Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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


Requests for closure[edit]

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

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 12 October 2017) Getting on for a month old, and there hasn't been any new discussion for a couple of weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation?--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata (Initiated 79 days ago on 26 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS (Initiated 80 days ago on 25 September 2017). I agree with George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS that a close would be useful to summarize how the community views WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: San Bernardino attack[edit]

Expired RfC. Special attention may be needed on the issue of "sourced/verifiable" vs. "significant part of reliable source coverage". (Initiated 59 days ago on 16 October 2017)Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi#Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi#Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? (Initiated 61 days ago on 14 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names (Initiated 58 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#Death[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage#Death (Initiated 57 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please access and close. --RAN (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski#Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roman Polanski#Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017 (Initiated 56 days ago on 19 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead (Initiated 65 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jianianhualong#(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jianianhualong#(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles (Initiated 65 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context (Initiated 54 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Hore#RfC on "criminal" description[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Hore#RfC on "criminal" description (Initiated 65 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Danica Roem#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Danica Roem#RFC (Initiated 32 days ago on 12 November 2017)? Thanks, MC (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear to me a consensus will be reached, which is disappointing. It would be better to have an outsider make the call. -- MC (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#RfC #2 Israeli alleged role[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 November 2017), with 12 users voting and discussing; the last comment was made on November 12th. Request closure from a neutral administrator.GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note - another comment was added in the discussion on November 27th.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 October 2017) Many Thanks...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: Minimum criteria for a Station[edit]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 October 2017) Legobot has removed the RfC template. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Summarising the crux will be difficult and IMO, a read through each and evry argument will be much better for interested parties in future.Winged Blades Godric 14:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 26 October 2017) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 31 October 2017) Voting took place, remains to assess consensus and close. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Infobox[edit]

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 45 days ago on 30 October 2017) George Ho (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is"[edit]

Can an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. Thanks. (Initiated 48 days ago on 27 October 2017) --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Julie Payette#RfC on subject's title[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julie Payette#RfC on subject's title (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro (Initiated 44 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Limes#Rfc regarding Limes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Limes#Rfc regarding Limes (Initiated 54 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Victims list[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Victims list (Initiated 59 days ago on 16 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#RfC on shooting description in lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#RfC on shooting description in lede (Initiated 47 days ago on 28 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence? (Initiated 39 days ago on 5 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling (Initiated 45 days ago on 30 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC Genocides[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC Genocides (Initiated 43 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Metric#Primary topic[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metric#Primary topic (Initiated 48 days ago on 27 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox element#RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox element#RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Julian day#Request For Comment on presentation of algorithms[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian day#Request For Comment on presentation of algorithms (Initiated 43 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New Israel Fund#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Israel Fund#Request for comment (Initiated 51 days ago on 24 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#RfC about use of unverified[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#RfC about use of unverified (Initiated 44 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 November 2017) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emily Beecham#Request for comment[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 12 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emily Beecham#Request for comment and close the RFC please ? (FWIW I think consensus in the discussion is obvious however as I've !voted and have made my objections in the past I'd rather someone not related to the discussion closes it), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


(Initiated 32 days ago on 12 November 2017) This discussion, with WP:BLP implications, has stalled with very unclear consensus; !votes are about evenly split. Administrative assistance would be appreciated. Original question has moderately biased wording, but still spurred extensive discussion on the core issue, and the core issue is one that's important to the article. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

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

(Initiated 62 days ago on 13 October 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables. Thanks, Tvx1 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 November 2017) Should the following archival documentary be included as an external link at Carleton Knights football? "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talkcontribs) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 1076 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Marwan Barghouti 2017-12-14 01:40 indefinite edit,move unclear why move protection was left dangling Samsara
Gaza 2017-12-14 01:09 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Samsara
Ramla 2017-12-14 00:23 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: via RfPP Samsara
Kevin McCall 2017-12-13 22:48 2018-12-13 22:48 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Dennis Brown
Donald J. Trump 2017-12-13 20:51 2019-12-13 20:51 edit,move Persistent vandalism Oshwah
Joanne World Tour 2017-12-13 19:58 2017-12-16 19:58 edit,move Additing of unreferenced / poorly referenced content Oshwah
Moonis Elahi 2017-12-13 15:45 2018-03-13 15:45 edit,move Disruptive editing by new users. Edit warring has been twice reported at WP:AN3. EC protection requested at RFPP EdJohnston
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations 2017-12-12 20:25 2018-12-12 20:25 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Coffee
United States recognition of Jerusalem 2017-12-11 15:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement SoWhy
Bahauddin Hossain 2017-12-11 15:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SoWhy
Order of the Southern Cross 2017-12-11 04:47 2017-12-25 04:47 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry BU Rob13
Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps 2017-12-10 19:33 indefinite edit,move unregistered user constant removal of content which is backed up by a reliable verifiable source. Marine 69-71
Giancarlo Stanton 2017-12-10 11:00 2017-12-17 11:00 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather
Deir Dibwan 2017-12-10 10:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
Burqa, Ramallah 2017-12-10 10:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
User:Your Wikipedia Name 2017-12-10 07:33 indefinite create No need to create this unless someone creates an account by this name - which is highly unlikely Od Mishehu
A Way Out (video game) 2017-12-10 07:02 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Masem
User:Coffee 2017-12-10 05:00 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Coffee
Mohamed Hadid 2017-12-10 02:45 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page AlexiusHoratius
GOC Army Headquarters 2017-12-10 02:27 indefinite edit,move switch to extended confirmed AlexiusHoratius

