to block Neelix was two years ago. He's done nothing disruptive since, so showing him the door now would be purely punitive. Unless there's genuinely something disruptive about his sporadic recent edits, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Reyk YO! 11:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, there are shedloads of examples, I just gave a couple—another of his favourite games is disrupting efforts to clean up Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention by deliberately adding a technically correct but barely-relevant category (recent example). The point is, his goofing around at Commons and Wikidata is all something over which en-wiki admins (correctly) have no jurisdiction. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the more editors like Neelix who get into Wikidata the less likely we are to use it in the long run. Hasten the day etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah... Given that half of those come with an OTRS permission, I think we'll be okay. GMGtalk 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OTRS from the photographer. Not the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • But how the hell does that work then in Canada? The Miss World Canada comps presumably all took place in Canada, likewise the University pics. Some of them are clearly outside in what would be considered a public place, some are obviously publicity, some are at private venues. My reading of the Canadian provisions in that commons policy is that without the subject's explicit consent, none should be published? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. I assumed they were official press kit, as similar images often are. But you are correct. GMGtalk 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking through the sources that the Commons guidance is based on, it looks like the issue is mostly confined to problematic commercial uses generally and especially with regard to public figures. Saying simply that it is illegal is a gross oversimplification. GMGtalk 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
-That is some weird, weird shit. Still, if he's not currently disrupting anything here, there's no need to block him here. Reyk YO! 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Sorry to barge in like this, but wow oh wow, I just read the initial AN/I thread and looked at his categories on commons... This must be the funniest thing that happened on Wikipedia for a long time. However, in retrospective, banning him during the initial AN/I would do no good, let alone now. He should have been forced to undo the damage himself, though - I'm just not sure how it'd work. BytEfLUSh Talk 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I know I wasn't heavily active in the admin side of things when this all went down, but could someone give me a one-or-two-sentence answer as to why we don't just nuke them all and REFUND the legitimate ones? I know with the SvG case there were actual improvements made to some of the pages, but it seems like if it exists, has no incoming links, and is still a redirect, it should just be nuked. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Because a bunch of his friends whined about it" is the TL;DR answer. The discussion that led to the "don't delete them all on sight, but allow any admin to delete them without discussion" compromise is here. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a distinct culture around redirects that since they're "cheap" it's best to keep them just because they exist, and it often veers into fundamentalism; this mess is but one obvious symptom of this attitude. As anyone who's done this has discovered, sifting through this is quite far from cheap in volunteer effort. I don't know how to bring about change on that front, but it is something I've noticed at RfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: As the editor who's ploughed through the greatest number of these semi-recently, I'm keeping >90% of the redirects I look at. A mass "Keep and don't waste further time" would be preferable to nuking them if we want to resolve the issue with finality. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, since it was before "my time" I never really looked into the matter, so I didn't know how good/bad of a situation it was. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with Tazerdadog. I first looked into this several months ago but was surprised with how many good redirect I found so I figured it would be done by now. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights Is there an X1 option for CSD? If so, I'm not seeing it. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. It's apparently not an option via Twinkle. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Because it’s a temporary criterion that was supposed to be deprecated by now. The really, really bad ones (and believe me, there were at least 5,000 of those) went away early on in this process, so it’s no surprise that here towards the end there are many that are more innocuous or even potentially helpful. Doesn’t excuse all the mountains gof garbage and the hundreds of hours taken to clean it all up. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And even now there'a a non-negligible proportion of total nonsense left (I saw Boomer Vial tag a couple, the help is appreciated). It's a good thing we didn't deprecate it when we first thought this was over with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've managed to get it down to about 2500 redirects, or a few hours worth of work remaining. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit. Mostly some easy ones though. fish&karate 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Men's rights movement community sanctions[edit]

WP:MRMPS were imposed in 2011. Although subsequently modified, AFAIK, they were never lifted. In addition, the only way they could be lifted is by a consensus of the community. Recently, the template that was used for the sanctions, {{Community article probation}}, was deleted per this "discussion". I put discussion in quotes because it consisted of two editors only, Noyster and Jc86035. As a result, the template advising editors of the sanctions was removed by a bot. Another discussion was begun today for a related template that goes on other pages using the same "rationale" as at the first discussion.

