Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion

• RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI (restated)
• Notability of political candidates
• 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission nominations
• Allow non-admins to request interface admin access

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

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

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

RfCs

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

(Initiated 99 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

(Initiated 96 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)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

(Initiated 87 days ago on 15 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#RFC

(Initiated 85 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:Disappearance of Asha Degree#Clothing taken

(Initiated 84 days ago on 17 July 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Disappearance of Asha Degree#Clothing taken? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Quneitra Governorate#RFC on map version

(Initiated 83 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)?

(Initiated 81 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?

(Initiated 81 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

(Initiated 77 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

(Initiated 76 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:Albert Cashier#Request for Comment about pronoun usage

(Initiated 73 days ago on 28 July 2018) Seeking a neutral, uninvolved editor willing to take on an Rfc in an area subject to WP:AC/DS sanctions for gender-related controversies and disputes. Talk was on-going right up till the end, until Legobot removed the expired Rfc header. An involved editor (the creator) then assessed it and I reverted. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 71 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

(Initiated 70 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

(Initiated 69 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:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018#What should be the inclusion criteria for candidates in the infobox?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 2 August 2018) This RfC has been running for 1 month. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 68 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

(Initiated 68 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

(Initiated 67 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?

(Initiated 67 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

(Initiated 67 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)

Talk:Martha McSally#RfC on Political positions section

(Initiated 66 days ago on 5 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martha McSally#RfC on Political positions section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 65 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

(Initiated 65 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

(Initiated 64 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

(Initiated 64 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)

Talk:Trans woman#RfC on introduction

(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 August 2018) Could an administrator (participants specifically request an administrator) please assess the outcome of this RfC? Thanks. -sche (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#RFC for stub mountain articles

(Initiated 63 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)

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

(Initiated 62 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)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 August 2018) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson#RfC: Climate science

(Initiated 57 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

(Initiated 57 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

(Initiated 54 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

(Initiated 51 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

(Initiated 51 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

(Initiated 47 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 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 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

(Initiated 44 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

(Initiated 44 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

(Initiated 44 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

(Initiated 42 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

(Initiated 41 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:Greece#Inclusion of the League of Corinth in the infobox

(Initiated 38 days ago on 1 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Greece#Inclusion of the League of Corinth in the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Perche#RFC: the Perche vs. Perche

(Initiated 38 days ago on 1 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Perche#RFC: the Perche vs. Perche? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 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

(Initiated 37 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

(Initiated 35 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

(Initiated 33 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)

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

(Initiated 26 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). Iffy★Chat -- 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)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident

(Initiated 2 days ago on 7 October 2018) I understand it's only been a day, but the discussion has garnered significant attention, a consensus appears to be forming, and the item is time sensitive as it is related to a nomination at WP:ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Black Kite (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank#Merger proposal

(Initiated 550 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

(Initiated 126 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

(Initiated 55 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?

(Initiated 52 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

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (16 out of 1444 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Thomastown, Rhondda Cynon Taf 2018-10-09 20:16 2018-10-09 21:16 edit,move to give me time to discuss Floquenbeam PcHippo 2018-10-09 18:03 2018-10-23 18:03 create Repeatedly recreated There'sNoTime Template:Goatse 2018-10-09 16:04 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated and for vandalism. Oshwah Dussehra (film) 2018-10-09 09:50 2018-10-23 09:50 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather Hisham Saleh Baeshen 2018-10-08 17:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN Hisham saleh baeshen 2018-10-08 17:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN Hisham Baeshen 2018-10-08 17:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN Prince of Wales 2018-10-08 15:02 2018-11-08 15:02 edit Persistent sock puppetry Widr Sebastian Perkes 2018-10-08 13:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Zubaira Tukhugov 2018-10-07 22:16 2018-10-17 22:16 edit,move see McGregor incident Enigmaman Abubakar Nurmagomedov 2018-10-07 22:13 2018-10-17 22:13 edit,move McGregor Enigmaman Japanese sea lion 2018-10-07 10:15 2018-10-14 10:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather UFC 229 2018-10-07 05:18 2019-01-06 20:18 edit stop iot Enigmaman Khabib Nurmagomedov 2018-10-07 05:17 2018-10-26 09:56 edit,move upping this in the aftermath Enigmaman Rah Crawford 2018-10-06 11:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; cf ANI incident AGK Kruti Mahesh 2018-10-06 07:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Caknuck

Doxxing: how fast did we react?