2017 Arbitration Committee elections[edit]

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

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

I would like all the winners of the election to know in advance that I voted for you, and I'll be coming around to collect my compensation soon after you get your crowns and sceptres from Mr. Wales. (Payment can be postponed in favor of future considerations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at my PayPal account and through the $100 transfers that I've received, I think I know who will best serve the community on the Arbitration Committee to the best of their abilities, and with they will have my full support. The Rambling Man, Your payment didn't go through. Would you like to try again with a different credit card? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie - To answer your question, yes - that is American Dollars - $100. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah I'm not sure I have a sufficient number of $100 bribes to buy myself into this one...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Nah. That $50 money order you sent me before your RFA was returned as stolen. My children went hungry that day, I ran out of gas on the turnpike, and I got a zit on my chin, and it was all. your. fault. Katietalk 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie - Wait, no gas, no food, ...and you got a zit?!! I'm sorry... that money order was good, I swear. Nonetheless, for the inconvenience, I'll credit your bribery funds $50 and I'll give you a coupon good for 10% off the purchase of a support vote in WP:RFB. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't vote in those elections, anymore. After I returned to Wikipedia in May 2014, the voting system was already changed. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why not. Your account dates from 2005, you have almost 200,000 mainspace edits, and you're not currently blocked. What stops you from voting? I don't think your one-year ArbCom ban in 2013-2014 disqualifies you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The voting system itself was changed, while I was away. Ya can't just poke a dot next to a candidate's name, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, sure you can. There are three dots for each candidate, "Oppose", "Neutral", and "Support", and you just poke the dot you want. Any candidate for whom you don't poke a dot stays "Neutral". What about that would prevent you from voting? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't trust the "Go to the voting server" bar. That route wasn't there, back then. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, so the problem isn't that you can't vote, it's that you won't use the system that's been set up for voting. What do you imagine are the possible problems that could come up by being redirected to the SecureVote page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
[Virtuously indignant at notion of paid voting.] Bishzilla as usual support all little candidates resident in her pocket. Come one come all! Best hurry before Bishonen make puny fuss. bishzilla ROARR!! 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news



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

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

question re recent community processes[edit]

hi. where is the page that was recently posted where a whole slew of community ideas for Wikipedia were proposed, then discussed, and then voted upon? so sorry for this basic question, but I have not been able to find it. I appreciate any help with this. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sm8900, I think you're referring to 2017 Community Wishlist Survey, yes? Primefac (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Silver Master WP:OFFER request[edit]

Not happening Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silver Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked for being unresponsive to legitimate criticism of their work, and then re-blocked when caught in some very lame socking shortly after that. They are asking for the standard offer, below is a copy of their request.


  1. I think the time is suitable for submitting this request...Thank you for giving this opportunity.
  2. I have blocked for socket puberty which was unwise and hasty move of me...
  3. I will avoid getting in such issues which made this block by keeping away such clashes with other members. No article will be submitted without a review with other member. I will use this account for doing edits mostly.
  4. Please keep in mind, I am a ten years member. I have an empty block log without counting the last block!
  5. I have much more to provide to this community other than creating articles such as constructive edits, templates, ordering new articles etc.
Thank you in advance for accepting this!

I would note that this is how the request read after I suggested to them that they should proofread it before it was posted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose As original blocking admin, I see no reason to believe this user is somehow now more capable of making positive contributions than they were before. The request itself make that abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Editor is clearly not capable of contributing at an encyclopedic level, and is totally unaware of it; per WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having not had any knowledge of this case previously, merely looking at the unblock request is enough to make me sadly shake my head. Given the demonstated level of proficency in English, this user's editing the English Wikipedia would only cause other editors to have to clean up after them - to a point, this is perfectly fine, but there's a line, and IMHO this slips in below it, even if we allow for "socket puberty"(!) somehow being a spellcheck error. I would suggest the editor work at Commons, WikiQuote, and other projects to build their skills, and ask again after doing that for awhile. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Flatly insufficient SO request. The promise to simply avoid clashes with other editors is both unrealistic and unacceptable. Disagreements happen on Wikipedia, as anywhere else. Being able to contribute constructively despite a disagreement is necessary. Binding oneself to creating no articles without prior review, moreover, seems more likely to generate more disputes than avoid them altogether; Silver Master would presumably disagree with whomever rejected his or her drafts. That's not going to be different than disagreeing with whomever criticizes Silver Master's work otherwise.
    More importantly, we usually require something similar to an allocution demonstrating an understanding (which needn't be perfect) of what the actions were that led to the block and why those actions were incorrect, or at least an understanding of why they were found to be contrary to policy and blockworthy. This is both to gauge the requestor's growth in terms of maturity, and to show that he or she actually does understand how Wikipedia policy functions. I don't see anything approaching that here. I don't even really see a mea culpa. It honestly seems like this editor is not taking this request seriously, though it may just be that he or she does not understand how a standard offer works in practice. I do suspect that the structure and phrasing of the operative essay tends to confuse blocked and banned editors. In any event, this request shouldn't be granted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty much per WP:CIR. The unblock request inspires zero confidence. ~ Rob13Talk 05:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. The "ten year history" consists of 9 years of occasional edits to topics related to sport in Africa, and two months of high-volume editing which had problems I'm not entirely familiar with. I note the simple English Wikipedia as another possible place this user could contribute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour Party[edit]