Frankly, I personally don't care if the sanctions are lifted. Not because I feel they are no longer necessary but because they are messy to enforce and gave me headaches when I did enforce them (I generally bowed out of both the problems with the articles and the enforcement a while ago), but you simply can't delete a procedural device that effectively deletes a community decision. If you don't like the damned templates, then create an alternative that otherwise keeps the status quo. And it's not my burden to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I was under the impression that they were superseded by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which should (probably?) apply to Men's rights movement and related articles like Domestic violence (the only article using the template) because of the "all pages related to […] any gender-related dispute or controversy" clause from the GamerGate case. Does there need to be an RfC to determine whether to discontinue the community sanctions process? Jc86035 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It appears to me as well that DS should supersede MRMPS. I'm not sure that we need any more process than has already occurred around the GamerGate and Sexology sanctions. See this link for some recent discussion and arbcom action on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
While I think WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions encompass the MRMPS, I think we would need an WP: ARCA to have it officially be superceded. Sanctions and notifications are handled slightly differently in MRMPS then with discretionary sanctions. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
In the past, Arbcom has often wanted to have a full case before deciding to apply new rules. But they might be persuaded to handle it with a motion if it could be billed as a clerical or maintenance change. For instance, they could add the line 'Pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms..' could be added to the discretionary sanctions statement in WP:ARBGG#Discretionary sanctions. As part of this action, they should abolish the existing Mens rights community sanction. (Compare how Arbcom rescinded the community Gamergate sanction when they created their own GG sanction). Alerts to editors were still being given out in 2017 under WP:MRMPS, so the sanction regime is not obsolete. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to repeal article probation (placed there because WP:General sanctions is the only page explaining article probation). Note: Article probation is no longer used by ArbCom, having been superseded by DS, leaving us with community article probation. The only area where a community article probation notice has been validly placed (i.e. based on any community discussion) in recent years has been the men's rights area, based on this from 2011; but the men's rights area is surely already covered by the Arbcom Gamergate DS: any gender-related dispute or controversy. There was just the one notification to an editor in 2017, and the last actual sanction recorded was in July 2015: Noyster (talk), 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

An entire general sanction deprecated by two users?[edit]

According to the deletion nomination, {{Community article probation}} was being used on 75 pages to notify users of standing article protections. Because two users agreed at TfD that article probation in general is obsolete, the supplemental template was deleted, which led to the automatic de-listing of active sanctions across 75 pages, without any community consultation or notice, and without any guarantee that all of those pages were protected by a new sanction that continued enforcing the existing consensus? Did that really happen? Two users wholly deprecated an entire class of existing and active general sanctions that were in effect on 75 articles? Men's rights movement is one, where are the other 74 articles that just had their community sanctions erased by two editors and a bot? How many community discussions were unilaterally cancelled? MRMPS was one, how many others were there? This was horribly out of process and the above confusion shows just how badly thought out this was. Deprecating every remaining article probation should have been proposed to the community at a noticeboard or via an RfC. Unfortunately I don't see any realistic path ahead other than just accepting it, and removing article probation from the general sanctions page, but I will point out that this was a drastic measure done without community consultation, in the most hidden way possible and in a way that is not realistically reviewed or overturned. Poor show. Swarm 23:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Here are 68 of them. I'm not sure if there are any others that were removed manually at that time. Jc86035 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I took out 5 that were unambiguously time-expired.[1] My initial motivation for starting this was finding that all uses of the template since 2014 and many before then were by individual editors, not based on any community discussion – out of process if you like. Before starting the TfD I checked all the 75 pages and that is the basis for my TfD rationale: extant valid uses of the template were confined to 4 topic areas all since subsumed under discretionary sanctions. Now I might have done better to seek comments elsewhere rather than rely on the TfD. The outcome would have been the same but if people are that upset about these proceedings, there is the option to undelete the template and category and revert the bot edits, and we'll go through the process again: Noyster (talk), 01:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] According to the deletion nomination, most of them were added improperly, e.g. a blocked sockpuppet added it to this talk page, whose article appears to have nothing to do with men's rights or any other community-imposed probation. Swarm, do you agree or disagree with the statement from the TFD? No opinion on the men's rights article and similar topics. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Noyster: If you're entirely confident that there were no legitimate active sanctions that were de-listed, that makes me feel better. Based on the list of pages that were tagged with that template, it appears many of them are not under new DS, however it's not exactly easy to crosscheck each page with the list at WP:GS to see whether it was legitimate. @Nyttend: My gripe is actually not with the proposal to wholly deprecate the concept of article probation. It's just that it was done so without community review. I disagree that it was done in what is essentially a hidden venue by two users, and I wanted to go on the record as saying that it was done improperly without an assessment of whether it was necessary. That said, if nobody else is worried as to whether there's collateral damage to clean up, then I won't beat this horse or demand any sort of overturning. Lack of objection in itself constitutes consensus. Assuming we don't have to worry about any other topic areas, let's take the common sense stance that we all seem to agree on fundamentally: men's rights article probation was inherently absorbed by the Gamergate DS. Besides any templates in need of updating, no formal action should be necessary to facilitate this change. If there is actually some disagreement over this, we can go to Arbcom and request clarification, but short of that, it seems obvious that Men's rights fall under the purview of those DS. I think we should just get it over with and remove article probation from WP:GS. Swarm 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: Do the article probation sanctions need to be rescinded/replaced formally by community consensus or by an ArbCom decision, or is it enough to remove them from the page? Jc86035 (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Not to do with ArbCom, who have already stated that they are no longer using article probation: Noyster (talk), 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