It appears that 143.231.249.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recently doxxed US senators Lee, Graham and Hatch on Wikipedia. As usual, the personal information was quickly removed from the history.

I am interested in our response time on high profile pages. Could someone who can read the deleted history tell me:

[1] How much time elapsed before it was noticed an reported?

[2] How much time elapsed before a revert?

[3] How much time elapsed before a revision deletion?

[4] How much time elapsed before oversight?

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: While I, a non-admin, cannot see all of it, I can tell that:

On Lindsey Graham:

• Original edit made on 21:13, 27 September 2018‎.
• Gilliam reverts the edit that same minute the edit was made.
• K6ka RevDels the edit at 21:22, 9 minutes after.
• ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)

• Suppression occurred at 21:23 one minute after the RD, 10 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

On Orrin Hatch:

• Original edit made on 21:25, 27 September 2018.
• Oshwah reverts the edit on 21:29 (4 minutes? Considering him, that's pretty slow) and RevDels it that same minute.
• ...And I can't see when the revision was suppressed (this part is probably why you asked, only other Oversighters can see it)

• Suppression occurred at 21:31 two minutes after the RD, 6 minutes after the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait for an oversighter to answer the last bit. Related question: David Reaboi[1] says that 143.231.249.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the same person.[2] Do we know this to be true? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The same vandalism came from multiple IPs. The IPs are almost certainly NAT'd, and claims of traceability (from the outside) to a specific office or person are going to be a nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Let me just say that I encourage ALL admins to be as proactive as possible in suppressing that kind of information. Reverting is one thing, but these kinds of edits call for immediate revdeletion/suppression. Now, if that damn bot retweets immediately, we're screwed no matter how fast we act. For the record, I agree with this edit summary. Apparently the bot's creator's intention was not to "belittle our elected officials"--well, great, but he's doxxing them. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the bot operator isn't doxxing them, the editor using the House of Representatives computer is doxxing them.

As a technical question, in case I'm missing something, if the bot operator ceased operations, the person interested in doxxing could simply post to a twitter account. Am I missing something? Is it possible the HOR computers can access Wikipedia, but not Twitter?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just in case some outsiders are reading this, I saw some discussion about this issue elsewhere and someone thought we should be using a filter to stop the posting of personal information. My response was that such an edit filter is far harder than one might imagine, but I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback from editors with edit filter experience. (I understand there may be some limitations, per beans, about what can be said.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: edit filters need to have something to actually "match" on, and are mostly limited to the content of a single edit, patterns can be used. So for example we could make a filter that looks for the addition of a credit card number with high confidence (it has a fixed format, and would rarely be a "good" edit), filtering on something like a "home address" is much harder - for one, the format varies -but the big thing is that it would be very hard to tell the difference between a home address an the address of a company for example. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-administrator, since these doxxing and various disruptive edits have been being made from inside a known IP range assigned to Congress, I have a question/suggestion. Is it possible to set editing attempts from within this range to not allow anonymous editing but to force a login? I realize that a determined vandal could simply create a bogus account and login using that, but this could be useful in deterring a more casual vandalism attempt. Blackfyr (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Blackfyr - Yes, that is the default setting when blocking an IP address or range (as opposed to restricting both anonymous users and non-exempt existing accounts from editing). By default, editors with an existing account can log in from behind a blocked IP or range and edit as usual and without being affected by the IP block. Anonymous users won't be able to edit. This is known as a 'soft IP block' or typically just an 'IP block'. If the option is set to also disallow logged in non-exempt users from editing from behind the blocked IP or range, this is known as a 'hard IP block'. This is detailed more in-depth in this section of the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SIP: we have to be particularly careful when blocking sensitive IP addresses, and congressional IPs are at the top of the list of sensitive addresses. This doesn't mean that we don't block IPs that warrant it, but it means that we consider the situation before doing anything beyond an ordinary reaction to simple vandalism and outing. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to any softblocking unless it's the result of a careful discussion. If that discussion happens, I won't advocate "yes, soft block" or "no, don't soft block"; I just want to make sure that we do everything we can. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I respect that position, but would like to suggest that since this is apparently a regularly occuring situation, this might be the time to have that conversation. Where is the proper place to have that and how do we get it started?Blackfyr (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I happened across this thread after noticing the IP poster under discussion was allegedly doxxed on 8chan. My feeling is that instant-censoring truthful information about senators is not something to be proud of. The "harm", after all, can always be done in other forums, and that kind of instant suppression makes it quite impossible for ordinary posters to see if the information was really something not to be viewed by proletarian eyes. But my feeling is also that an IP account festooned with as many warnings as that one should not be given a royal exemption to being soft-blocked. Since when does Wikipedia offer widely varying levels of privilege and protection to user accounts and article subjects based on their political connections? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIP says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee." Oddly enough, there is no link to the place where either the Wikipedia community or the WMF established this requirement. Where was this decided? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been in the page since it was first created back in 2006 by Pathoschild. I imagine Pathoschild established this requirement then. Wikipedia in 2006 was a bit different to the interminable naval-gazing bureaucracy we have now, people sometimes typed policies into Wikipedia and other editors worked collaboratively with them. Sometimes whole sentences were written without going through a single RFC and they made the decisions themselves! I know, right, what were they thinking?! Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Related question about WP:IPB: At the top is the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" note, but then I see sections with the titles "Policies" and "Guidelines". This seems deceptive to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Fish+Karate 14:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Devil's Triangle (disambiguation) article dispute