Stealth canvassing has resulted in a group of editors -- most likely more to come -- to influence an AFD that was leaning toward deletion before a recent uptick in voting. I am requesting either more eyes on the discussion or a decision by an experienced admin before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of the AFD, let alone the article's creation, before I saw the above tweet. Yair Rosenberg is an uninvolved journalist who is not a Wikipedia editor as far as I can determine, so the canvasing policy does not apply. (I did tweet to Rosenberg in response (one only), and to my followers (once only).) The deletion of articles, among other issues, is a subject of fairly regular media interest as a perusal of items on Google News demonstrates. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So I can rally a group of people who share my views so long as I have a somewhat popular Twitter handle and it's not canvassing? That is comforting to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI, at time of writing I have 117 followers on twitter, only a handful of whom are Wikipedia editors. Yair Rosenberg has many more followers, but is outside any possible sanction from this website. Philip Cross (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
All that means is that there is nobody registered at Wikipedia who could be eligible for sanctions related to canvassing, not that off-wiki canvassing should be ignored in the deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"It's meatpuppetry, then." - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If the canvassing person is not on Wikipedia, the most we can do is ignore !votes which we suspect were made by these meatpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the problem is kinda mute at this point since the canvassed editors partially succeeded in keeping the POV fork. Can't say "no consensus" was the actual consensus before the canvassing started. Hopefully, a legitimate AFD can take place in a few months without editors feeling inclined to be influenced by a tweet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I hate to be the pedant in the group, but TheGracefulSlick the proper term is a moot point. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC) the more you know
I suspect that TGS was perhaps being deliberately funny. But if not: I wonder if there's an entomological (!!) connection between "moot" and "mute", since when a subject is moot, one stands mute about it. Oh boy! Research!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Potentially, but I see it misused often enough I figured I'd say something. Likely a link, though, and now it'll stick in my brain until I can actually look it up........ Primefac (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Naw. Looks like "mute" comes from Latin mutus "silent, speechless, dumb," [1] while "moot" comes from a Germanic word meaning "to meet", which became old English "mōt". [2]. Oh well, back to the discussion about mootpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
OED: moot Cognate with Middle Dutch moet (Dutch †moet ), Old High German muot , Old Icelandic mót , Old Swedish mot (Swedish mot (now rare)), Danish regional mod , and (in different stem-classes) Middle Low German mȫte (German regional (Low German) Mööt ), Middle High German muote , muoze , and Norwegian møte , Swedish möte , Danish møde ); perhaps related to the Germanic base of mathel v. Further etymology uncertain. Compare i-moot n. In Old English only in compounds before the 12th cent. Uncompounded use in English is probably partly reinforced by borrowing of the corresponding early Scandinavian word, and also partly aphetic.
mute Anglo-Norman muet, moet, muwet, etc., and Middle French, French muet (adjective) dumb, mute, silent (early 13th cent. in Old French), refraining from speech (early 13th cent.), (of a letter) not pronounced, silent (1647; compare sense A. 4b), (of wine) stopped in the process of fermentation (1761), (noun) a person who is unable to speak (late 12th cent.), servant of a Turkish sultan (1585) < Anglo-Norman mu , muu , mut and Old French mu , mut dumb, mute (11th cent.; < classical Latin mūtus : see below) + -et -et suffix1. In β forms remodeled after classical Latin mūtus; compare Middle French, French mut (early 16th cent.), and also Occitan mut (c1050), Spanish mudo (1250), Italian muto (a1294), Catalan mut (c1300). Classical Latin mūtus is attested as adjective in the senses dumb, inarticulate, silent, speechless, not accompanied by speech, plosive, and as noun in the sense person who is unable to speak (compare also mūta (neuter plural) dumb creatures, mūta (feminine singular) mute consonant, after ancient Greek ἄϕωνα, neuter plural); it is probably an imitative formation. Apparently attested earlier in surnames from the late 12th cent., as Robertus Mut (1187), Alanus le Mute (1275).
(whatever aphetic means, sounds like when your roses have been attacked by insects.) EEng 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I live in NYC: What is "roses"? What are "insects"? Is it like when rats attack a piece of pizza on a subway platform? [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(Actually, I live very near to a very beautiful park noted for its gardens, carefully planted so something is blooming in every season, and there are groundhogs and raccoons and skunks and squirrels (of course) and many birds, and an area set aside as a small nature preserve. The skunks used to come to visit us almost every garbage day, until NYC started composting and the compostable material went into critter-proof bins. Now we don't see them -- although we occasionally smell them.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
“The Haven is the name of Mr. Josiah Amberley’s house,” I explained. “I think it would interest you, Holmes. It is like some penurious patrician who has sunk into the company of his inferiors. You know that particular quarter, the monotonous brick streets, the weary suburban highways. Right in the middle of them, a little island of ancient culture and comfort, lies this old home, surrounded by a high sun-baked wall mottled with lichens and topped with moss, the sort of wall—”
“Cut out the poetry, Watson,” said Holmes severely.
EEng 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
ChOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Metallurgical coal[edit]

Page history has been restored. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At User talk:Wtshymanski#metallurgical coal there is a discussion about a possible deleted version. Could someone with access to deleted versions please tell me if a previous version existed, and possibly link to the prod / afd / etc. where it was deleted? Feel free to drop any information on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon, see the page history. I've undeleted it — regardless of the status of the user, there didn't appear to be any problems with it, so deleting it was neither improving nor maintaining the encyclopedia. Repeated copyright infringers need to have everything deleted, regardless of its apparent quality, but when you're blocked for "refusal to acknowledge editing policies, blaming others for their own issues", a policy-complaint page shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Uncontributive editors[edit]

User has been welcomed and warned, will not be blocked. --Jayron32 19:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking through Moslyn (talk · contribs)'s and (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contribs, all of their edits are jokes/hoaxes, and they're probably the same person. Please help stop them? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Moslyn's two edits seem to be in good faith, and are not obvious vandalism or jokes. Not necessarily appropriate to keep them, but instead of asking for a block, why not strike up a friendly conversation and explain what is wrong? --Jayron32 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: check deleted contribs. Probably nothing to do at this point, but maybe worth noting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Probably not that great there. Still, they've been warned and haven't resumed the problem. Lots of people test the limits a bit when they try out Wikipedia the first time. We don't block them the first time they do that. --Jayron32 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Moslyn's other edits have been deleted. And the soda ban thing seems like something a child is writing, protesting their school's soda ban? But I can't find anything about it online, and their sandbox page mentioned it along with that story, so it seems totally made up - i.e. not in good faith. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it's in good faith. They just don't know about Wikipedia's policies on sources. The default opposite to "I can't find sources" is not "the editor must be trying to vandalise Wikipedia". Lots of editor's first attempts to edit Wikipedia is based on good-faith attempts to add to Wikipedia based on personal knowledge, they just don't know yet that's not what we do here. Please don't presume that everything that isn't referencable is an attempt to harm Wikipedia. That's not WP:AGF. Start with the assumption that they are trying to be helpful and just screwing up. Give them education and correct them. We don't block people just because they don't understand how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 18:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, yes, I know all of that, but my judgement from reading their other edits too, which involved the same text, was and still is that this was not in good faith and was either meant as a joke or a hoax. I guess you disagree. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
As a side note, I welcomed the user on their talk page. It's obviously a school kid posting, but there's nothing that requires a block immediately. Hopefully this is enough to get their attention and quiet things down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Rick. That is very helpful. I think we're done here. --Jayron32 19:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

BLP block review[edit]

This feels like it's gone as far as it needs to. --Jayron32 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Posting this as a block review because due to technical issues I cannot presently reply on a page where I'm being pinged; I'm assuming the pings are related to the block.

