Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

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

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 October 2018) Would an uninvolved admin or other experienced editor please close this multi-question RfC when the time is up? The issue is whether to introduce a new way of approaching source reviewing at FAC. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • This does not need to be closed at 30 days (some late feedback has occurred due to some notification spamming) and WBOG has already volunteered, for anyone reviewing. So, I object to "close this RFC when the time is up?". --Izno (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Izno and Mike Christie, we need someone entirely uninvolved to close this. WBOG was suggested by one of the supporters, and I have reservations for other reasons too. I posted here asking for someone uninvolved. Whoever decides to close can decide when it should be done. SarahSV (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Izno, I've just seen your edit summary "that's really obnoxious". [1] Does that refer to my request here? If yes, what's obnoxious about it? SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's obnoxious when we're having a conversation elsewhere for you to stop discussing and do the objectionable thing we were discussing. --Izno (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have moved the close request from the "RfCs" section to the "Administrative discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Survey[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 October 2018) Would an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Survey? The RfC was initially initiated 6 September 2018, but was reopened 20 October. No one has commented since 8 November 2018 (~8 days at the time of posting). --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I have moved the close request from the "RfCs" section to the "Administrative discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI thread about James500[edit]

(Initiated 8 days ago on 11 November 2018)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive "dumping" in threads, and activism against notability guidelines by James500

There seems to be a general feeling that this has played out and should close, but with an actual close (due to observations of previous promises by the subject to stop various unconstructive behaviors which then resumed after scrutiny dissipated). I opened the report, and am semi-mollified by the subject's responses (am no longer seeking a T-ban, though several others are). However, an actual administrative warning is probably in order, at the minimum. This shouldn't just archive without action, or we have every indication that the problems would resume.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not apparent to me that there have been any broken promises. In the one instance that I can find in this very lengthy (almost unreadable) thread, I think there may have been a serious misunderstanding as to what was being promised, as I did not expect my words to be construed by reading them one sentence at a time, in an entirely literal fashion, that ignores the context in which that sentence appears, the circumstances under which it was written, and whether the literal meaning is likely to be the intended one. I am not sure whether I should say anything else in the ANI thread. James500 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]

RfCs[edit]

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

(Initiated 105 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:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation#Request for comments on the opening sentence[edit]

(Initiated 92 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:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.[edit]

(Initiated 63 days ago on 17 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 17#RfC about a letter from Orthodox Rabbis[edit]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 21 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 17#RfC about a letter from Orthodox Rabbis? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Oscar López Rivera#Request for comment: lead sentence[edit]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 21 September 2018). Would an administrator experienced in BLP matters please assess the consensus at Talk:Oscar López Rivera#Request for comment: lead sentence? Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Walker discography#RFC[edit]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 22 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Walker discography#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Charles K. Kao#Request for comments on nationality[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 September 2018). Any uninvolved editor is welcome to assess consensus, or proper closing if determinate as no consensus. Matthew hk (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro#RfC: Abortion and LGBT rights[edit]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 3 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro#RfC: Abortion and LGBT rights? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Third season reconsideration[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Third season reconsideration? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:George Soros#American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories about Soros[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 11 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Soros#American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories about Soros? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 October 2018) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for comment: DIFFCAPS[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for comment: DIFFCAPS? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on use of CoinDesk[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on use of CoinDesk? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposals regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht[edit]

(Initiated 29 days ago on 21 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposals regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht and formally close it? Discussion seems to have reached a conclusion, with no comments for a week. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 September 2018) Would an experienced admin please close this very well-attended debate on a proposal to make a change to this naming guideline. It was originally closed on 15 October 2018, but was then reopened on 20 October after objections that there had not been sufficient participation. Cheers, Number 57 18:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards[edit]

(Initiated 331 days ago on 23 December 2017)

Could an uninvolved Admin assess and close this discussion regarding how awards are dealt with in articles. A summary of the issues is provided at Talk:Natalya Meklin#Resolving?.

The issues have been extensively discussed by two opposing protagonists with comments by other experienced editors (of which I am one). The issue has developed to the status of a dispute between the two protagonists and the article page has been protected. I have specifically requested an Admin close to allow for removal of the page protection.

A close would very likely resolve the dispute and allow a return to normal editing. Alternatively, if no consensus can be identified, a close indicating a further course to resolve the matter would be appropriate.

I believe the two protagonists to be genuine good-faith editors who are simply unable to reconcile their differences without third-party intervention. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Merger proposal[edit]

(Initiated 201 days ago on 2 May 2018) Can an admin assess the consensus of this merger discussion, please? --Mhhossein talk 16:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 166 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 250#Electronic Intifada (Again)[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 12 October 2018) Could an uninvolved experienced editor assess and close the discussions regarding the use of Electronic Intifada as a reliable source. Thank you --Andromedean (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected the link to actual discussion; original link was to side discussion Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal - Allow non-admins to close deletion discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal - Allow non-admins to close deletion discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 November 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus? –dlthewave 15:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily which is closely related –dlthewave 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting#Names of the dead[edit]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 9 November 2018) - Could an experienced editor please assess consensus here? This discussion meets at least one of the criteria stated above for uninvolved close. Some participants feel that "consensus remains unclear", and the raw count is 11–8. There is little question that "the issue is a contentious one". Thanks very much. ―Mandruss  14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (13 out of 1479 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Guri (Singer) 2018-11-18 20:10 indefinite create SoWhy
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations/JoshuSasori 2018-11-18 16:14 2018-11-25 01:33 edit Favonian
Garden City, Michigan 2018-11-17 11:02 indefinite move Ymblanter
Asha Jha 2018-11-17 03:54 indefinite create GeneralizationsAreBad
Kaniz Almas 2018-11-16 20:46 indefinite create Ad Orientem
Draft:Nissan Terrano 2018-11-16 17:27 indefinite create Mifter
National Rifle Association 2018-11-16 08:05 indefinite move Ymblanter
Anamika Mishra 2018-11-15 21:06 indefinite create Anachronist
Prisoner (TV series) 2018-11-15 20:33 2018-11-22 20:33 edit,move Oshwah
Suki Waterhouse 2018-11-15 17:29 2018-11-29 17:29 edit,move Oshwah
Robert Pattinson 2018-11-15 17:29 2018-11-29 17:29 edit,move Oshwah
Jackie Walker (activist) 2018-11-15 17:16 2019-02-15 17:16 edit,move Ivanvector
Barry O'Sullivan 2018-11-15 09:02 2018-12-06 09:02 edit,move Fish and karate