After posting a reversal request to Fennec's talk page, they suggested that I bring it here and that they wouldn't object to a reversal if that was the decision. My original request to them was:

"While I understand that the edit from the anonymous account qualifies for deletion under RD3, I would like to request you reverse the deletion due to the source of that edit ( https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/1045422483082551302 ). That this was edited by someone from within the US House of Representatives' domain may be an indication of malfeasance which will need to be readily accessible for official remedies. Hiding the evidence of what was done would make it more difficult to show what was done. Thank you."

Unfortunately, due to anonymous Wikipedia editors using Congressional IPs doxxing people by inserting home addresses and phone numbers into, the CongressEdits twitter account has been suspended, so the referenced tweet is no longer available. This suggests to me that, in addition to the above stated reason, that not hiding these edits would also be in the public interest for people to see what kinds of things are being attempted under cover of anonymity by those in public office.

Respectfully, Blackfyr (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Anyone who is actually able to do a meaningful investigation will have no problem obtaining access to the suppressed material. I also have no idea why giving away the home address (I've seen it suggested the phone numbers were fake) is necessary to tell people what happened. There are thousands of news reports which do that, without having to give the specific info. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what was being requested here especially since the page of concern was only mentioned in the header (which is always confusing). I thought a request was being made to reveal the suppressed edits containing the home addresses (and alleged phone numbers) of some US Senators. It sounds like a request is instead being made to reveal some deleted edits of something more akin to childish vandalism albeit concern a LP and their testimony of what something meant. But I still stick to my main points. There is no reason why this is a barrier to anyone who actually has the ability to investigate. Only network admins of the Congressional network could do that. And I doubt they even need access to the deleted info for the actual investigation anyway. The IP and time are still there. It's unlikely the precise edit details would help them identify the culprit. The precise edit details may be necessary for any disciplinary or legal action, but again, if they really need that info it's unlikely there will be any barrier to them requesting it. And again what happened here has been covered at least at a basic level in news sources (albeit fewer). Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit in question is surely this one (the link is not really admin only as it's splashed all over all the mainstream media). Although the stated reasons for restoring can be disputed, it's questionable under RD3, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The same argument (that anyone able to investigate will have access to the suppressed material) surely applies to home addresses also! When, exactly, did information that used to get thrown onto your porch in a plastic bag every year in a phone book turn into Classified Top Secret??? You want to throw away Wikipedia's pretensions to transparency let alone open community decision-making over the presumed inability of the common prole to find out a famous person's address? Really? Wnt (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP takes Doxing very seriously. Probably because many of the people on WP like to use pseudonyms and would rather not have their friends and bosses know what they do on WP, or getting harassed in real life for edits made to WP. Also we respect people's privacy to keep such information private if they choose to (which you could also exclude your name from the white/yellow pages in the past). So the world might not care about finding a famous person's address, but WP does. -Obsidi (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's just be clear that this is not suppressed material, nor private information. The exact text can be found with a simple Google search for Devil's triangle. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Doxing of the senators addresses that occurred above should be suppressed. But this edit wasn't that, and I agree with the admin below that unredaction is appropriate here. -Obsidi (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