I have just blocked nagualdesign, a very experienced user, over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng, a talk page so large that I cannot load it to edit. I was able to load the diff from my watchlist, and in intending to "undo" the edit I inadvertently clicked on rollback (which saves automatically). Then, being unable to edit the page to explain the rollback (as WP:ROLLBACK advises) I posted a note at User talk:nagualdesign advising the editor why I had reverted their edit, and warning that they should not do it again. In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time. While I was doing that they pinged me at EEng's talk, which I still can't load. I've also revdeleted the edits. To be clear: linking to this video is probably not useful to the encyclopedia but I don't see how just linking to it violates the policy, however describing the video in a way which states as fact an unproven criminal accusation certainly violates the policy, in my opinion. If I'm wrong or if I've overstepped with talk revocation, any admins are welcome to revert.

I'm dropping the advisory note on nagualdesign's page although they're blocked, but as I noted I'm not able to save edits on EEng's talk so I cannot notify them except by pinging. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel that's a really questionable block. Neither is it a good use of WP:CFRD#2, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Not commenting on the block, but isn't there an issue of disruption when people can't even access a user's talk page? I know it's been mentioned a few times and I do think we should allow some flexibility on user page content but not archiving and forum, etc, doesn't really suit the project. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
nagualdesign has submitted a block review request via UTRS, so I guess we'll have to wait to see what the response is. I think it's worth clarifying that they weren't describing the video in that way, they were simply stating the video's actual name (and the video is by a mainstream comic), so the block does seem a bit harsh. As a side note, why is EEng's user talk page not being archived?? Number 57 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my issue of not being able to load the page is due only to its size or possibly due to some other issue with CSS or something on the page, or just poor connection on my end. Like I said I can load diffs, but the page never finishes loading. I can see in the history that the page size is a little over one megabyte, which is about ten times larger than the point where WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles should be split, although it also notes our largest article is about 1.1MB and the software limit is 2MB. I know EEng likes to have a long talk page and in general a place for editors to joke around, and I've never had problems loading it before today, so I don't know what's up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to be a pest, but the longest page according to Special:LongPages is 853k, which is a full 266k smaller than EEng's talk at 1120k. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, EEng's talk page is indeed quite long, and takes a few seconds to load on my machine, but it's quite popular, and numerous editors participate there, so it's obviously accessible for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's being archived, just not very aggressively. I'll take another pass in the next few days. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Yeah I just went to that report too; that's the longest article. The longest page according to Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages is a deleted page that's nearly 10MB, which I didn't try to load. But a few lines up that list is User talk:Stuartyeates/Archive 19, a page about twice the size of EEng's page, which I can load it with no problem at all. These sizes don't take into account the size of media files on the page, and I know EEng likes pictures. Maybe that's it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Linking to a BLP violation on an external site is itself a BLP violation, and the title of that particular video is certainly a BLP violation. Quoting from the lead of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." That particular allegation is far stronger than those supported by reliable sources. The editor was warned not to repeat the violation. He responded with mild incivility, telling Ivanvector to "get a grip", and then immediately repeated the BLP violation. At that point, a block is warranted. Removing talk page access is warranted as well, as he had just repeated the BLP violation on his talk in response to a very reasonable warning. I am declining the UTRS unblock request. ~ Rob13Talk 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see everything because of revdels, but I gather that Ivanvector's warning [4] to nagualdesign could have been a bit more explicit e.g. by adding, "The video itself is not a BLP problem, being clear satire, but unfortunately the title of the video explicitly refers to an LP as a child molester, and it's probably a bad idea to link to that." I'm not sure, but it's possible that nagualdesign's post, on my talk page, itself quoted that title, and that's even more likely problematic. I'm not even saying Ivanvector is correct in saying that linking to a video like this, from a talk page, is itself technically a BLP violations, but if he'd been clearer as to what he saw as a problem – nagualdesign may have thought the video itself was being objected to – I suspect nagualdesign would have been willing to redact or modify his original post. I know I would have, had the specific problem been drawn to my attention. I suggest an unblock with lessons learned. EEng 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is not exactly block-worthy - the line is question is the actual title of the video in question and it's clearly satire (even if possibly true). On the other hand, repeating it after warning is also not the wisest thing to do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Regarding technical issues, in hindsight, looking forward, perhaps in the future when experiencing technical challenges one might consider referring an issue-at-hand to another admin better situated to deftly address things (through one of the relevant notice boards, if not directly). Or wait until one has access to a more capable hardware/network situation etc. ––A Fellow Editor– 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The revdel was good under RD2, and repeating the content after it had been pointed out to him was an issue that justified a block and TPA revocation as a preventative measure. I would be fine with unblocking if in the next UTRS appeal he agreed to tread carefully around BLPs in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't you think my point above, that perhaps there was confusion about what was specifically the problem (the title of the video, not the video itself) is important in evaluating this? EEng 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, its why I'm open to an unblock on the next UTRS appeal, and don't think that one should be rejected outright. I think it might have been handled better, but I also don't fault Ivanvector for blocking after revdel'd content was repeated. Basically, if the next UTRS comes in and says "I won't post the content in question again.", I think we should unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I accept the criticism, though I don't think my warning was that cryptic. My intent of posting the warning in the first place was to advise an experienced user who should know better by now that they did a thing they shouldn't do, because hey, we all slip up sometimes, right? If they gave me any indication that they understood, then problem solved and we all go back to making an encyclopedia. Their reply (revdeleted), suffice it to say, did not give me that impression. In fact that's part of why I posted here in the first place, to affirm that this was indeed a policy violation and blockable offense, and not just me being an ass as their UTRS appeal implied. As Tony said, if nagualdesign indicates that they've gotten the point, then the block has served its preventive purpose and it's no longer needed. For my part I will try to be more clear if I'm inclined to post this sort of advisory notice again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm still guessing you two were talking past each other (you talking about the title of the video without explicitly saying so, he assuming you were talking about its content, which is acceptable) and that this can just be seen as a misunderstanding. Bottom line: when pointing out a BLP vio, one should be very clear as to what bit of content constitutes the violation. EEng 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like everything happened rather quickly, and under conditions where there were technical limitations and some ambiguity about whether the nature of what-not-to-do-again was sufficiently clear, it might have been a hasty block that could have been evaluated better by another admin. I doubt that there is anything more to be prevented by allowing the block to continue: I'm pretty sure the message has been received. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Per Tryptofish and WP:ROPE, I feel comfortable both endorsing the original block as justified, and also saying we should unblock now because I have faith that the now blocked editor has been given the opportunity to understand the gravity of the offense. --Jayron32 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, but I think the block will soon serve its purpose, once some more communication with the editor takes place. I disagree with BU Rob13's decision to immediately rejecting UTRS request after 40 minutes, without waiting for a response, especially when there is an ongoing discussion happening here in this thread. Alex Shih (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Alex Shih: Any decision I made through UTRS can certainly be reviewed by other administrators and the community. A declined unblock request from a single administrator does not prevent the community from arriving at consensus to unblock. I reviewed the block via UTRS and came to a decision quickly because AN moves slowly. It makes little sense to wait for a result here on a 31 hour block, which would come after the block had expired. The blocked editor deserves to have a neutral review before then. ~ Rob13Talk 00:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, I'm 99% sure talkpage size has come up before at AN/ANI, with an outcome to ensure users didn't have massive talkpages. Difficult to search for it though! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Belated response[edit]