PAID/COI editor with two accounts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management. Admin input would be welcome. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's rather a long thread, I'm afraid. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Commented out "shortcuts" to !voting sections per my comments at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management: I think a few people thoroughly assessing would be more valuable than admins being treated as some sort of voting machine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Log as community sanction?[edit]

The Proposal (block) subsection of the Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management thread at WP:COIN has just been formally closed ("... block Tony Ahn, under all accounts ..."). I'd like to explore the possibility to log that as a community sanction. Would that be the best way forward? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it not already? Guy closed the discussion as consensus for a block for all Tony Ahn's accounts, and applied the block(s) with reference to the discussion, so that makes it a community sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Or are you saying that you want to make it into a community site ban? I don;t think that generally happens unless there's an extensive post-block history of socking. As it stands, the blocks are not -- as far as I understand it -- personal blocks made by one admin (Guy), which Guy or any single admin could overturn, but are community blocks which would need a community discussion to be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday, just before retiring ([2] [3]) and being blocked, Ahn had written: "We are going to cease using Wikipedia in the next 24 hours" ([4]). Might indeed be an idea to convert that into a site ban, as a preventative measure: 24 hours have passed and Ahn didn't take down the publicity with which his PR firm offers Wikipedia services, nor does Ahn take any responsibility for current or future meatpuppets – thus the commitment to "cease using Wikipedia" seems lukewarm at best, and seems like a decision he might overturn any time. A site ban would have the advantage that such change of heart would be easier to counter, and pass through community approval before being effectuated under the radar. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been involved with the "block vs. ban" discussions a number of times, and I generally come down in favor of a site ban (if it's warranted), rejecting the counter-argument that there's little or no functional difference between the two, since the site ban just seems weightier to me. However, on a practical level, there's really very little difference between reverting the edits of an community -indeffed editor and reverting those of a community-banned editor. Maybe you've got a little more leeway in reverting the edits you suspect are those of a banned editor, but that's about it.
Given that, if you see edits that you believe are from Tony Ahn, I'd just revert them and then report them, as the more reports of block evasion and socking there are (or unreported paid edits connected to the business), the more likely that you'll be able to get a community ban.
You can certainly try for a community ban now -- all it takes is making a proposal for one here -- but I rather doubt it would get consensus at this point, with no post-block activity to report. In general, Wikipedia shies away from sanctions in advance due to possible expected actions. Of course, I've been wrong plenty of times, so the choice is yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, the main benefit of a cban versus an indef-aka-"de-facto-ban" is that with the latter, it's entirely possible for one sympathetic admin to overturn it at any time, while the former is The Will Of The Community and requires the community's consensus to undo. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I would anticipate that an admin should take a block that has been discussed by the community to the community for discussion. At the point, if the unblock fails to gain consensus, the banning policy makes it clear that it is a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
In regard to whether a single sympathetic admin can overturn a block made on the basis of a community discussion:
I wish that policy (or at least our understanding of it) was clear on this point. A block issued by an admin on the basis of a consensus in a community block discussion should be considered to be a community action, with the blocking admin simply being the vehicle to put that action into effect. It should not be available for overturning by single admin action, either by the blocking admin, or by another admin with the acquiescence of the blocking admin -- as would be the case with a normal block -- without there being another community discussion to authorize lifitng it. This is certainly true of a community site ban, and should be true of a community block as well, since the block is no less The Will of The Community than the ban is. (In fact, it was my understanding that that is the case.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a follow-up: this argument doesn't denigrate the role of the admin corps in community-decided blocks. If a community discussion reaches a consensus to block, and no admin is willing to put it into effect, that amounts to a de facto "pocket veto" of the block decision by the entire corpus of admins, a strong statement that the block discussion was unfair or ill-considered in some way. This acts as a check against unwarranted community action. But once an admin has accepted the consensus, and made the block, it should be considered to be the implementation of a community decision, and not an individual block by that admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous editors' persistent vandalism on pages relating to the LDS Church[edit]