Self-nominations for the 2018 ArbCom elections are now open[edit]

Self-nominations for the 2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 4 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates, then create a candidate page by following the instructions there. SQLQuery me! 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Implementation of this RfC[edit]

A bit of background, this relates to updating the protection level icons. As such, the new icons need adding to Module:Protection banner/config, which I did here. I reverted here, seeing as the files need protecting before this change is applied (it's not every day you're updating the protection icons!). Padlock.svg Full-protection-shackle.svg

The current situation is that the new files are create-protected on enwiki, Upload and Move Protected on Commons.

I've done the legwork of uploading local copies of the icons. Of course, they couldn't be uploaded over the Commons versions, as I am not an administrator. As such, the following changes need administrator intervention, unless the status quo is adequate (judging by the wording of {{Keep local high-risk}}, I'm guessing that there's a policy of keeping enwiki control over the protection level).

List
On it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: Done. Didn't see much of a reason to keep the shakle1 redirects, but feel free to remake them if you wish. I've fully protected all of them. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: no reason to keep them at all. I've made the module change, the new icons are now officially live. Bellezzasolo Discuss 12:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Anarchyte I know this isn't common knowledge, but we don't edit protect files unless the file page itself is in danger - edits to a file only show on the file page, they don't show up on the file itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ah, I'll change that then. I just saw the golden lock on the pre-existing padlock files and assumed they were fully protected. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: for these ones, they should be: local uploads, full-move-protected, and full-upload-protected. They can be unprotected for edit. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Local upload: That depends on whether you trust Commons with such sorta-sensitive images. I don't think we usually do but it's more status quo/"that's how it currently is, usually" rather than policy. If you do it might be worth asking on commons:COM:AN to protect them, there is certainly precedent for files that are in use in other projects to be protected on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I already protected all the Commons versions last night. Originally I had seen that they were put into use without protection so I quickly did them all and then asked Mz7 to create protect the local links to avoid overwrite. Over the course of the day they were all uploaded locally and protected locally. No big deal. Either way works. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove 'extendedconfirmed' right from blocked user Hasive[edit]

Dear concerned administrators, please consider removing the user rights of the above mentioned indefinitely blocked user which is no longer necessary.

My apologies if this request should be put on some other page. — T. 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done @Wikitanvir: as they are blocked they can't edit so this isn't needed. We generally only revoke that flag for users that have actively abused it (such as by gaming the counts or users that had an exceptional early issuance). — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I'm aware of the fact, but I thought it is redundant to keep such rights and you guys remove redundant user rights. Anyway, if it's against the policy or so, I understand. — T. 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:INDEFRIGHTS, Wikitanvir. Also I thought extendedconfirmed is just treated like an extended autoconfirmed. — regards, Revi 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about new users creating additional accounts[edit]

Why do we allow brand new users to create additional accounts willy-nilly? See, eg, these. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating alternate accounts. Sometimes vandals create a few sock puppets before they get blocked, though. Those accounts also need to get blocked, but they're usually easy enough to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Block appeal by user:FrogCast[edit]

Copied from my Talk page


A user came on the IRC help channel to ask about his block and I had a conversation with him; he consented to my pasting it here. I decline to do the unblock myself, but this is at least something for you to consider,


  • <Dragonfly6-7> what was th ename of the previous account, please.
  • <FrogCast> user:Akiva User:Akiva.avraham
  • <FrogCast> User:Akiva.avraham
  • <Dragonfly6-7> thank you
  • <Dragonfly6-7> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akiva.avraham
  • <Dragonfly6-7> out of curiosity, can I ask why you switched from one to the other?
  • <FrogCast> Yes. I run a youtube channel
  • <FrogCast> I make derivative works from wikipedia
  • <FrogCast> my youtube channel is named, "FrogCast",
  • <FrogCast> I wanted all future contributions to be under that rudrick and not my real name.
  • <FrogCast> most of my contributions under akiva.avraham are all things concerning my youtube channel, which are extremely small edits correcting punctuation and syntax.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> also I'd like you to bear in mind the notion of 'false balance'
  • <FrogCast> Dragonfly6-7: Yeah. I had over an hour long discussion about that with Huon, the admin who rejected my unblock:
  • <FrogCast> ""I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend. Huon (talk)"
  • <FrogCast> Huon took the time to articulate the nuance around what constitutes a "conspiracy theory", and I happily accepted and understood the principle that was laid out to bare, and promised to apply it moving forward. At the end of that conversation however, that admin did not want to unblock me based on "a hunch", and then promptly left without explaining.
  • <FrogCast> The point being, is that look, I see what everyone is saying about "false balance" and I have always agreed with it, but it really honestly feels at this point, after promising and doing everything conceivable to address the issue, to admit guilt, rectify it moving forward, and still be denied, is that... That I had committed a thought crime. I really dont know what to do.
    • [much later]
  • <Dragonfly6-7> oh jeeze, i forgot i was still connected
  • <Dragonfly6-7> uh
  • <FrogCast> ttyl
  • <Dragonfly6-7> what you're saying *looks* sensible; would you be okay with me copying it into a message to another admin
  • <FrogCast> Fine with me. Use your best discretion.