Now that the block has ended perhaps I'll be permitted to explain my actions so that people don't get the wrong impression, as some clearly have done already.

First of all I rather innocently posted a link to a humorous YouTube video on EEng's talk page, writing something like, After more than a month, Sassy Trump is back: [TITLE OF THE VIDEO, LINKED TO THE VIDEO] I also used the title of the video as my edit summary. I can see now how this, taken out of context, was a BLP violation. The next thing I noticed was that the edit had been RevDeleted by Ivanvector, so I posted on his talk page, May I ask why you reverted my edit? At about the same time, Ivan was posting an explanation on my talk page. I'm sure you've all read that. As I understood it he hadn't actually managed to open EEng's talk page or follow the link. My reply was words to the effect of, With all due respect, get a grip, Ivan. I did not add unsourced allegations of criminal activity about a living person, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title; "[TITLE OF THE VIDEO]" I then edited my post to link to the video as proof that that was indeed the title, rather than me making an allegation. In fact, I made 3 edits but I cannot remember every detail. Suffice to say that it was pretty tame. Probably just corrected a typo or something.

Let's take a moment to think about this. Posting the first link on EEng's talk page was completely innocent. I hope we can all agree on that. I do understand though that without providing any context (notwithstanding the link itself) the video title was potentially libellous, as was the edit summary. My mistake. But when I attempted to discuss the matter on my talk page with Ivan I was quite clear about what I was saying. The title of the video was written verbatim along with the words, I simply linked to a YouTube video using its proper title This is no more libellous than stating on the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, [Beverly Young Nelson] said that when she fought him off, he eventually gave up, but told her, "You're just a child, I'm the district attorney; if you tell anyone about this no one will ever believe you." Beverly Young Nelson did indeed say those things, and the YouTube video I posted does indeed have the title I posted. That is called reportage, and anyone who thinks either of those statements is libellous does not understand the meaning of the word.

If I naively posted a link to a video of Guy Fawkes with the title, I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament, repeating the title in the edit summary, more fool me. If I then, in an attempt to explain myself, posted, Don't worry, "I'm going to blow up the Houses of Parliament" is just the title of the video, and you think that is libellous more fool you. More to the point the post I made on my talk page, as I said, consisted of 3 seperate edits. If the link itself was the BLP violation (vicarious libel?) then why didn't Ivan just RevDel that one edit, and leave the rest in place. My guess is because he didn't like me telling him to get a grip. A case of "I warned him and now he's giving me lip?! Bang goes the hammer!"

I can't remember everything that I wrote in my appeal against the block, nor was I wasn't furnished with a copy, and I neglected to copy/paste the contents to my laptop before sending. Only admins are allowed to look at such things in darkened rooms behind closed doors. The crux of it was something along the lines of asking why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first or engaging in discussion. I don't think it was at all fair. I still don't, despite repeated suggestions for me to 'learn my lesson'. I think it stinks, to be honest. Then along came 'I got your back, buddy' Rob who upheld Ivan's decision and closed the appeal even though, as far as I can make out, Rob didn't really have a clue what had happened.

I'd like to know what happens to edits that get RevDeleted. Are they wiped from the system completely? Or if not, who has access to them? And is it possible to reverse RevDels if they can be shown to have been made in error? If any of that's possible then I'd again like to request an uninvolved admin (ie, not one who is sympathetic to Ivan or Rob and believes that admins should stick together) to reassess this whole sorry affair, looking at my actual edits. Ideally I think any edits that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place should be resurrected. In my opinion Ivan and Rob took their power a tad too far and made unsubtantiate allegations about my conduct here. The irony that they were motivated by the spirit of WP:BLP seems to have been lost on them entirely.