These edits were redacted using RD2 and RD3 as justification. RD2 allows redaction in the case of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material... slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." I would argue that this edit does not even remotely rise to the level of RD2; it's quite tame. It's borderline uncivil, but certainly nothing more than ordinary incivility. RD3 allows redaction in the case of "purely disruptive material", including "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks," and various types of links to inappropriate/disruptive web pages. None of that is happening here, the edit is simply a sarcastic restatement of something that was said during a Senate hearing and reported widely in the news.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, the content of the redacted edit has already been published in various news articles. So, not only is this redaction outside of WP process, it was performed far too late to be effective.

The argument about facilitating a potential investigation is a red herring; there is no WP redaction policy that prevents redaction in the case of a potential investigation. However, there is also no WP redaction policy that applies to the edit in question here. Therefore, I have reverted this redaction. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it time to deprecate WP:X2?

Is the cleanup of pages created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016 done yet? I have never seen any articles in the relevant speedy deletion category, so can it be deprecated, since per WP:XCSD, Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is no longer needed only after the work on this page has been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen any X2 deletions lately. Has the cleanup been finished or has no one bothered to delete the pages recently? I wasn't around when this happened, and I'm not sure if the community thinks the situation has been solved now. In my opinion, once deletions have stopped, the criterion is no longer needed. funplussmart (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think everything has been done that is going to be done. But this was not a well thought-out procedure: There was very substantial disagreement on standards among the various people screening these, and a good many articles were actually kept after discussion, fixed to varying extents. If we need to do something of the sort again, we shouldn't try to shoehorn it into speedy, which is supposed to work very differently: for the other criteria, deleting admins almost always agree with each other. Speedy is not for situations where reasonable people will disagree. To a lesser degree we had problems with X1--there was not really agreement in practice about which articles were worth rescuing. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Venketasha Jois

Hello, this page should be a redirect to the article Venky Jois – I don't know why it's blacklisted, apparently. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. As near as I can understand without doing actual research, it was on the title blacklist because of a spammer who has created several pages with the name "Venketasha", but this is related to a different person entirely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I created Venkatesha Jois, based on the spelling in the article. According to this page from his college team, "ate" is correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ping Ivanvector who added the entry recently; I reckon that entry should be removed as it has too much collateral (per search 80 matches just in article space meaning an estimated 5-10 creations an year affected, venkatesh being a common name) and as far as I can see the sockpuppets only have created articles at two titles. Or change it to something like .*((C\.R\..*?enkatesh|enkatesh.*?C\.R\.)).* Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Modified as suggested, and thanks for the ping. It might take the servers a while to figure out that something changed. The request here is obviously not related to the spammer I was trying to blacklist, and if someone wants to create a redirect from the incorrect but maybe plausible misspelling, we have {{R from misspelling}} just for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Ok, thanks, didn't notice the difference in spelling. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban review request

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)

Pauline Hanson

Sensitive Admins might want to revdel some recent stuff, I really couldn't care less. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I'm not a sensitive admin, but we don't need low rent vandalism like this in the histories of BLP articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As there seems to be a steady stream of vandalism (much of it misogynist) affecting this article, I've also applied pending changes to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Review of block appeal at User talk:TaylanUB