so, this looks prima facie like contrition and comprehension to me. What do you think? DS (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The User:Akiva account was renamed to User:Akiva~enwiki. The latter has no live edits, but a few deleted edits ending in 2006. Akiva~enwiki has never been blocked. The newer account Akiva.avraham was editing up through April 2018 and is not currently blocked. User:FrogCast is another story, and I'm not yet seeing good reasons for an unblock there. In the block appeal on his talk page FrogCast seems to be stubbornly defending bad behavior. There is more good information in this user's UTRS appeal. Still, the last UTRS reviewing admin was User:Just Chilling and he declined to lift the block, recommending a later appeal instead. In the UTRS appeal FrogCast does reveal what he says are his previous accounts, and anyone who has UTRS access can compare those statements to the above IRC discussion. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ask for an SPI or a checkuser. (It's the current account that is behaving badly, not the older ones). EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked because this clearly wasn't a new user, and he posted this to a talk page I stalk, plus the nonsense on his own talk page. Given the three edits to murder of Seth Rich I'd only support an unblock with a US politics TBAN. What do people think about that? I don't feel super strongly either way here, none of the accounts has edited much, but Akiva.avraham and FrogCast were both used concurrently for some time and his choice of topics includes some with which we have long-standing issues, such as Burzynski Clinic, a ruinously expensive quack cancer centre, and Rudolf Steiner, the German faux-mystic cultist. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support unblock and neutral on Guy's proposed restriction. Frankly, Mjolnirpants and David Tornheim sitting on the user's talkpage demanding they reveal their previous accounts is harassment and should not have been allowed, and if they responded to that poorly, well, sometimes that happens. As for the accounts listed here, the only page with any overlap between the two active accounts is History of Mexico (see [2]) and that was a series of three insignificant edits. Akiva.avraham hasn't edited in months and definitely hasn't edited while FrogCast has been blocked, so it's my view that no violation of the multiple accounts policy has occurred. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    New user shows up and starts causing problems at an area thats under a variety of restrictions - and states they are not a new user? Yeah the first thing thats going to be demanded is they disclose any previous accounts. And I will note the that WP:HAND there. Using a bad hand account for disruptive editing certainly is a violation of WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the YouTube channel, which appears to be audios of Wikipedia articles: [3]. I'm wondering if the username "FrogCast" may violate username protocol in that the username could be perceived as advertising the name of his YouTube channel? Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It is a CORPNAME issue. there is http://frogcast.org/audiobooks/ where they sell stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I noticed their Youtube channel said it was frogcast.org but it didn't work then and still doesn't work now. But I agree they need a user rename Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Any thoughts about (un)blocking, then? Topic restrictions and namechanges only apply if one is unblocked. DS (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the conditions for any unblock need to include a username change (to something completely unrelated to "FrogCast"), a complete removal of the advertising on his userpage, and an indef block of any alternate/old accounts. As to the other problems, including whether he is here to build an encyclopedia, I am uncertain. I would actually prefer that he (be permitted to) make an unblock request on his usertalk. That IRC conversation is a little too informal and hard to parse for my tastes. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename request from SuperSucker[edit]

Hey, I am posting this on the behalf of User:SuperSucker, since they requested a renaming and are blocked on English Wikipedia. (A little discussion about this is here). 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1997kB (talkcontribs)