Hello. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for over 10 years now. Much of my focus has been on articles relating to the LDS Church, and I have developed not only a great cooperative relationship with many others who contribute to content on my watchlist, but also an extreme distaste for anyone who is knowingly vandalizing such pages and ignoring the warnings that have been provided to stop doing so. Regarding one such individual, I need to report a major issue that recurs on a frequent basis. Almost every time I access Wikipedia, I come across edits by someone who adds them anonymously using various IP addresses. The content of those edits usually references an individual by the name of Joe Walz, with the point of the edits being how that individual is relevant to the pages in question. Sources unconnected to this Joe Walz are usually erroneously cited to verify the relevance of this person to such topics. The latest example, which I have reverted, can be found here. The main problem with these edits is extended by the fact that the editor behind them finds a variety of IP addresses and locations he uses to perpetuate this vandalism. I put him on notice of his violation of Wikipedia policies on the talk page for the latest address he used, then on reflection considered it best to put him on notice that I would report him here, which I have now done. I should also note that similar edits on the part of this individual have been reverted by others almost as soon as they have been added to other pages, but the episodes of this issue have been far too many to list every one. Enough is enough. His edits clearly violate Wikipedia policy, and he is very much a repeat offender who will likely continue this vandalism unless he is prevented from doing so. I am all for giving earnest contributors every opportunity to comply with requests to follow Wikipedia policies, but it is clear that, despite numerous invitations that have been made to this individual to do just that, he has no intention whatsoever to actually do so. If action could be taken to nip this conduct in the bud, I know I am not the only one who would appreciate it. A quick review of other articles relating to well-known subjects about the LDS Church will verify that this is happening all too regularly. Thanks for taking time to read and act on this notice. I appreciate everything you all do to keep Wikipedia safe from those with ill intentions. All the best. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jgstokes, you will need to supply more diffs to help us. You haven't established your point although you have stated it. With more proof, you can establish your point and we can help consider solutions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Jgstokes, that would be a good idea. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Better yet, Jgstokes, go to WP:SPI and type that name into the search box that they spam into articles and report back to us if you find a case. Hint: as a checkuser I cannot make correlations between IPs and accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As one of the others who has repeatedly reverted this IP troll, whose trollery extends beyond just LDS-related articles, let me give a little more history and context. These IPs are all IP socks of User:GeraldFord1980, and this is the relevant SPI. I've been keeping a running list (here) of the all IPs that showed up in that SPI and that have made "Joe Walz" vandalism edits since the SPI. I can provide specific diffs if that would be helpful. Occasionally the IPs get reported at AIV, with varying results. This is essentially a game of whack-a-troll. Find a "Joe Walz" edit, revert it, move on and don't feed the troll. I would love if there were a more permanent solution, but I doubt a range block would work and the only other solutions would be to blacklist "Joe Walz" edits or have a bot automatically revert such edits so actual editors don't have to be constantly checking for these. But the troll would just change tactics, and then you're back to a "don't feed the troll" solution. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like an edit filter might help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, wow, this actually explains this bizarre nastygram I got about a month ago after reverting this nonsense! (I assumed Joe Walz was some YouTuber I'm too old to have on my radar.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Transl[edit]