User:TaylanUB has been indef blocked by User:GorillaWarfare for the logged reason "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" and with a block message comment "Your transphobia is not welcome here". The resulting unblock appeal has attracted significant comment, and I think it is one that should not be left to an individual admin to decide but should be referred to the community. As a strong supporter of gender-based equality and one who abhors gender-based bigotry (whether anatomical, genetic, cultural, psychological (which itself is at least partly genetic and/or partly cultural) or whatever), I clearly can not decide this for myself - and I don't think any individual admin should. I think it needs community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. (edit conflict) This is the controversial edit summary. I don't support blocking TERFs for being TERFs, but we should have some consensus on mainspace disruption. wumbolo ^^^ 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This diff is relevant, as well as this one where TaylanUB claims that edit summaries are not relevant to MOS:GENDERID. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Well, on a purely formal ground - the user has been here for quite a while, reasonably active, once dragged for ANI without any consequences, couple of times warned - once for edit-warring, once for pushing an agenda, but this is about it, unless I am missing smth. An indef block is the last resort, not the first resort, no? To me, unless it was a very specific horrible policy violation, which was not referenced in the block notice, the case does not match WP:NOTTHERE. I blocked a lot of people per WP:NOTTHERE, and these are typically POV pushers who drive by the articles replacing India with Pakistan or smth like this. If they manage to stay under the radar, they can only get discovered after several hundred edits and still be blocked per WP:NOTTHERE, but here we clearly have a very different case. Not all POV edors are NOTHERE, and this one does not look to me like the case where the first block must have been indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think this falls somewhere in the realm of WP:POINT better than NOTHERE. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• I would suggest to the administrators that, if the indef block seems excessive, a topic-ban from all gender-related articles and discussions might achieve the needed effect. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - This user has been a problem, needlessly TENDENTIOUS, BATTLEGROUND ([3], [4], [5]), and otherwise offensive on transgender/TERF articles. I don't have a solid opinion on how best to handle this user's behavior, but I feel it is necessary to show how disruptive this user has been (imho). Examples include:
  • Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman. See also [6]
  • Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem. See also [7]
  • Accusing bad faith of other editors. See also [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (see edit summary)
  • Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women. See also [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
  • Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we. See also [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
  • BLP violations
  • Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women.

While pushing against the status quo and challenging POVs is healthy and useful to Wikipedia, there is a point where it moves from healthy to crusading. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: your comment is more WP:BATTLEGROUND than the entire contribution history by TaylanUB. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What? Providing diffs of behavior is exactly what AN encourages; it's not battleground at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Providing fewer diffs encourages better judgment, while alleging that every policy was broken only leads to wasting time arguing the weaker points. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I appreciate parsimony but I wished to demonstrate the widespreadness (#makingitaword) of the issue. These are not cherry-picked diffs to try to paint a user in a bad light. My first set of diffs was from TaylanUB's last 100 edits. But it seems odd to claim I'm being BATTLEGROUND about this... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How does that make sense? Taylan's words speak for herself; she dug this hole, she can lay in it. It's very clearly battleground.--Jorm (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: Quick note but per Taylan's userpage I believe he is male. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: ah but we know that she doesn't seem to have a problem misgendering people, so, you know.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not battleground to defend yourself against inaccurate comments, if no one else attempts to defend you. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• endorse block for disruption and pointiness Thanks, EvergreenFir for refreshing my memory. I'd gone cross-eyed looking at the user talk page earlier. I think the point is the user refuses to follow the MOS that the community agreed upon regarding transgender issues. Though the user is quite eloquent in many ways, including claiming victimization, the problem and the reason for the block is some sort of WP:NOTHERE or POV pushing agenda, and willingness to do battle to rewrite Wikipedia to their personal taste and against consensus. While the block may have been seen as premature and precipitous, it also comes after a log period of strife. And that this has gone on so long w/o remedy is no reason not to effect remedy now. I see no problem in unblocking if the user agrees to leave aside transgender issues, stop POV pushing, and conform to/accept the MOS, or if the user agrees to a WP:TBAN on transgender in particular.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse per the pile of evidence presented by EvergreenFir. Tag, bag, and move on. Nihlus 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Of this editor's ≈450 edits, far too many contain disruptive conduct in mainspace or elsewhere. The appeal was unconvincing. Endorse. AGK ■ 20:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Replying to this elaboration on the block reason by GorillaWarfare:

Do you have any specific receipts/examples regarding the claim that I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles unbalanced? For instance, how big of a role do my edits regarding the incident at Speaker's Corner relate to this, if any? (Or is your claim meant very broadly, such that citing individual edits or even topics would not be useful?) As for my alleged "consistent use of incorrect pronouns for trans subjects," can you please confirm that this has actually happened more than a single time, which was within an edit summary? As far as I remember, the only time I used wrong pronouns as per MOS:GENDERID for a trans person was in an edit summary in which I referred to Tara Wolf with male pronouns. Can you clarify to what degree MOS:GENDERID or the whole Manual of Style applies to edit summaries? (My assumption up so far was that the MOS applies only to article bodies.) Regarding "dehumanizing people," could you show any examples in which you've perceived me as doing this?