User:SuperSucker is still under an indefinite block per this ANI from 28 March. Their block notice refers to WP:NOTHERE plus repeated IP socking. Since the editor still has access to their talk page, they could post an unblock request at User talk:SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Unblock has been declined by NRP per IP socking. I see no reason to grant a rename here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally see a reason to oppose renaming since they seem in good standing on commons and they can be required to ensure to mention their previous username on any unblock request here. I mean if there's fear someone will try and push their images onto articles and people won't recognise the creator, we could always notify of the username change on relevant article talk pages. Or in other words, I don't see how them being renamed harms us in any way and they have a reason for wanting to be renamed, despite being blocked here. (It's obviously normally a waste of time to rename people if they're not editing anywhere.) After all, if they were to ever successfully unblocked, we'd surely allow a rename right after. And while people sometimes have to put up with the consequences of their ill advised choices, having a username SuperSucker must be super sucky. But I'd oppose an unblock if they've been editing with an IP less than 6 months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename - if they can convince one of the other wikis to rename them then fine, but if they're blocked here and socking, I've no interest in doing them any favours. Username's inconvenient for editing other projects? Not English Wikipedia's problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment @Ivanvector: AFAIK the user is not asking the English wikipedia to rename them. They asked at meta, but were denied because they are blocked here. It may not be the English wikipedia's problem, but I don't see a reason to deny them the right to rename on meta, which is what we are doing by opposing a rename since meta has explicitly told them that they need to convince us to allow a rename. (Not implement it, but allow it.) Refusing a user the right to rename elsewhere because they've been disruptive here, and the rename will not actually make one iota of difference to us reeks of punishment rather than preventing disruption to me. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Oppose unblock" is I suppose what I should have said, owing to their ongoing block evasion. If their disruptive behaviour here means that meta won't honour their request, tough shit. Don't evade blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment @Ivanvector: But why oppose a rename? As I've said, there's no reason it has to concern us. We can oppose an unblock, but have no objection to a rename elsewhere as I've done. Tough shit is fine, but you seem to me to be intentionally punishing another editor by refusing to allow them a rename for no reason. IIRC it was you who reverted one of my comments trying to help another editor because you regarded is as grave dancing. While I can understand this was comment was poorly phrased, I find it a little surprising that you're now effectively advocating punishing another editor by refusing to allow them being elsewhere, because they are blocked here. Now if meta refuses to allow them to be renamed without being unblocked that's fine, but the original discussion is ambigious and seems to suggest that it's possible they can be renamed, if they convince us to allow it, despite being blocked here. All we have to do is say oppose unblock but don't give a damn about a rename, as I've done. What happens from there on is none of our concern. Instead we're wasting time IMO trying to punish an editor simply because they were badly disruptive here, but I've seen absolutely no reason why it harms us if they are renamed elsewhere, nor how it prevents disruption here, by allowing the editor to get on with whatever they want to do elsewhere, hopefully in accordance with their policies and guidelines so they aren't blocked there too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I presume you're referring to this, and I don't exactly recall the circumstances there but I don't see what that has to do with this. If you think I'm opposing this because of some grudge I hold against you, you are very badly mistaken. The disruption that would result from this blocked user being renamed is all of the admin time we would then have to waste jumping through hoops (as you've helpfully itemized in your reply to Dlohcierekim below) for an editor who has repeatedly ignored our policies (via block evasion) but has suddenly learned that, oh shit! they need us to do them a favour. I'm not here for it. If you think that's punitive then so be it. Score one for the "being a jerk on the internet should have consequences" crowd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear even if you're intending on not following the conversation any more, I respect your approach here and very highly value any editor who is willing to assume good faith and go to bat for someone asking for help. I find the user's request highly disingenuous in this case, but had you come here with any other editor in this situation who wasn't evading a block as recently as last week, I'd be right there advocating with you. I'm sorry that we disagree in this instance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • regretful oppose The reason for not renaming is the block. not visa versa. This is to prevent problems from cropping up. Any unblock can accompany a renaming at that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment @Dlohcierekim: Can you outline what problems you believe may crop up? As I've said above, it seems to me any possible problems can be resolved by ensuring that they mention any previous username in an unblock request and perhaps keep a message on their user page or talk page or both clearly mention the rename, at least until they've been unblocked. if it's felt that admins may still miss it, or that the editor may remove the stuff and not mention it on their unblock request, their block log can always be annotated although yes that would require someone here to take action which is unfortunate but IMO so minor that it's not worth worrying about. We can notify on relevant article talk pages if there's concerns over IPs trying to push images they've created onto articles. Heck I can do that myself if people feel it's necessary. I'm fine with opposing a rename if there is some real problem/disruptive it would cause, but I just can't see how it would do so here so IMO even though unintentionally we're actually punishing them by refusing a rename rather than preventing disruption. Again if there's some possibility I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment Just to let people know, if this rename is implemented and people want me to do anything like inform editors on relevant article talk pages, please let me know on my talk page as I won't be following this discussion further, for personal reasons. (I excluded the explanation from here since it's probably not helpful, but if you're wondering I did post it here [4] although regretfully on my talk page. I don't think it has that many watchers but I've removed it to reduce canvassing concerns as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Do you mean besides the issues that led to the block and the loss of community trust in the first place? What Tony says below. Oh, Floquenbeam, you say the darnedest things. Besides, with what I've been through this (expletive deleted) week, Karma (expletive deleted) owes me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • There’s no local or global policy on this, and it’s handled mainly by convention. The norm is that we don’t rename blocked users unless it’s a new account and there are compelling privacy reasons. I don’t see a reason to deviate from that here. I’d also suggest closing this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, why not. Don't unblock but allow a rename. It's good karma to do a favor for someone who doesn't really deserve one. And God knows AN needs all the karma it can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If the user's in good standing at another wiki, why get in the way of its processes? Maybe we need to revisit our renaming-while-blocked standard, if they have the effect of impeding editing at other projects. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noting they have already withdrawn the rename request on meta ([5]). Also note that while it's not noted in the log, they are blocked by a checkuser for IP socking, have had their unblock declined by a different checkuser for ongoing IP socking, and have two more checkusers in this thread suggesting they not be unblocked given the circumstances. For what it's worth. If they can be renamed in a way that does not involve their being unblocked here, I am not opposed but neither do I support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, if I understand rightly, the thing from Meta is basically "if you get permission from en:wp, you can be renamed", so this is basically a request for permission, rather than a request for us actively to do something. If I can misquote WP:BAN — what's going on here is a social decision about the right to be renamed, while a block is a technically imposed enforcement setting. [At least that's the understanding by which I supported the request; I'm not supporting a change to the local enforcement setting.] I continue to support the request, since a user's actions on one wiki should never result in sanctions on another wiki where they're behaving fine, unless the situation gets bad enough that a global block/lock/ban is warranted. Should SuperSucker decide to make another Meta request, the request shouldn't have to be put on hold because we haven't granted permission. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. So long as whatever they want to do on the other wiki does not require them being unblocked here, I don't really care. I object to the view of "giving permission": this is a matter of meta policy, and if the admins at meta (or stewards, or whatever) want to make an exception to their policies for this user, that's out of our hands. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the idea that we have to give permission seems rather nutty to me too. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

RfPP Backlog[edit]

Hi guys - sorry to raise a fairly small issue, but theres a couple of dozen outstanding raise-protection requests in WP:RFPP, some of which have been there a fairly long time. Any hands who could help would be really appreciated

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: No reason to apologize. It is entirely appropriate to bring this here. RfPP is an important board that is constantly in need of admins working it. If anyone notices a large backlog piling up (or one with reports more than 6-12 hours old), it is very much appreciated that it be brought here for action. I encourage any users seeing this to do the same.  Swarm  talk  07:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
6-12 hours unfortunately became a norm, and also some reports do not require an immediate reaction (for example one sock with a chance another one is coming). My personal standard is that if there are reports nobody acted upon or reacted on in 24h, or over 30 reports in total, it is an emergency which needs to be dealt swiftly. (I do no mind though if shorter backlogs get reported here).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rowspan / Sabrina Carpenter discography[edit]

