Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	35	35
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	5	60	65
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 18 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 50 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 16 requested closures
• 80 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 8844 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Mariam Barghouti 2024-11-19 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree 17 November 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine 2024-11-19 00:51 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree User talk:138.64.112.72 2024-11-18 13:20 2025-02-18 13:20 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-18 05:28 indefinite create Pppery Betar 2024-11-18 01:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below 2024 in the State of Palestine 2024-11-18 00:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Bamut 2024-11-17 18:21 2024-11-21 18:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Rihanna Death 2024-11-16 20:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Justin bieber dead 2024-11-16 20:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Template:Infobox airline/styles.css 2024-11-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4651 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sivagopalakrishnan

Sivagopalakrishnan (talk · contribs) has recently admitted (here) to undisclosed paid editing and very belated made the required disclosure on SamHolt6's talk page, which was then copied to their user page and the article talk page for them. While looking a bit deeper, I found a disclosure on Commons from 2016March 2019 where they admitted paid editing trying to get unblocked (unsuccessfully). They've been pressed here on their talk page to make the required disclosures on all other articles they've created for pay. They've edited since those comments without responding or making disclosures, so I'm coming here for some admin help on this. I'm pretty confident that many of the articles they've created have been for pay and more than a few have been substandard. Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali is a pretty good example of that. Many of their edits are related to Indian film and television which is probably very under-represented here but also has a lot of WP:UPE happening. At this point, I'd like to see a block until they respond to the concerns AND make all of the required declarations. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Cyphoidbomb as an admin highly involved in the topic areas. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirming the authenticity of Ravensfire's points above, and taking the time to thank them for their diligence. I originally suspected Sivagopalakrishnan of COI/UDP editing after I reviewed their work at Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali and found it to be riddled with puffery and WP:OR; very credible off-wiki evidence (being withheld out of respect for WP:OUTING) confirmed a paid connection between the editor and company. I have no bearing on any other potential violations of WP:PAID, but will comment that Ravensfire's points are strong, Sivagopalakrishnan's comments on the WMC are highly indicative of more undisclosed paid editing, and that future failure to communicate (WP:COMMUNICATION) should be grounds for a block.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Silence is never a good sign from editors like these and I would support a block until they start speaking and, as Ravensfire has suggested, until they agree to announce paid editing for each of the article's they've manipulated for pay. This, however, is contingent on a "are they even worth keeping around" analysis. If all they're doing is puffing up articles, I would be disinclined to let them loose in the wild again. If they tend to edit well with occasional bouts of puffery, that's a different story, perhaps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I misread / mis-remembered the date of their Commons post. It was actually from March 2019, not 2016. That does change the scope, but I still strongly believe that Sivagopalakrishnan has multiple articles that they've edited for pay and need to disclose, plus they really need to respond to comments made by other editors. My apologies for the brain spasm. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My own preference is that once an editor has been caught poisoning Wikipedia by undisclosed paid editing, they should not be given a second chance, at least not until they have blocked long enough to be eligible for standard offer. My own opinion would be no second chance even for an editor who otherwise has a reputation as an "excellent content creator", which is not the case here. We give far too many chances to editors who admit after the fact that they have been engaged in previously undisclosed paid editing. Our procedures for declared paid editing are very generous, and there is no excuse for not complying with them from the start. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Robert. Completely. Well put. They have also ignored this report. If it wasn't for this one edit I would have AGF'd that they weren't aware of having a talkpage, but it's clear they are. And they keep on editing. I recommend an indefinite block. Anybody against? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

I looked through the contributions and don't think there's much we can do regarding the articles themselves. They appear on the surface to be fact-based articles on non-English TV series and acting talent. There is a strong bias at AfD for keeping such material, and it is nearly impossible to improve the articles or contextualize any deletion discussions that may be appropriate without foreign language abilities and cultural awareness that few enwp contributors have. The sample of articles I reviewed did not have the sort of obvious, serious problems that would allow them to be speedied. UninvitedCompany 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate issues, the content and the editor. An undisclosed paid editor often writes reasonable-looking material, precisely in order to avoid a G11 that might call attention to their undisclosed paid status, and such edits need to be reviewed, not always deleted. However, if the editor has engaged in undisclosed paid editing, there is no reason to permit them to continue editing. In my opinion, they should wait until the world ends in 2038, but anyway wait a very long time. What reason do we have to think that such an editor has now made all of the declarations? Their own honor, when we know that they have no honor? It is true that they will probably sock, but we do better at blocking sockpuppets than at blocking spammers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Bishonen: indef. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ReeceTheHawk

ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has requested the standard offer, placing this request on their TP:

It has been 1 year and 2 months since I was told to take the standard offer and I have not edited Wikipedia in this time. I forgot to post an unblock request 6 months after the standard offer but now i'm back into wikipedia hoping to start editing again. Reece (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am bringing this to the community for consideration. A quick flick through their mainspace contributions suggests to me that they have the potential to be a useful editor of the gnoming sort, though with a bit to learn about policies and procedures. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} @GoldenRing: The block was a CU block and needs a check before it can be removed, only then can SO apply. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support if (but only if) checkuser shows no violations. --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: there's not much data to go on, but I don't see any obvious socking on the range they are on. If there is community consensus to unblock, I'm fine with it from a CU perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• @QEDK and TonyBallioni: Thanks for the reminder and for doing the check. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Floquenbeam? –xeno^talk 14:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I guess the theory is that if you don't actually say anything in your unblock request, you won't be caught lying? Looking at their talk page history, including their last few unblock requests, I think the odds of them being productive are pretty low. I suppose if they're young they've grown up some? I'm not going to waste my time negotiating unblock conditions, but if someone else wants to, that's OK with me. I'm perfectly happy for any individual admin, or a consensus here, to decide anything they want to. But you might want to get Reece to, I don't know, at least link to their previous ANI thread, or their previous declined unblock requests, or see if they understand what the previous problems were, or explain how they're going to avoid them, or something, instead of expecting others to do the heavy lifting for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per Floq, I also would not accept the SO request unless and until they can explain 1) what they did wrong and 2) what they plan to do differently. Unblocking without those two items doesn't seem like a good idea. If they CAN do those things, I would be fine with an unblock. --Jayron32 15:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues above, I think we should be requiring a basic "here's what I did wrong, here's why I won't do it again" even for SO unblocks. A fair amount of recent drama involving an editor who filed and had accepted a bare-bones SO unblock request only makes me more certain of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• The thread leading to their initial one-week block is here. After that block expired they did something to get indeffed which I don't really understand, but it feels to me like a WP:CIR sort of thing. Then this happened and they lost talk page access. Later, checkuser linked them to Ediitor10 (talk · contribs), and after another unblock request was declined Reece disclosed a bunch more accounts they had created to evade their block, although checkuser showed there were more they had not disclosed and were still using at that time. Several of those accounts were created solely to attack other editors. But, checkuser seems to show now that they're being honest. I'm willing to cautiously support here, with the understanding that any new misstep is going to result in a much more permanent sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, copied from his talk page, in response to a suggestion from me to address what previous problems were and how he intends to avoid them:

  What I did in the first place to be blocked - I reverted edits after a clear warning not to and I made edits which were invalid. This is because at the time I didn't know how to edit properly.

  How I will avoid this if I am unblocked - I will avoid this by only making edits which are valid and which are suitable for Wikipedia, and avoid making too many edits at a time unless I need to.

  Hopefully I can be unblocked today, I don't see any reason why I should stay blocked. I followed all terms of the standard offer process for over double the time and I also understand Wikipedia alot better now. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Probably time for an uninvolved admin (or !voters) to make a decision, I suspect you aren't going to get much more detail without investing significant one-on-one time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I took a look. I think that this is one of the many situations where there is no real basis in policy for continuing the block, but where we are all hesitant to support an unblock because it appears that the editor will be a time sink for others and is unlikely to contribute useful material. I believe we should consider our foundation policy that "anyone can edit," and apply it in cases like these. If the user continues to behave badly, escalating blocks are appropriate, and will require less administrative time and effort than ongoing appeals and socking -- which are, as a practical matter, the alternative. UninvitedCompany 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• (Non admin comment) I don't think I could convince myself to support an unblock. I've seen some very convincing unblock/unban requests in the past. The requestor clearly lays out exactly where they went wrong with humbling self reflection and a strong commitment, with examples, of how they would do better and abide by their restrictions/conditions. ReeceTheHawk's statement, however, is not one of those. It is no better than "Sorry I did some bad things, but I will do good in the future". Personally, I would need to see something that tells me, as a start, "here is what I did wrong, what policy/guideline I would have violated and how it violates the policy, how would I avoid repeating these mistakes, what conditions/restrictions I will commit to". --Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki protocol regarding copyright infringement