Looks like no longer an issue. --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can another admin review the two conversations starting at Template_talk:Transl#rewriting_this_template?. I reverted once to fix the breakage and got a rather snappish reply in response. More issues are cropping up. --NeilN talk to me 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting, fellow Neil? fish&karate 14:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
When I first reverted the recent change of the protected template, there were about a hundred articles in Category:Transl template errors. The reply from the author of the change indicated the revert was "shooting the messenger" as the errors were actually side effects (I undid my revert then). Another editor then popped up asking for an "urgent revert" again. However, I think the situation has died down now. The number of articles having errors started to rise again after I undid my revert but now it's fallen. --NeilN talk to me 15:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

AIV backlog[edit]

Currently a backlog at AIV EvergreenFir (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions[edit]

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

  1. The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
  2. There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
  1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
  2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
  3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

AWB access[edit]

I really do promise that I will behave with AWB. I really do. My AWB access has been unexpectedly removed. I take this as my final chance. I will not make any insignificant or controversial edits with it. If I do make bad edits, I understand that not only my AWB access will be removed but I will be indefinitely blocked. I will also not use regex typo fixing ever again. I promise. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac, who removed the access. Nihlus 16:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Pkbwcgs, I'll restore, but please be more careful. This includes both edits with AWB as well as WPCleaner - both of which have resulted in complaints. There's no rush, so make sure your edits are all accurate before you hit "save". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you. I will be more careful next time. I will avoid edits related to spelling as that is the main area I am receiving more complaints. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Pkbwcgs, you're clearly not being asked to avoid any areas. You're being asked to actually pay attention to what you are changing with these programs instead of clicking save just because it found something that might be an error. There is a reason both programs give you a preview of what you are doing beforehand. Nihlus 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
What they said. As per the many, many warnings I and others have given you, the false-positive rate for AWB's "suggested fixes" is well over 50%, so if you're not rejecting more than half the proposed fixes it suggests you're almost certainly using it inappropriately; plus, AWB is a tool intended for use on multiple projects, not just Wikipedia, and many of the fixes it suggests are inappropriate for English Wikipedia or are purely cosmetic changes which are banned on Wikipedia. To repeat yet again a piece of advice I've given you which you invariably ignore, I cannot recommend enough that if you insist on continuing to use AWB you disable the "apply general fixes" checkbox, and that you stop using WPCleaner altogether unless and until you actually understand what you're doing. (Because there's no WPCleaner equivalent of AWB's checkpage, the only action we can take if you keep making mistakes with WPCleaner is to block you from editing Wikipedia altogether, and given the number of warnings you've ignored thus far I will do it if I see any more obvious errors or blatantly inappropriate violations of WP:COSMETICBOT). ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

AWB is fucking dangerous; why allow it for a user who already/recently fucked it up many times? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith. Their edits were improper, but they've agreed to pay more attention in the future and there will be no qualms about permanently removing it next time. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, so let me edit the main page. I've never harmed it.
More seriously though - that's stretching AGF, but ok, does not prevent us watching next time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting user talk page[edit]