Can an admin take a look at Sabrina Carpenter discography and evaluate the discussion on the talk page to see if the current revision needs to be with or without the rowspan parameter? There is an ongoing dispute but the current revision should include rowspan because it is the "default/long-standing" stable version as it was in the article for years until its bold removal in June which was reverted. Flooded with them hundreds 05:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Admins cannot rule on content if that is what you are asking them to do. Regarding behavior, the page just came off a full-protection and discussion is proceeding on the talk page. Do you have a specific concern about the interactions on the talk page after the protection was put on the article? --Izno (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just asking that the long-standing stable version be restored. Flooded with them hundreds 05:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I was involved in the talk page "discussion", and I agree with Flooded again here: the editors who were recruited to the talk page by each other have watchlisted the article and have stated they will revert anybody who tries to change the article back to the way it was. The editor who proposed the change for the article to be "accessibility-compliant" ignored WP:BRD when they first edited the article, and recently told two other editors of the article's situation, one of whom in turn asked yet another to "keep an eye on" the article—so essentially a clique now controls the article. There are several editors who engaged in edit warring (mainly the editor who proposed the change, who did it for months) that I am honestly surprised were not blocked (even though Dlohcierekim pondered it when I asked for the page to be protected at RFPP). Flooded and I were told we were "just as bad as racists and homophobes" for wanting rowspans on an article when that's the way it originally was and most discographies are (I have heard it all now, folks). I know admins don't like to get involved in "content disputes" but it should be restored to the long-standing version (that is not possible to be restored by regular editors because they will be reverted almost instantly) and then the discussion can continue from there. For the record: I was not involved in the editing disputes; I noticed it last week and informed Ad Orientem, who locked the page for a day then. I did edit the page yesterday, but nothing to do with what is being disputed. Ss112 06:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The discussion can continue no matter which version the article is on at the moment, and making that determination remains a content issue. See m:The Wrong Version. Ss112, if there are conduct concerns such as edit warring, ownership, and so on, then please post diffs rather than making assertions we can't readily check. Thanks. Fish+Karate 11:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Fish and karate: It's right there in the edit history: [6]. The reverts by one particular editor go back months, and another who was recruited to the article by the first editor threatened to take anybody who edit warred to AN/EW, even though they themselves were edit warring. Ss112 11:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I have looked at the history, and I don't see it. Please provide specific diffs to support the assertions you have made, and the new assertions made about "recruiting" and "threatening". Also, rather than talking about "the editor" perhaps you could name the user(s) about whom you have concerns, and notify them on their talk pages. Fish+Karate 11:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The "editor" in question is no doubt myself, Flooded with them hundreds did not notify me of this discussion, and in my one and only comment here I would strong encourage Flooded with them hundreds to review WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, e.g.: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users..." There is no current disruption at this article, a discussion is ongoing on the Talk page, and I personally am now much less interested in some in WP:DISCOGRAPHY's attempts to WP:OWN this specific article, and am more interested in coming up with a permanent solution to the issue of these problematic Discography tables (see the Talk discussion at the article for more...) which have pretty much been confirmed to be problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
IJBall I've not referred to you directly in this discussion until now nor am I trying to get you blocked and this request is for administrators to restore the article to its long-standing version as it currently is in an unjust position after the war's end yesterday.
Fish and karate, the last removal of rowspan broke the table and is also against the attempts of more than 15 editors who have tried to reinstate it but failed. Since the absence of rowspan breaks things, why not restore the article to the previous version and get others to discuss removing it instead, because (1) rowspan has been included in the article since 2015 until its removal in June, (2) the editor removing it has failed to adhere to WP:BRD [1, 2, 3] by not taking it to the talk page but continuing to revert, (3) ~15 to ~5 is a consensus in favor of keeping, and (4) as Ss112 said above, there is some canvassing/tag-teaming involved [1, 2, 3]?
Fwth rowspan.png
Flooded with them hundreds 14:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Flooded, again, it's a content dispute – Admins will not intervene on this (nor should they), esp. when there is an ongoing discussion at the Talk page. (P.S. Also, you should have originally posted this request to WP:ANI, not WP:AN...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue of interest to administrators not about a particular incident so this is the right venue. Flooded with them hundreds 14:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I am in no way volunteering to fix this for you, as it's very much a content dispute that established editors should be able to manage themselves; and I still don't see any conduct issues that would warrant admin intervention (the canvassing is noted, and is not perhaps ideal, but it was a request to one person to join in an ostensibly civilized discussion, not a mass-messaging to enjoin people to !vote a particular way). Instead what I will advise is a bit of patience. Start an RFC and formalize a consensus. Nobody is going to die because some tables on a pop singer's discography sub-article do or do not have rowspan tags. There is no rush to get it right, particularly when what is "right" is not unanimous to all parties, so WP:RFC is your best bet, I feel. Fish+Karate 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh and again, please do read m:The Wrong Version, if you haven't already. Fish+Karate 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────If I remember correctly, I semi'd the thing to stop the disruption. I guess the disruption spread to a new location. I hate to block people in a content dispute, but if I had, it would have been all, not just those on one side or another. I saw nothing amiss with the version I saw. An actual link to the page would be helpful. Frankly, I don't what possible interest this could be to admins. If there is a technical issue or a problem with a policy or a need for a policy, straighten out at Village Pump. In short, if the issue involves blocking deleting or protecting, or misuse of those tools, this is the place. Otherwise, I see nothing for an admin to do. I was discussed here but not notified. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC) PS, were teh "recruited" editors notified of this discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Link to the discussion referenced: Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography. (And, Dlohcierekim – you fully protected the article for 12 hours, not semi'ed...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Andreas G Orphanides[edit]

The webpage <https://euc.academia.edu/AndreasGOrphanides/CurriculumVitae> does not exist. How did you creat a copyright issue with it? What exists is the webpage <https://euc.academia.edu/AndreasGOrphanides> with which there is no copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.202.23 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The web page did exist at one point, but unfortunately was never properly archived by the Wayback Machine. The url was added to the article in the see-also section at 06:46, May 5, 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Oversight question[edit]

Not suppressible. Reminder that revdel may be used for "grossly insulting" or "grossly inappropriate" material as opposed to "ordinary incivility." ~ Amory (utc) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Via email, I reported an edit summary to Oshwah and then to Dweller (not to be confused with Doug Weller). Dweller didn't respond.

The article in question is a subarticle about a researcher's theory. In the edit summary, an editor called the subject (meaning the main researcher of the theory) an asshole. Since this is a WP:Oversight matter, I won't point to the page in question, unless anyone here feels that it's okay that I do. I'm not sure that I need to notify Oshwah and Dweller of this AN discussion on their talk pages since I pinged them both above and this matter isn't really about them, and since I just told Oshwah that I would ask about this here.