I'll be posting a notice about this on my talk page, being careful not to make the same mistakes. If anybody has a problem with that let me know. nagualdesign 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who is UbiSoftDev (talk · contribs)? Thank you, Ivanvector, for reverting his/her good faith edit to my talk page in my absence. I wonder, could it possibly be TheDeliveryGuy (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), back from the beyond? nagualdesign 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
To answer one question specifically: RDs can be undone as simply as they were done. Oversighted edits can't be restored (at least by those who lack the power of GreyskullOversight). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. nagualdesign 00:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, I gave my thoughts above that I think the edits in question are within the scope of WP:RD2 because of the title. I'm also friendly with EEng, so I wouldn't consider myself biased in favour of Ivanvector or Rob. I would have personally replied to your email asking that you agree not to post the content in question again and unblocked if you agreed, but I think that the revdel was warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand the RevDel of EEng's talk page, but not the one (3 actually) made to my talk page. Which do you mean? And do you think that the statement, "The title of the video is [TITLE OF THE VIDEO]", is libellous, contravenes WP:BLP and should therefore have been RevDeleted, or just the link itself (1 edit)? nagualdesign 00:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The details that nagualdesign posted here are essentially correct, in case anyone is observing this who can't see the revdeleted edits. I do not have oversight permissions, so these edits are available to any admin. As for the series of three revdeleted edits: the first was when nagualdesign reposted the link with the verbatim description of the video (I considered the description to be the violation, not the video itself), and the next two subsequent edits were copyedits to nagualdesign's original post but which left the description unmodified. Since the [offending] description was visible in all three, RD2 required that all three were hidden. The appeal that nagualdesign refers to that they can't see is on UTRS, which admins can see here; if someone more familiar with UTRS can email a copy, please do. In the clear vision of retrospection I can see that I could have restored the content of these edits with the offending parts removed, so I'll go ahead and do that.
For what it's worth, I do prefer to discuss things like this with experienced editors, but the "get a grip" response (which included the [offending] description repeated) read to me as "screw you, I'll post whatever I want no matter what the policy says" and as I considered that the edits required revdelete again, I blocked so there would be no third occurrence. I posted here for review not long afterwards. BU Rob13 and I interact frequently at WP:SPI but otherwise I have no particular familiarity with any of the editors (admins and non-admins) who have commented.
I also have no idea who UbiSoftDev is, but the one-hour-old account was blocked by a checkuser this morning. My assumption is it's either someone that nagualdesign crossed at some point, or much much much more likely it's someone that I pissed off. I try not to put too much thought into why sockpuppets do what they do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly appreciate your honesty, Ivan. I'm sure that if I was allowed to discuss this dispassionately in the first place you probably wouldn't have blocked be. I hope you also understand why I told you to get a grip. It not like I used any sort of pejoratives or foul language, is it? (Rhetorical question.) nagualdesign 00:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
...I see that you have restored the post on my talk page. Thank you. However, you have redacted the title of the video. Let me ask everyone here if they agree with the following:
The statement Bob is a rapist!, if unsubstantiated, violates BLP.*
The statement Alice said, "Bob is a rapist!", if properly sourced, is fine.
If that is correct then why are we pussyfooting around? The title of the video is the title of the video. Nobody has made any statement at any point in Wikipedia's voice, which as I understand it forms the crux of any libel issue. nagualdesign 01:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
*I hasten to add that Alice and Bob are fictional, in case anyone's got their ban hammer at the ready! nagualdesign 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I deal with BLP issues fairly regularly, and I do not agree with your example above. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
collapsed by nagualdesign
Then I suggest you start editing Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations. You have a lot of work to do over there. nagualdesign 01:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
We all have a lot to do regarding Wikipedia's poor treatment of living persons. It would be nice if we could deal with it on article pages without having to worry about it appearing on users' "visible from space" talk pages. MPS1992 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep up, MPS1992. I've repeatedly stated that I understand and accept that my edit to EEng's talk page falls into the first example category. But as far as I'm concerned the post on my talk page was a statement of fact that can be easily corroborated, and therefore falls into the second example category. If I'm mistaken then please explain why/how. nagualdesign 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If that was the tone of your UTRS request then I think it's easy to see why it was declined so quickly. MPS1992 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
A typically emotional response. If you haven't read the UTRS request then I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself. If I'm expected to learn my lesson here then please educate me. Posting silly jibes isn't helpful. And if you aren't willing to follow the course of events perhaps you should refrain from commenting here at all, and go do something constructive instead. nagualdesign 02:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I have given you some pointers (below), but I hope others give you answers more in keeping with what you want to hear. Happy editing. MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please provide me with a constructive response here? nagualdesign 02:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In general, yes, I agree with your "Alice and Bob" statements, but this doesn't support your conclusion. The title of the video is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by a living person, and by describing the video by its title you repeated the unsourced allegation without qualification. The WP:BLP policy allows some license for discussing potentially offending content when the discussion is in the interest of article construction (WP:BLPTALK) but states "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" (emphasis added). In my opinion posting offending comedic videos on user talk pages also fails WP:NOTFORUM but that's not something I would bother anyone about, especially on EEng's page, if not for the BLP-offending description. BLPTALK also gives an example of how one could link to a potentially offending video, if discussing the video were in the interest of writing or maintaining article content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to keep repeating myself but I did not repeat the unsourced allegation without qualification, I explicitly stated on my talk page that that was the title of the video, and I did so deliberately so that there would be no ambiguity, as there was with my original post (on EEng's talk page). It's a shame that along with the "get a grip" you saw that as me posting whatever I want no matter what the policy says, and Rob saw it as me persistently or egregiously violating BLP policy. The fact is, I was just defending myself, as is my right, against the insinuation that a RevDeleted comment was me making unsourced allegations of criminal activity, which I most certainly had not.
Fair enough about BLP:TALK. I wasn't aware that pussyfooting formed part of WP policy, but I'll accept that the video title should remain redacted. I still disagree that I should have been banned blocked though, and no amount of searching for other policies that might be applied retrospectively will change the fact that your reasoning at the time was somewhat flawed. The lesson I've learned from this is probably not the one you intended to teach me, but I think we've both learned something, at least, and I'll leave it at that. In a week or so I'll probably be back in the saddle.