Looking for some history/feedback/experience here. In the Game of Thrones Season 8 article, a plot summmary for the series finale was added about a half hour after the episode had finished. I reverted the plot summary out as I thought it was a copyright infringement (noting COPYVIO by accident). I did so because the episode (the series finale), while being aired in North America, was not available to the general viewing public outside the US. Even within the US, Amazon and iTunes wait a period of time before making an episode available for streaming/download. I think that posting the plot summary potentially deprives the makers of broadcast revenue internationally - a copyright infringement.
Meeting some resistance at the article and article talk, I sought guidance at Project: Television but couldn't get a bead on the problem of past instances of potential (or actual) copyright infringement. I'm not forum-shopping; no one seemed able to address the issue of how Wiki-EN handles these situations.
I guess I am unsure how we have handled this problem in the past. What's the precedent? As always, your thoughts would be invaluable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO is applicable is only if and only if an actual copyright is violated. So, no, unless the plot was published word-to-word by HBO, it's not copyright infringement. Most plots are written by Wikipedia editors who have watched the episode (read the book, etc.), and in more common or popular articles, they are sourced. Not exactly following policy, but that's how it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I was not arguing that the edit summary was plagiarized. My sole argument is that - by publishing the plot summary less than a half hour after the episode premiered in the US - it robbed the makers of the show dividends based upon the number of viewers it could obtain in foreign markets. Even Amazon and iTunes didn't offer the episode until three hours after broadcast (so I have been told). How much would it have broken the wiki to wait 12-24 hours until the episode had become available to the general population? Why were we in such a hurry?

The example I've used elsewhere is that of people standing in line at a bakery to get a highly anticipated, freshly-made apple pie. Let's say that you are standing in the middle of this line and someone comes out of the bakery, claiming that the pie tastes like rotten apples or moldy chicken feet. How likely are you to remain in line to buy a pie?

In allowing the plot summary to be published before people could view the episode (ie. when it became available for viewing), we deprived the "bakery" of its dividends. Its copyright infringement, and absolutely no different than someone who uploads a torrent for others to view a movie or tv show without paying. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Still not copyright infringement. Let's break it down for you, if you read a book before release (audience reads, movie premieres, etc.) and you write a review on it explaining the plot anywhere, it is not copyright infringement as long you attribute the author for the content. So, again, no, just because a plot summary exists does not mean: a) we are taking HBO's revenue b) that taking revenue indirectly (it's just your assumption btw) = copyright infringement. HBO does not own the plot summary because it is a audience rendition of the actual plot, hence, not copyright infringement. Torrenting a movie or TV show is classified as what is called an "illegal distribution of copyrighted material", which is a part of "copyright infringement", as owning the copyright gives you the right to distribute the content as well, and in the case of torrenting, is illegal because you are actually distributing the copyright content whereas here, it's merely a plot summary HBO has no rights to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, copyright does not protect ideas, it protects the expression of those ideas. A plot summary is a new expression of the ideas it contains. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, this plot summary is probably original research (yes, yes, I know than 99% if film articles are doing exactly this, including some I have written, but still...)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

OR isn't good, but primary sourced is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the "not available outside North America" argument. It's available in the UK, and has been since 02:00 Gricehead (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

WP-custom is that when it is released it's "up for grabs", this goes for Marvel-films released in Europe before US etc. WP-custom is also that this will annoy someone [1].Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding plot summaries, they are their own, separate animals. THey are likely the only things that don't require sourcing but instead rely on group consensus for inclusion. That's made for some pretty annoying Lame flame wars, but it ends up being kinda beautiful when everyone finally agrees on a final version; to me, that's the second best part of Wikipedia.