Oshwah feels that the edit summary is not grounds for "rev del, let alone suppression." He pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RD2 and the criterion, noting that rev del is not for "ordinary incivility." Oshwah feels that the edit summary falls under ordinary incivility and that it's better not to delete edit summaries such as the one in question because it makes it harder for the community to scrutinize and assess the behavior of editors who act like this. While I understand that reasoning, is this not a WP:BLP violation that should not be viewed publicly? I see deletions of such edit summaries (or edit summaries that can reveal such text lower on the page) all the time, including when Brocket754 (a blocked sockpuppet) recently went on his "bitch" rant regarding me or other editors. If the article were the subject's Wikipedia article (meaning the article specifically about the person), would "asshole" be allowed to remain? If not allowed to remain at the main article, then why should it remain at the subarticle about the theory? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Calling someone an asshole in an edit summary is not grounds for suppression. I’d be hesitant to revision delete as well. If it was about another editor in an LTA/harassment context, RD3 might be justified. Also, generally, if you disagree with an oversighter and want them to reconsider, it’s better to ask them directly and see if they’d be willing to open a discussion on the list. I’m responding here because I think it’s a pretty obvious case of not needing suppression, but if it were, we wouldn’t want to be discussing it on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion, TonyBallioni. I trust Oshwah. I just wanted other opinions, mainly because I sometimes see deletions of edit summaries that concern calling someone a bitch or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My assumption would be it’d be under RD3’s harassment clause. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TonyBallioni. I wouldn't have suppressed, not even rev/del'd. I don't see it as a serious BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I watch a number of BLP articles and patrol, and I'm used to seeing such edit summaries deleted. If an editor at the Oprah Winfrey article, for example, came along and stated in caps "OPRAH IS A [fill the insult in here]" in an edit summary, I would not be surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I'm sure it would be deleted sooner or later (unless missed). As for the reason given when I see such deletions, it's usually the number 2 listing (WP:RD2) of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes 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." To me, "asshole" in the edit summary of a BLP article, with the edit summary calling that living person an asshole, falls under "degrading," "slur", and "offensive material." Whether one feels that it's "grossly insulting," "grossly degrading" or "grossly offensive material" is another matter. And the content surely has no encyclopedic value. I don't see it as "ordinary incivility." To me, "ordinary incivility" would be calling the subject's views asinine or something like that. Then again, the number 2 listing also states that it disregards "personal attacks" or "ordinary personal attacks." So maybe "asshole" counts as part of that exclusion, even though I think that the personal attacks aspect is more so about editors referring to one another than to a living person who has a Wikipedia article (especially since the number 2 listing states "and/or violates our biographies of living people policy"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I do revision-delete such edits on a regular basis as serious BLP violations. However, in the past I contacted oversighters and was told that this is not oversightable material.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Just to add, I did see the email, thought it wasn't suppressible but didn't want to reply while I couldn't check properly onwiki and promptly forgot about it. Apologies for that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Annoying mobile editor at US gubernatorial & related articles[edit]

It appears we've an mobile editor self-entertainingly reverting changes on infoboxes. He's latest numbers are
2603:3003:105:DF00:E56F:58B1:E483:738D &
2601:5CC:C780:82D:5D25:5FBE:2A71:8945
2601:5CC:C780:82D:B9B2:1B14:4E27:160C
Not sure what can be done, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Contesting formal closure of RfC by an involved editor[edit]

(non-admin closure) Although this specific issue is closed, the conflict between these two editors continues on the article talk page and at ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion at this ANI discussion, I am here to contest the formal closure of this RfC at the Boy (album) talk page by Walter Görlitz, an editor involved in the RfC and the content dispute that led to the RfC. The original RfC tag expired, and five minutes later Walter closed it formally; an inappropriate closure according to WP:BADNAC. Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan56, vacated and re-closed in my un-involved capacities.WBGconverse 18:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse close if that puts an end to this. WBG's new close has obvious consensus behind it, and indeed Dan56 should lay off the personal attacks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Rogue civility sanctions in edit notices; non-admins adding AC/DS sanction templates to talk pages; permission needed to clean up this mess[edit]