(end first comment)

(start second comment)

For anyone who considers a topic ban: please reconsider. There is fairly good evidence that there is a repeated pattern of bias in transgender related articles, in favor of the positions of transgender activists. For instance, I recently restored some documentation on my user page of repeated, persistent attempts to remove from the page Feminist views on transgender topics a very well-cited case, with significant media representation, of a transgender activist having assaulted a feminist in a public gathering. Further, shortly before my block some editors started edit warring with me with the claim that what happened was not an assault, even though reliable sources confirm that the case was one of assault and that the assailant was eventually convicted for "assault by beating". (References: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]) Currently the page Feminist views on transgender topics once again calls the incident an "altercation" rather than an "assault". My behavior which others have called "disruptive" or "tendentious" has often been based on this repeated pattern of bias that I was in fact struggling against. This struggle is made especially difficult as multiple editors are involved in supporting the positions of transgender activists.

A second case study: the page trans woman starts by defining a transwoman as "a woman who was assigned male at birth." I've proposed to change this to "a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman." The proposed wording is neutral, avoids contradicting the first sentence of the article woman as well as common English dictionaries, and is better supported by reliable sources as you can see on the talk page. In the RfC poll you can see on the talk page, it won the majority of votes with a small margin. Despite this, my past attempts at changing the article to use that wording have been strictly opposed and my behavior called disruptive. The ordeal ended in the massive RfC debate you see.

I would conclude that my behavior is perceived as disruptive because I insist on neutrality, balance, and objectivity, in areas that make some editors uncomfortable due to our deep differences in ideology. I expressly do not want Wikipedia to have an unbalanced presentation of the subject matter, even in favor of the ideologies I support, because that would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia's "take" on the matter. There are enough platforms out there for a one-sided representation, and I use them when I feel the need; the point of Wikipedia as I understand it is that people can get a hopefully completely impartial representation of the subject matter and make up their own minds.

(end second comment)

Thanks again. Taylan (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to add the following point-by-point response to EvergreenFir. This might be somewhat long-winded again, but I think it's important, especially since the AN entry is fresh and those reading it might not know any of the surrounding context.

(start comment)

Finding it "offensive" to use feminine pronouns for a trans woman.

Indeed, I personally find gender identity ideology offensive, because it reduces "woman" and "man" to sexist stereotypes in my view. I have personally been severely hurt by the collateral damage sex stereotypes cause men, so this is personal to me too. I am, I believe, entitled to this opinion. I believe I did not try to bring undue representation of this opinion into Wikipedia articles.

Claiming masculine pronouns are appropriate for transgender women who have "a very male-pattern behavior" or is otherwise not a problem.

I think this is a misrepresentation of what I've said. I said that I personally find it very difficult to use female pronouns for Tara Wolf, since they as a male-bodied person have committed something I see as supporting male supremacy (or "patriarchy"): the use of physical assault against a politically dissenting female-bodied person. I did not comment on the appropriateness of using male pronouns for transwomen in general, especially not within Wikipedia articles. For instance I don't think I ever breached MOS:GENDERID, unless it applies to edit summaries, which if it does I was not aware of at the time and did once.

Accusing bad faith of other editors.

I have been called a POV-pusher, disruptive, tendentious, a bigot, a transphobe, and worse, for insisting on bringing well-sourced material into Wikipedia with due representation. (The most extreme case is documented in my user page. Thank you EvergreenFir for having dealt with the abusive person back then.) I honestly have to admit that it has become very difficult for me to genuinely assume good faith in all instances, especially when I'm being egged on.

Beating a dead horse about trans men/woman are not actually men/women.

Abusing an equine carcass claiming that opinion polls and dictionaries should dictate Wikipedia guidelines and policy, namely that because Pew found most people don't view trans women as "women", neither should we.