I see that Jeevan naidu has redirected their user and talk pages to Jeevan King, apparently their previous account. I'm a bit confused by this, because it breaks notifications, and makes it harder to track their contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Perhaps they could be directed to WP:CHUN, which would probably solve their issue (if the u/name if available of course). Their reason for doing so actually seems rather progressive—that is, disassociating from caste politics? Which WP:ARBIPA topics are unfortunately plagued with, as we know. Just my reading of it, of course. Further: I see they have not yet been advised as to this discussion? It also-somewaht belatedly!- occurs to me that ANI for this—without even raising it with the user—is surely a trife heavy-handed? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    I brought it to AN because I wasn't sure if it was a problem or not, and I wanted additional feedback. And yes, I should have notified the user. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Xeno already renamed then from Jeevan naidu to Jeevan King as seen here. They then recreated the Jeevan naidu account on July 2, 2014 (or attached it since this was before the SUL rollout). They should probably go to WP:CHUU to fix it. Nihlus 17:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Ahhh- Nihlus: So they probably were following the CHUN instructions to "Once you have been renamed, bear in mind your previous account name could be taken by a third party. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account name and create redirects linking the accounts" after all....?! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
        • If that's what they did, they got it exactly backwards. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Back in the day the software would sometimes mess up a bit and the user would stay logged in to their existing name which got recreated even though we renamed them. This user never ended up using their new name and apparently did not understand or follow my instruction. I've moved their talk page back in place. –xenotalk 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, I do this with my alt account: User:MPants at work is a hard redirect to User:MjolnirPants. The same is true of my talk pages. It helps to keep things centralized, and I've added a link at the top of my talk page to my alt's contribs page for clarity.
So if this becomes a larger issue, somebody please send me a ping so I can weigh in and see how the consensus is going (you can send it to either account; I check both). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not really the same at all. In this case, there is an old account abandoned for 3 years and an active new account, but the new account's pages redirect to the old one's. ansh666 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I missed how old the other was; apologies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue with the Page Finns[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, i wanted to Denounce the extreme immaturity of some Wiki editors, with this I mean that, some editors insist on reversing my edits that I did on the wiki page about the Finns, in which i add the Swedish language to the Languages spoken by the Ethnic group himself and i also write the Equivalent of Finns in Swedish (finnar), and i really don't think that's Right, since there's Only the Finnish language in the Language section, being that everybody knows Swedish is One of the Official languages and is spoken by 5% of the Finnish population in the Åland islands and Western Finland (mainly in Ostrobothnia), therefore my Edits on this Page would be very Useful, not to mention that would enrich the Content of the Page and give more Informations about the Finnish people, and i don't really think that my Edits should be Deleted or Reversed from the Page, bcz that's Useful and Informative Content — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WhiteGuy1850 for another discussion about this issue. This is a content dispute, and needs to be addressed on the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sex pest[edit]

Resolved: Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone please work out why helpdesk is current showing a huge image from File:Berlin Sex Shop 2.jpg. Probably some template vandalism or something. Thx. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was a change to Template:HelpDesk icon. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry for posting here - when it happened, it was super-urgent and this seemed the right place. 5 mins later, it seems I am crying wolf. Apologies. All is well, carry on. Nothing to see here. Thanks for explaining where it was, Anon. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Can one of ya protectify Template:HelpDesk icon? Or do I need to file that request elsewhere? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting it! That type of vandalism can be harder to solve, so reports like this are helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah...I copy-pasted the page to sandbox, and I was trying to work it out, using Special:ExpandTemplates.. when the anon beat me to it! Sometimes hard to solve these ones. Cheers... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the template. The template only appeared on a handful of pages, but since those very pages are pretty visible (e.g. WP:Help desk), I figure there's more benefit than cost to protecting. Mz7 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Community feedback: Proposal on case naming[edit]

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a modification to our procedures on how case requests and arbitration cases are named. We would like community feedback before considering the proposal further.

Current system

Currently, case requests are named by the filing parties. In theory, the Arbitration Committee or arbitration clerks can rename case requests before they are accepted, but this is rarely done in practice. If an arbitration case is accepted, the Committee chooses a name reflective of the dispute before the case is opened. This can either be the name originally provided by the filing party or a name developed by the Committee that better represents the scope of the case. The major benefit of this system is that ongoing cases are easily identifiable.

Proposed changes

The following represents a prospective motion that would alter how cases are named.

Effective immediately, new arbitration case requests will no longer be named by the filing party. Case requests will receive a unique six-digit identifier, formatted as the current year followed by the number of the case request within that year. For instance, the fifth case request in 2018 will be numbered 201805.

If a case request is declined, the request will not be named. If a case request is accepted, the Committee will assign a name upon conclusion of the case. Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. The Committee will not discuss the naming of a case prior to the case meeting the criteria for closure.

In the past, some editors have been concerned that specific case names have unintentionally biased the result of a case. While this is unproven, any such bias would be eliminated by deferring case naming until after the case was closed. The biggest drawback is that cases will be harder to identify while open. This may result in decreased participation by editors with relevant evidence.

Notes

The Committee would like to restrict comments at this time to the proposed changes or suggestions directly related to the case naming process. Other issues related to arbitration proceedings may be addressed by the Committee at a later time.

Thank you, ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from the community is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community feedback: Proposal on case naming.