In this AN discussion last week we had unanimous consensus to vacate the "civility" sanction on all pages affected by {{American politics AE}}. I made the change to the template and relevant edit notices. I later came across {{Post-1932_American_politics_discretionary_sanctions_page_restrictions}} which is basically a sister template to "American politics AE" but without the civility sanction. Because the sanctions are now identical with only minor differences in the templates themselves, I've started replacing the "Post-1932..." templates with the "American poligics AE" template which has better documentation and a sub-template to use in edit notices. However when I started looking at the corresponding edit notices for the pages affected by the "Post-1932..." template I noticed that some of them made reference to the "civility" sanction. So there was a discrepancy between the talk page notice and the edit notice. I initially assumed the discrepancy was a result of widespread copy-pasting of the edit notice code without paying close attention to the sanctions on the page they were copied from, but the few that I spot checked showed that it was User:Coffee who added the civility restriction (presumably forgetting to update the corresponding template on the talk page). Would there be any objections to me removing these rogue civility sanctions from the edit notices as I find them? ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Another problem I'm encountering is that there are a lot of talk pages with DS templates that don't have the required corresponding edit notices. Initially I thought this was because of sloppy admins forgetting to create the edit notices, but it has come to my attention that non-admins have been adding the templates to talkpages. Here are 5 examples of just one user creating talk pages with the DS templates, having copied them from other American Politics talk pages, and apparently thinking they were Wikiproject banners: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I haven't counted, but I would guess that there are about 50 pages that have the template on the talk page but no edit notice. The most straightforward way of correcting the problem would be to simply remove the sanctions templates from pages that don't have an edit notice, but doing that I risk reversing DS placed by an actual admin. That leaves us with the slow method of digging through the talkpage history with the wikiblame tool to track down who placed the notice, and cross-referencing with the last couple of years of AE logs (I don't trust that admins who forgot to create an edit notice always remembered to update the log). That's more work than I'm feeling like doing at the moment. May I just remove the talkpage templates from all the pages that don't have edit notices, and then make a note of those pages in the AE log? ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • From my reading of the discussion, it seemed like everyone was pretty much on the same page—deprecating the 'civility restrictions' en masse was mostly viewed as an uncontentious procedural measure, due to the fact that the concept of civility restrictions is redundant, unused, unenforceable, and pointless; effectively, not even a real restriction. I don't think it would be contentious to remove the outstanding civility restrictions as you come across them. The articles with no edit notices are a bit more tricky. The edit notice requirement is fairly new, having only been added this year, so it's likely that you're seeing some older pages that have never been updated, some admin laziness, and some non-admin additions. All the older articles in the logs should probably be reviewed to make sure they have all been updated with the required editnotice, and anything not logged should have any DS notices removed, of course. However, the practical matter of actually making this happen would be so monumental that it's an unrealistic task. So, I would say that yes, your technique is likely the best we're going to get, but rather than removing them outright, leave them be but still make the list and post it in the log, and then we can check them against the log via Ctrl+F. Anything not in the log can be removed, anything in the log can be updated with an edit notice, but it would probably most efficient and easy doing it that way.  Swarm  talk  07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think an edit filter should be created to prevent non-admins from adding (or removing) {{American politics AE}} and similar templates, to prevent mistaken additions like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    An edit filter would be nice. Here's an instance of an IP editor adding the American politics AE template: [12] ~Awilley (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • AFAIC, you may certainly remove the rogue civility sanctions, Awilley, and also remove the talkpage templates from pages that don't have edit notices. And thank you for offering to take care of this mess. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC).
    Can someone please point me to the policy which limits the placement of DS notices on article talk pages to administrators only? It's probably somewhere, but I'm not finding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Beyond My Ken: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. ―Mandruss  22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's what I was looking for. It would be nice if the policy said, specifically, "Only administrators can..." blah blah blah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken I think this is only talking about notices that impose restrictions, not the notices that are put on the talk page that inform you that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Natureium (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I see. Does that mean that non-admins can place DS notices on articles that clearly fall with a DS area, but that they should also create the necessary edit notice? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this really needs to be stated more clearly, but from what I've been able to figure out, I think that the edit notices are for the pages that have DS restrictions imposed. Only admins can impose DS restrictions, and only admins are able to create edit notices. I haven't been able to find anything that states that only admins can place notices stating that an article is in an area subject to DS or that there are edit notices to go with those. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I was unaware that only admins could create edit notices (my only experience with them is the one on my user talk page), so if an edit notice is required, and only admins can create them, then only admins can place the DS notice on an article talk page. Still, in terms of what the policy actually says it looks like a gray area which should be tightened up with some explicit language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On putting sanction templates on talk pages (what was happening here), I don't see that as very gray. It's like a non-admin putting "you have been blocked" templates on the page of a user who is not blocked. The case of non-admins putting informational templates about general topic areas being under general discretionary sanctions, I don't think that's against policy, but I don't know for sure. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty certain that anyone can put an informational template on an editor's user talk page, informing then that an article is under Discretionary Sanctions. The point of such an action is simply to notify the editor, which does not presume any wrongdoing on the editor's part (I believe the template even says that). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are the talk page notices like the one on Talk:Alternative medicine that inform people that sanctions are possible and then there are talk page notices like the one on Talk:Jared Kushner that start with "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" and list restrictions for the page. The latter can only be placed by administrators and I think the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is clear about that. The former... I don't know and haven't found any where that talks about it. Because you are not imposing any restrictions but rather informing people of the ruling already made by arbcom, I don't see why being an admin should be necessary but it's not really about common sense, now is it? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I guess not. DS are a very necessary evil, but they're still basically a bureaucratic tool, which means that the ins and outs of them can be complex. The personal lesson I'm drawing from this is simply to stay away from posting informational DS notices on article talk pages even when it's indisputable that the article falls withing the penumbra of an existing DS, and go get someone of a higher pay grade to deal with it. In a way, that should be a relief for non-admins such as myself, since we don't have to shoulder the responsibility of taking that action. My experience is that the vast majority of active admins are reasonable folks who are likely to respond positively to such a request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Just to be clear, DS are very necessary, not very evil.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's a list of edit notices that don't currently exist for articles that have sanctions templates on the talk page.

  1. Template:Editnotices/Page/Andrew Napolitano
  2. Template:Editnotices/Page/Aziz v. Trump
  3. Template:Editnotices/Page/Blumenthal v. Trump
  4. Template:Editnotices/Page/Bob Menendez
  5. Template:Editnotices/Page/CNN v. Trump
  6. Template:Editnotices/Page/CREW v. Trump
  7. Template:Editnotices/Page/Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration
  8. Template:Editnotices/Page/Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
  9. Template:Editnotices/Page/D.C. and Maryland v. Trump
  10. Template:Editnotices/Page/DREAM Act
  11. Template:Editnotices/Page/David Bowdich
  12. Template:Editnotices/Page/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
  13. Template:Editnotices/Page/Dismissal of Sally Yates
  14. Template:Editnotices/Page/Doe v. Trump
  15. Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump Jr.
  16. Template:Editnotices/Page/Donna Brazile
  17. Template:Editnotices/Page/Executive Order 13767
  18. Template:Editnotices/Page/Frank Gaffney
  19. Template:Editnotices/Page/Gary Johnson
  20. Template:Editnotices/Page/Gays for Trump
  21. Template:Editnotices/Page/Jill Stein
  22. Template:Editnotices/Page/Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump
  23. Template:Editnotices/Page/LGBT protests against Donald Trump
  24. Template:Editnotices/Page/Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban
  25. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
  26. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
  27. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016
  28. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016
  29. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations
  30. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump
  31. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump
  32. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of proclamations by Donald Trump
  33. Template:Editnotices/Page/Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration
  34. Template:Editnotices/Page/Open space accessibility in California
  35. Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Faithful Patriot
  36. Template:Editnotices/Page/President Trump's immigration bans
  37. Template:Editnotices/Page/Reactions to Executive Order 13769
  38. Template:Editnotices/Page/Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)
  39. Template:Editnotices/Page/Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020
  40. Template:Editnotices/Page/Stone v. Trump
  41. Template:Editnotices/Page/Tim Canova
  42. Template:Editnotices/Page/Tootkaboni v. Trump
  43. Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump Tower meeting
  44. Template:Editnotices/Page/United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump
  45. Template:Editnotices/Page/United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
  46. Template:Editnotices/Page/Vladimir Putin
  47. Template:Editnotices/Page/Voter suppression in the United States

(pats self on back for getting lucky on ballpark estimation of 50) ~Awilley (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've been using the AWB list compare tool to compare the above list of articles to articles that are LINKED from the arbitration enforcement logs back to 2015. Of the 47 pages above, the articles of 44 of them are not linked in the log, and the 3 that are linked (Frank Gaffney, Jill Stein, Vladimir Putin) are links from individual editors being topic banned from the individual articles. Note that I'm only looking at links, not text, so if an admin made a log entry that said "Jill Stein placed under 1RR and Consensus Required" without linking Jill Stein I wouldn't see that. ~Awilley (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the AE templates from the talkpages associated with the nonexistent edit notices above. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Also here's a list of edit notice templates that were created but that didn't have entries that I could find in the AE log. Since these were all created by administrators I will create an entry in the log for the items in this list.