As stated above and explained in the links you provided, I indeed find gender identity ideology offensive, and I believe I'm entitled to this opinion. Leaving my opinion aside, the statement that transwomen are women is not one supported by reliable sources, as was revealed in the discussion on the talk page of trans woman. Rather, it represents a dispute and a political position as evidenced by the Pew poll you mention. (Here: [40]) Are you implying that Wikipedia should take a side on this dispute? Note that I'm not disputing MOS:GENDERID, which is about pronoun use.

BLP violations

I sincerely don't understand how what you linked falls under BLP violations, especially since it was an expression of personal opinion on a talk page. Regarding whether it was wrong to use male pronouns for Tara Wolf in an edit summary, I've already asked for clarification.

Opining on the dangers of trans women to cis women

I feel that this is a particularly unfair and pernicious misrepresentation of what I've said. I have never said, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else on the Internet nor in real life, that I see transgender people or transwomen as a particular danger to anyone. What I do occasionally point out is that women have no reason to believe, without evidence, that a specific subset of male-bodied people should be intrinsically more trustworthy than the general population of male-bodied people, especially when the only unifying aspect of said subset is a verbal declaration that they make about themselves. (That is, the expression "I'm a woman/transwoman". In the discussion you link I've provided some citations to back the claim that this declaration is the sole requirement for being considered a transwoman nowadays.) And please remember that I'm a male-bodied person myself, lest somebody start thinking that I'm discriminating against male-bodied people in general.

By the way, I'd like to point out that as mentioned here, there are several transgender/transsexual individuals (some prefer "transsexual") who are on the "same side" in this debate as me. For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women. I'm especially a fan of Kathleen Stock for her eloquent speaking.

(end comment)

Thank you. Taylan (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied over per request from User talk:TaylanUB. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The block was based on your overall pattern of conduct, not just a handful of recent edits. Even the most brief look through your contributions show you've been here to push your various opinions on feminism (TERF, anti-pornography) etc. since day one. As for using the wrong pronouns, yes, it was outside of just one edit summary (for example: [41]). You're probably right that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to edit summaries, but BLP still does. And the "dehumanizing" comment was meant to summarize your campaign of arguing that trans people should not be referred to by their correct pronouns.

As a side note, you've already been encouraged to keep your replies reasonably brief on your talk page. A comment like this (or set of comments, I guess) that's longer than the entire discussion so far is a lot to sift through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"For anyone who continues to think that I'm standing for some sort of hateful ideology, I can only plead to you to look into organizations such as Woman's Place UK or Fair Play for Women." These two groups have been described as "anti-trans" by reliable sources: [42] [43] --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Lots of diffs, but certainly - in my opinion - this one is worth either an indef or at least a TBAN from gender-related articles. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, NOT per the WP:POV railroad presented above or the lengthy user talk page discussion or because plenty of editors believe TERFs are a hate group or similar, but per Black Kite. wumbolo ^^^ 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indef at this time but support 30-day warning block. The incivility in Black Kite's example is clear. I think it is quite healthy for Wikipedia to have a TERF editing gender articles but not like this. Unfortunately, Taylan continues with the walls of text and not acknowledging any wrongdoing. Conversation with Taylan doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I would give him a chance to think about it, come back in 30 days, and explain that he understands the problem or at least understands that the behavior won't be tolerated here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse Re DIYeditor's comment just above: An indef is exactly correct and the user is welcome to think about it, come back in 30 days, and offer their understanding of the problem and how they would avoid it in the future if an appeal was successful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 CheckUser/Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

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

• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

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:

• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who voluntarily relinquished his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in December 2015, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the Committee for return of the permission.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 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: —usernamekiran(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

List of proposed measurements about the effectiveness of blocks

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)