As for WP:NOTFORUM; I'd spent over 5 hours editing articles and images that day (and made only 1 edit to a talk page, which was apropos) before I hopped over to YouTube for a break. The Sassy Trump video was in my recommendations, I watched it, it made me giggle, then I remembered the section I'd posted on EEng's talk page so I posted the link to the video there to offer a little comic relief. I think we're all entitled to that, given everyone's hard work. If the day ever comes when that sort of thing's seriously frowned upon I'll sell the saddle. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You weren't banned. You were blocked for 31 hours. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've amended that. Thank you for that, that's really helpful. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just on the narrow matter of "why Ivan was able to summarily block me, rather than passing the matter to another admin first", no where are admins required to pass on matters to other admins. I see no evidence that Ivan violated WP:INVOLVED in any way, telling you that you shouldn't do something and then blocking when he sees you do it a second time does not make him involved. It is regrettable that this instance got so messy; perhaps some nuance could have been applied and avoided this whole mess, but to have the expectation that every admin on every action needs to get "back up" or that the act of warning an editor of a problem makes that same admin prohibited from then acting every again should not be an expectation. If Ivan screwed up in any way here, that specific narrow issue wasn't it. (Saying all that I am not saying that Ivan could not have handled this better, mind you, just refuting the specific notion that admins are prohibited from blocking people they have previously warned). --Jayron32 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If somebody tells you to "get a grip" and it pricks your emotions, it's probably a good idea to hand the matter over to somebody else at that point, and I don't mean another admin who you frequently interact with, since camaraderie can also result in being vicariously offended (rinse and repeat). I'm not talking about WP:INVOLVED, I'm talking about emotional involvement. nagualdesign 00:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I certainly could have handled the situation better, but my response was not an emotional response to "get a grip", it was a matter of preventing the [perceived] BLP violation from being repeated a third time. Purely preventative, as blocks should be. "Get a grip" is a pretty mild insult (if it is one at all) in the spectrum of what admins deal with, I'm sure any admin reading this page would agree. I've had at least three different editors threaten to sue me, ruin my life in different ways or just kill my family, just in the last month or so. For what it's worth I do try to hand things off if I'm emotionally conflicted, and I agree that admins probably should step away if our emotions are getting in the way of things, in the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. But this was not that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you have to deal with such vile things on a regular basis, Ivan. As I like to put it, the world's full of c**ts. For what it's worth you seem like a very reasonable fellow (aside from the [in my opinion unwarranted] block) and I respect that. I only responded to the part Jayron mentioned about being 'involved' because he brought it up. That said, I'd rather move on and focus on the technicalities. As I've mentioned above, I believe that what I posted on my talk page (about the video title) was a simple statement of fact, and don't see how this violates WP:BLP. If you could answer that specific question (above) perhaps we can all move on from this. nagualdesign 02:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I am all in favor of reining in over-eager administrators, but I feel that nagualdesign is going a little too far here. First, "get a grip" is an indication that you believe the administrator has acted wrongly, and reinforces the impression that you plan to continue to ignore their warning -- as you already did once by re-posting the material that had been revdeleted. So it justifies the block -- you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but at this point it appears from your own comments that you will just restore it again. Second, requiring admins never to refer issues to other admins with whom they "frequently interact" is just never going to fly. Admins can and should take care with that, but admins interact with each other frequently -- especially those who deal with BLP violations or similar problems -- so a blanket ban is not going to work. MPS1992 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect. nagualdesign 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
What, precisely, is "factually incorrect"? Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"you posted the infringing content, they removed the infringing content, you restored the infringing content, they could remove it again but..." I didn't restore content that had been removed, I asked why it had been removed, then I attempted to explain myself on my own talk page, which was also removed. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You posted the content on EEng's talkpage, after that was removed, you posted it again on your own talkpage. So what you are saying now is factually incorrect, and what MPS1992 said was correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there something in the water? Perhaps you should stop hanging around the water cooler or start bringing your own drinks. As I'm sure you're aware, restoring means 'reverting a revert'. And I did not post the same content on my own talk page. You can try to construe things all you wish, but the fact of the matter is that the post I left on my talk page was appreciably different from the one I left on EEng's talk page. You could say that one was a comment, the other was a comment about a comment. If the distinction is lost on you then I'm at a loss to help you. Also, the second comment was removed. Nothing that I have said on in this discussion is factually inaccurate. If you're trying to goad me you're wasting your time. nagualdesign 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is how Ivanvector described it: "I have just blocked nagualdesign ... over repeating a serious criminal allegation in a description of a Youtube video. This occurred at User talk:EEng. ... In replying to my note they repeated the BLP violation, so I blocked them and also removed talk page access so they would not repeat the edit a third time." So you did indeed post the BLP violation twice, and therefore what MPS1992 said was indeed correct in essence if perhaps not in precise detail; and your reply to him omitting the fact that you posted the BLP violation twice was misleading at best. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha! I see you missed the a very experienced user part. Did you think that might flatter me unnecessarily? Face-wink.svg
Seriously though, Ivan said that right at the top of this section (about 40 KB ago). I understand what he was saying and why, and considering the rest of the discussion that's happened since then, not least of which my 'Belated response' (this subsection) I think it's been made quite clear that there was in fact a difference between my two offending posts. One was an innocent BLP violation, the other a deliberate not-quite-violation that, coupled with the first, along with some technical issues, resulted in a questionable ban. Sorry, block. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve at this point. Perhaps you're just trying to defend the honour of MPS1992? To be honest, I don't care. Your input to this discussion is tangential. I suggest you find something else to do. nagualdesign 09:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This a public noticeboard for administrators and experienced editors. You claimed someone's 160-word good-faith post was "factually incorrect" without explanation. I asked for one and you omitted pertinent information. I pressed you and you continued to evade. You have spent 3,000 bytes in this thread evading responsibility, criticizing Ivanvector, and snarking at editors and administrators you disagree with. You could have chosen on this subthread to merely post a brief explanation of your view of the events and a maybe question or two (and maybe even a brief complaint or two), but your prolonged self-justification is looking worse and worse. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In no particular order, since this discussion is now something of a mess, "reportage" is not something that happens at EEng's talkpage, and I apologize if others have led you to believe that it is. That is on them. And, avoiding libel suits is not the sole purpose of the BLP policy. So arguing about whether something is libel or not, misses the point. MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect is an interesting article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, we're only at 17,000 bytes in this subsection so far. Surely we can continue until it reaches Featured Article length? Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hehe... We could, but I think I'm done, to be honest. nagualdesign 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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