  1. Template:Editnotices/Page//r/The Donald Lord Roem (forgot to log)
  2. Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 Democratic National Committee email leak Coffee (forgot to log)
  3. Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 Democratic National Convention Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
  4. Template:Editnotices/Page/Devin Nunes Coffee (forgot to log)
  5. Template:Editnotices/Page/Efforts to impeach Donald Trump El C (forgot to log)
  6. Template:Editnotices/Page/Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration Coffee (forgot to log)
  7. Template:Editnotices/Page/Erik Prince Coffee (forgot to log)
  8. Template:Editnotices/Page/Executive Order 13768 Doug Weller (forgot to log)
  9. Template:Editnotices/Page/Jared KushnerAd Orientum (forgot to log)
  10. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of executive actions by Donald Trump Ad Orientum (forgot to log)
  11. Template:Editnotices/Page/Mike Pence Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
  12. Template:Editnotices/Page/Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 Coffee (forgot to log)
  13. Template:Editnotices/Page/Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
  14. Template:Editnotices/Page/Roger Stone Coffee (forgot to log)
  15. Template:Editnotices/Page/Stop Trump movement El C (forgot to log)

~Awilley (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of these problems would go away if the AC/DS template had a signature field, so we would know from viewing the article talk page who placed the notice and the date when they did so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to force a signature on a template that is transcluded (as opposed to substituted) but I'll look into it. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

False accusation of copyright violation and removal of material by Cwmhiraeth, without attempt at verification[edit]

False positive, content was added there after being added here. As a note, there is entirely too much vitriol here, and I highly suggest that the OP have some tea. I have restored the revisions Primefac (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I received this notice on my talk page today. It is immediately followed by my response.

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article The Scoots. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Cwmhiraeth}} What in the world are you talking about? What copyright infringement? Are you referring to the plot synopsis I wrote? I wrote that synopsis myself from scratch, just as I do for most of the South Park episode articles! Just where do you think it came from? According to my web browser, the url mentioned in your copyvio template http://wiki.southparkstudios.co.uk/wiki/The_Scoots, cannot be accessed in the United States, so I have no way of viewing it, but if you found that synopsis on some British wiki, did it occur to you that it was they who copied my writing, and not the other way around??? Are you so unacquainted with decent writing in Wikipedia articles on popular entertainment, that you when you found identical material on a wikia site (which tend to be far less regulated than Wikipedia), you just assumed, without verification, that someone on Wikipedia had to copy it from Wikia, and not the other way around? Did it ever occur to you to ASK ME before went and templated the article, resulting in that material's removal? Congratulations, genius! You just caused the removal of valid material from Wikipedia for no good reason! Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Needless to say, when I add plot synopses to articles, I write them myself. I have always worked very hard when I compose synopses making sure to summarize all the relevant information in a film, TV episode, etc. and this has been the case from my time I used to work on The Real World articles, to the South Park episode article synopses I usually write today. I have never cut and pasted a plot synopsis from another source, and have on more than one occasion during my 13 years editing Wikipedia admonished others not to do this. The synopsis in question, just like the synopses in most of the recent South Park article, was originated entirely my me, along with the usual tweaks by other collaborating editors.

Administrator Cwmhiraeth made no attempt to ask me about this, preferring instead to simply assume that I copied the material from a British Wikia page that I cannot access, instead of the other way around. I ask that the material in question, which Cwmhiraeth improperly removed from all relevant revisions of the article, be restored, and that Cwmhiraeth be admonished not to jump to conclusions like this in the future. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Nightscream, it's called a false positive, because they copied the content from Wikipedia. It's a bitch to get to the history of the South Park Wiki pages, but often we "shoot first" so to speak and un-delete later. This stuff happens, and please don't feel like someone's immediately accusing you of everything being copied - it just happened this once. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So is the material going to restored, or not? 16:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


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

Help with heuristics for auto-detecting paid revisions[edit]

Hi admins. I'm doing a little research on automatically detecting paid revisions. Part of my process involve coming up with weak heuristics for determining whether a particular edit is likely to be paid. But since I'm no experienced editor, I don't have a great intuition for developing these heuristics. I'd highly appreciate your help with brainstorming.

The framework I'm working with (and supporting publication). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiarant (talkcontribs) 20:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TBAN Appeal[edit]

Hi, I am here by requesting appeal against the TBAN which was enforced almost a year ago on me on the all AFDS, so now the minimum time duration of TBAN 3 months have passed reequest and appeal to lift TBAN please. I have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines as well. JogiAsad  Talk 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban was imposed in this discussion. It was appealed in this discussion (May 2018), this discussion (September 2018), and this discussion (November 2018). JogiAsad seems to post these "please lift my ban" messages intermittently, then wander off without answering any questions. He did answer a question last time, but he did so by editing the archived discussion after it had been moved to an archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
JogiAsad, on 30 September, Galobtter asked you to provide "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better". You did not respond at that time, and now you are back here with another appeal that again fails to address the problem that led to the topic ban. Your topic ban was imposed on 9 April 2018 so that is nowhere near a year ago. Accuracy is important. What you must do is convince the editors participating here that your understanding of notability has improved and that you will not be disruptive at AfD in the future. Stating that you have read GNG is not enough. Until we hear from you in much greater detail, I oppose lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yup, appeal is obviously inadequate; the repeated appeals without being able to explain himself are further concerning regarding his competence to evaluate sources for notability. Oppose obviously, and suggest a further six month moratorium upon decline of this appeal. JogiAsad please provide that explanation to show that you have "have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above, and endorse Galobtter's suggestions of a 6 month moratorium on appeals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)