Banned from a page without due process

From the lazy-ass CheckUser whose principal failing was not blocking the user earlier: there's nothing more to do here. Drmies, thank you for fixing my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Bbb23 has banned be from further editing a page here. He has given no reason for his action, which was delivered to me in a highly aggressive manner. For that reason alone, I am owed an explanation. I will not accept being told yet again that I apparently do not know what Administrators do here, because I have triple checked. I know for a fact that what he has done is absolutely unnacceptable (the lack of explanation, not the ban). I would not be surprised, however, given the entire context (me daring to question the fitness of another Administrator, from the low status as the outsider), that my complaint will be ignored. It should not be ignored, since the effect of Bbb23's ban was to also remove yet more evidence provided by me that the Administrator in question does not know the difference between an objective fact and a widely held opinion. Without checking, I am assuming that trait is not desirable in Administrators here. But if it is deemed too controversial to be heard, so be it. I would appreciate that being confirmed as the reason, or indeed being given any reason at all. But if no reason can be found, then the ban is out of order and should be lifted. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is probably permitted under discretionary sanctions. It's also permitted since you're a single-purpose account who is certainly bludgeoning that discussion, and possibly trolling or socking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve asked the OP how he came to be involved at the MfD discussion. After he claimed to represent a Wikipedia outsider view, I think he should explain himself and disclose his previous editing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AttackTheMoonNow, your account, since creation, has done nothing except to, first, make thirteen comments to the discussion in question, and then argue over being told to knock it off. It appears that your account was created explicitly to participate in that discussion, which violates our policies on sockpuppetry, as "alternative" accounts are not permitted to participate in project space discussions. In the future, please log in to your primary account to participate in any project space discussion. I would not be averse to blocking this account as a likely sock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There are twenty six instances of "pants" in that discussion, if we are really going to be entertaining the idea I have broken some imaginary limit. Yes, my interest is singular, and no, you have not shown how this is a problem. Just like you have not shown I am a sock. But if you people believe you don't need to explain the reason for a page ban, then perhaps no explanations for any of these smears is required either? It takes no effort to understand what this is really about. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)]

It takes no effort, indeed. It is clearly about your ego, and ain't nobody got time for that. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else would be averse to your doing so. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Even if socking can't be proven, virtually every edit they have made violates some part of our civility policy, and they've yet to make a single useful contribution, despite making 18 edits so far. Just block them per WP:NOTHERE, because building an encyclopedia is clearly the last thing on their mind.

Also, I second Blackmane's comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yawn. How many times do we have to read the same diatribe? Repetition is not process. WP:BLUDGEON. O3000 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I figure he's got about one more useless process-wankery comment before someone else does the deed. To be clear: no amount of attacking other editors will justify your own behavior, Mr. MoonNow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Will someone please do a WP:NOTHERE block. Settling scores on an MfD page is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support block and striking this user's comments on the MfD. It is good to have other POVs but I have seen these comments as disruptive from the beginning - calling for JzG to be de-sysoped. Let actual editors give their opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So ordered. Well, the block, not the striking of comments. That's, like, real work. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Their comments actually serve a valuable purpose as a litmus test for whether JzG's essay is right or not, and this "editor" certainly demonstrated the truths in the essay. Therefore I suggest striking, rather than deleting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

IMO this can be closed with the editor blocked and looking likely to lose talk page access. If anyone feels their comments should be removed, this is probably best discussed elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• The real question from the beginning has been, why haven't the lazy-ass CUs done the needful for this fine fellow instead of just sitting back and collecting their exorbitant salaries? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• How about if they agree to a 90% salary cut for their failings? Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, in cases like this I can assure you the account has been checked multiple times, but likely with inconclusive result(s). That alone does not mean this could not be a returning user, but without technical evidence obviously a different block reason would need to be chosen, and there was plenty to choose from, so I was surprised to find out a lot of airtime has been offered. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Alex. That all makes sense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't like defending the lazy-ass CUs, but in this case YOU WERE WRONG and collectively we are suing you for defamation. I think the libel laws are way too lax, and the failing Wikipedia Signpost should report on that. Covfefe. My lawyer will take a bullet for me. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• endorse block' Having a disagreeable (to some) POV is one thing, being disagreeable obnoxiously noxious about it (from a throwaway account) is another.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

---

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

TFA vandalism

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)

LDS terminology issues

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently issued a new style-guide regarding how to refer to that organization [44]. 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 (talk • contribs)

Possible troll bot

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)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyhendi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 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)

Disabling thanks spam

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

• Ashwoh
• Hi Ouhwdh
• GanuralizatiunsAweBud

Is there some way to disable this? It's more of a minor irritant than a high priority. Thanks, GAB^gab 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)