TPH, in the future either report here first, or directly to SPI. AIV is for blatant vandalism, not socks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone please block EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)? It's patently obvious they're a sockpuppet of SuperPassword (talk · contribs).

Genre-warring, inserting false claims that Alan Jackson covered a Wiz Khalifa song using as a source. Clearly has a vendetta against Alan Jackson.

Evidence: [5] [6] [7] [8][9]

This was reported to AIV, but somehow the admin did not find it severe enough. It's completely blatant. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed sock. Also changed the 31 hour block of master to indef. --NeilN talk to me 03:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As a note - AIV is a shortcut to "Administrator intervention against vandalism", not sockpuppetry. SQLQuery me! 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That looks like it could be a sock of Peterpansshadow (SPI case). If you see further disruption related to bro-country, that would be a good place to start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

This can't be allowable...[edit]

This appears to be a technical issue over an "administrative" issue (they're not actively attempting to keep their page from being edited). User should be engaged with and encouraged to change their DISPLAYTITLE to something less <big>. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I went to drop a line on the user talk page of Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs) about their sending to AfD a page they had merged content from, and how you don't do that, and...WOW that header is both hideous and breaks the ability to do things like 1. select their talk page or 2. edit their talk page. I'm pretty sure this isn't permissible for a user page somehow. (I'll try to manually notify them, but-) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't cause any problems for me on a normal PC. I can select, navigate and add new sections fine. Are you behind a particularly restrictive firewall perhaps that restricts scripts etc? Or a mobile device? I tried on a mobile and its doing some odd stuff with re-sizing that might cause issues. But its not like EEng's page which actively crashes (not due to the size I might add) due to some script problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, Win7 and Firefox, normal internet connection. I do have NoScript, but it's not blocking any scripts on the page. On his user page only the far-left "User page" tab is visible behind overlapping massive colored words; on his user-talk page, "User page" and "Talk" are as the words are smaller (and don't overlap each other) but the rest of the tabs are behind them. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's what his code is: - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<small>User:</small><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><code>''{{color|red|Some}} {{color|green|Gadget}} {{color|blue|Geek}}''</code></big></big></big></big></big></big></big>}}
That's doing exactly what (I think) it is meant to be for me on IE, big coloured text but its not obscuring anything (on either the user or the talkpage). I only get over-run if I resize the browser window to something quite small. Have you tried with a different browser? It might be Firefox handling the code differently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried viewing the page in both Monobook and Vector in Chrome, Safari, Firefox and even Tor Browser (which is good for this kind of test as every conceivable script is blocked), and been unable to replicate the issue (other than by resizing the browser window to the size of a postage stamp, and even then the edit etc tabs don't disappear, just migrate onto the "More" menu as they're supposed to in MediaWiki when something happens to obscure direct access to them). Having that crap at the top of the userpage looks incredibly amateurish and means nobody is going to take SGG seriously, but I can't see anything actually actionable. ‑ Iridescent 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does rather suggest that they're likely to be disappointed one day... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not too happy with it either. It kind of makes pages like EEng's TP, and TPs of users who have suppressed the TOC but whose TP is endless (I'm not naming names, but you know who you are), look kind of tame and user-friendly. By the way, the userpage (as opposed to the TP) is much worse than the TP -- I'd like to clarify that you're specifically talking about the TP? Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

    Follow-up: The Bushranger, you're citing the code on his userpage, which has 7 levels of "big". The TP only has 4 levels of "big". Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Part deux: I'm actually wondering why someone doesn't just pull his coat and ask him politely on his talk page (to dial down the sizes), or let him know it's causing problems for some users and makes him look bad to boot. That has got to be simpler and less drama-filled than asking him to come to AN. (PS: No foul on BR, I'm just thinking of what's best for the user and the community; it would serve him as well as us for him to do this voluntarily rather than being railroaded into it.) Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hear, hear. And if bigger text is needed, use {{big}}, as <big> was deprecated in HTML5. See also MOS:DEVIATIONS. Sam Sailor 11:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed that I don't see any problems (other than the obvious aesthetic ones) on Chrome / Ubuntu 17.04. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Frankly- and I too don't have a particular issue with the screen- if there is an issue, it's communication, what with having 88% of the last hundred user talk edits made via automated tools. it doesn't bode well that they see personal commmunication as particularly relevant, but still, nothing to do with this plaint. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Would you prefer people not use Twinkle?—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Bagumba: I don't beat my wife. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem. It covers over tabs, making them inaccessible in Monobook/Chrome but not in Vector/Chrome for me. I don't think some of us should have to change skins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just tried in vector/monobook on a different PC and its still not doing it for me. Its either not a skin issue, or its something specific in the personal settings. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Monobook/Chrome here too and I see what Bushranger means. On the other hand, if it were me I'd probably use keyboard shortcuts (Alt + shift + t for the talk page, Alt + shift + "+" for a new section) and roll my eyes. Still, seven layers of bigness is a little excessive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW I don't have any issues and I'm using a 1280x800 laptop, There doesn't seem to be issues on mobile wikipedia (probably because of my screen res?) but for those that use an Apple Iphone 5 this is apparently how it looks, Personally I dislike it and as noted by Iridescent it does make the editor look amateurish ..... anyway if it's actually causing issues for various editors then they should be made to change the displaytitle as well as their page layout. –Davey2010Talk 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My display on a ZTE Android smartphone (a custom manufacturer phone about the same age as iPhone 5) looks pretty much the same as Davey's iPhone, using desktop view because the mobile view is basically unusable (separate issues). All the boxes are floating in a weird angry fruit salad at the top of the page, but everything below (the actual talk content) is coming up just fine. Or, as well as it does on any other user talk. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I get the same issue as Bushranger with Firefox/OSX and Safari/iOS. My skin is Monobook. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, when I moused over the locations of the "edit this page" button on both the userpage and the talk page, the button showed up and I could click it like normal, even though it wasn't really visible beforehand. I'm running Monobook in Internet Explorer on a computer using Windows 10. For another, why do you have to click the buttons to edit? I almost never use the mouse to click "edit this page": that's why we have Alt+E. You can always add &section=new to the URL, or if you're not familiar with that, nobody's going to complain at you for putting a message in a less convenient location. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm still distressed that we are talking about this innocent good-faith user as if he were a non-entity, or something outside of Wikipedia. He is part of the Wikipedia community and deserves to be treated with kindness and respect -- the sort of kindness and respect that would entail letting him know when he is doing something inappropriate and rather foolish, as one would tell a friend that. Will someone not drop a note on his talkpage explaining the issue in a kind way? I would do that myself but I don't want to step on anyone's toes or override the AN notice. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree, this is a fairly minor issue. I left a friendly ask with a specific way this could be adjusted on their talk page - lets wait to see a response. — xaosflux Talk 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Clearly not an ANI issue, but as it was discussed here, a courtesy FYI: I have now removed this display title as it was my opinion that it was not allowed per WP:SMI and "may be removed or remedied by any user". —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a footnote, the reason I brought it up here was because I was pretty sure the user page rules somewhere said something about that sort of thing, but couldn't remember where, and I wanted to be sure (by having input from others) before dropping a "yo dawg" on his userpage. Thanks everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACC could use your help[edit]

Just a quick note, some admins (or other experienced editors) may be interesting in volunteering a bit of spare time to the ACC project ( as there is currently over 1000 requests in the queue.

Ideal volunteers are:

  • Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation or are willing and able to identify,
  • In good standing with no recent blocks or other sanctions,
  • Able to apply the username policy,

Please see the full list of requirements for more information and details on how to sign up. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

Other ways that you can help[edit]

  • Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  • If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Would an admin be willing to delete this userpage as spam? Thanks. (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - in the future you can just place {{db-spam}} on the page. Thanks, ansh666 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The IP can't do that because userspace is now protected against IP edits. A demonstration of why that was a bad idea... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)