Gricehead - Uk is part of the world, but it isn't the whole of the world (don't believe those silly BrExiteers). The ep wasn't immediately available to other places, like Indonesia and FarEast Asia.The Wiki-EN is read by English speakers in those places as well.

So, I am too narrowly interpreting the views on copyright infringement? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It would appear so.--WaltCip (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"posting the plot summary potentially deprives the makers of broadcast revenue internationally". I don't think we generally care even a single bit about the studio's profits (or lack thereof) are affected by WP:NPOV encyclopediac content. Same as we don't polish or hide negative details of movie stars, or corporate shenanigans that affect their sales or stockholder value. It's analogous to WP:SPOILER. Definitely not copyvio (as others have mentioned).DMacks (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Rest assured, our posting plot summaries and other details of television shows helps, not hurts, the studios' bottom lines. I'm sure they're very grateful for our comprehensive, up-to-date coverage of their products. – Levivich 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. I see the points each of you have made; I disagree with them somewhat. So, the consensus is that the possible copyright infringement isn't a big deal, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the point everyone here is trying to make to you is that plot summaries are not copyright infringement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

...as long as they are relatively short, that is. IANAL, but someone who is said "At some point, if you put in enough details, and if your summary takes several pages of text, you run the risk of being accused of creating a derivative work."[2] Fram (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Wait, were you thinking I was tilting at windmills about the use of plot summaries?? Noooo. It was solely the timing of the plot summary posting that I took issue with. I had really tried to make that clear.

The copyright infringement comes in when a plot summary is posted before it is available to the general Wiki-EN public. Since the plot summary was posted well before it could be broadcasted for the first time in other countries, it interfered with their ability to profit from their work. It was about fairness and not acting like a torrent site. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In reply to this and your earlier point on the UK, Indonesia and "FarEast Asia", I'm fairly sure most copyrighted content in English isn't generally available to a big chunk of the English speaking population of North Korea. And North Korea has been party to the Berne convention since 2003 Copyright law of North Korea and Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course the more relevant point is perhaps that AFAIK, effect on the profit of a copyright holder only matters if what you are using is affected by the holder's copyright, and you are claiming the legal defence of fair use or in considering damages from your illicit use. If neither apply, and they shouldn't here since this should be freely licence content not NFCC content, then it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You may suggest those in North Korea who don't have access to copyrighted work also don't have access to the English wikipedia which I'm sure is generally true although I suspect there are cases where it's not and there's also the question over whether it matters. Maybe a better example is China and other countries where AFAIK legal availability of some works of fiction can be limited [3] but where the English wikipedia is available (or was until recently in the case of China). I would add while things have improved somewhat in recent years due to the risk of copyright infringement when released are staggered too much, in some cases where still talking about months before something is available in a number of countries again with access to the English wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Publishing the plot summary makes it less likely that people will download or stream the episode, as it has been ruined for them. Broadcasters lose revenue."has nothing to do with "We have infringed on their copyright" (whether or not it's true in and of itself). Copyright infringement is about copying someone else's work, and retelling a summary of a plot in one's own words is not that, regardless of the time lapse between the two or the commercial implications. Deprivation of revenue does not make something copyright infringement. We don't have an obligation to directly preserve HBO's bottom line (or anyone else's) beyond generally acting lawfully. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems less about whether or not releasing the plot early is copyright infringement (as it is quite clear that it isn't) but more about whether or not we SHOULD release the plot early to an audience that hasn't received the actual story yet. And truly I don't think it matters if we stay perfectly WP:NPOV. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I asked for some opinion on how to approach the matter and - after some clarifications - I got it. THanks, folks. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot

user:RonBot and it's owner (and admin) user:Ronhjones haven't edited since early April. One of RonBot's tasks is taking care of Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old and without the bot keeping it clear it a tedious, time-consuming job. The backlog was up to 600+ yesterday and myself and others cleared it but it's now back at the 200 mark again. I've tried contacting Ron but without success so I don't know if his absence is temporary or long-term but is there anyone who could takeover RonBot or create another bot to deal with this task at least? Nthep (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: - probably worth also posting this on WP:VPT. Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There was some kind of userscript by Legoktm that allows one to quick-process these files, does someone know if it still works? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It still works but it's still time consuming dealing with 200 files rather than just those a bot has flagged up as needing a human check. Nthep (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like more features added to the userscript just let me know and I can do my best. Legoktm (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot, the code was created by DatGuy and was just run by RonBot because it needed admin rights. As such, I imagine any admin-bot operator could just take over using the freely available source. Also according to the BRFA, DeltaQuad was working on something similar, so she might be interested in taking over. Regards SoWhy 12:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging some other operators of admin bots: @MusikAnimal and Anomie: --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can file to take over that. If anyone wants any other image tasks continued, I can file for those too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is task #1 but if you want to file for #2, #3, #4 & #14 too that's great by me. Nthep (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: 2, 4, and 11 require some modules I am not aware of, and therefore it would also be harder for me to fix when broken. If someone else takes them, I won't have an issue, as I'll need time (something I don't have much of). #3 I could look at taking over without issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I can reimplement some of those. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Adminbot request

Just to call it out here per our normal process, a request for an admin to run an adminbot has been filed at WP:BRFA. Any commentary is welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 6. Thank you, xaosflux for WP:BAG 17:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Help wanted with large and growing account creation backlog

The backlog of account creation requests presently exceeds 4 months and is growing. The assistance of multiple experienced Wikipedians (administrators or otherwise) is needed to keep up with the pace of incoming requests and work down the backlog. The delay is now long enough that many potential new editors may be losing interest due to the lack of response. The account creation process is important for recruiting users who are unable to create an account themselves as a result of being unable to complete a captcha, trying to register an account name too similar to the many existing account names, or who are trying to make good-faith contributions from a shared IP address that is subject to a block.

I am helping to work through these requests myself now but it will take multiple new people becoming involved to deal with the volume of requests.

Details on what is involved -- and how to sign up -- are at WP:ACC/Guide.

UninvitedCompany 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I registered for an account on the day you posted this. I'd be glad to help but since I haven't received anything yet, I presume there's a backlog on that end as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I apparently have an account, but it was deactivated for inactivity (makes sense). Sent an email to the given address on Wednesday but haven't heard back yet either. ST47 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Nv8200pa

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Nv8200pa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Mkdw, AGK, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, Premeditated Chaos, SilkTork

For the Arbitration Committee; Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Nv8200pa

Quality rating

Not yet an incident, and not really sure where to find the relevant policy. Say I wrote a start class article, and then unilaterally awarded it a B class quality rating. Is this acceptable? On first look, it seems to me that I am circumventing peer review, but I may be ignorant of policy. Seeking guidance before I shoot myself in the foot and raise an issue. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Um ... Why would you do that? Miniapolis 22:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume this relates to BlueBorne (security vulnerability)? An author shouldn't be assessing their own articles, but in the scheme of things it's not something I'm going to start issuing warnings or blocks for. The assessment scale is a legacy of the early days when the plan was to publish print and CD-ROM versions of Wikipedia and we needed a method to filter out content that was good enough quality to be included; nowadays, it makes not the slightest difference whether an article is listed as "B-class" or "start-class". ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent that most of the content ratings are pointless, but I don't see any problem with people assessing their own work. As long as people don't assess their own work as a Good Article or Featured Article, who cares? If they do a poor job of assessing articles, they might be asked to stop. So, until one has a good idea of assessment criteria, it might be best to avoid rating anything as "B class". Some people take this stuff seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There's literally no difference between a start class and a B class unless you're a part of MILHIST (and that is not a knock on them. They're just one of the few wikiprojects that takes it seriously still.) TBallioni (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - this discussion may (or may not) be related to a recent discussion on my talk-page - at => "User talk:Drbogdan#Peer review" (please see copy below) - my response to the issue is copied below as well - hope this helps clarify the current concern - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Copied from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drbogdan&action=edit&section=16":

-- Peer review --

Hi. I earlier came across an article you created and then you subsequently gave a quality rating of "B". It was, on review and according to that project's quality scale, a Start class article, perhaps a very generous C. It is unusual to see articles rated by their creator or largest contributor, so I was intrigued by your user page list of "My created Articles". I was dismayed to see that you have rated all of your own articles as B class, without regard for the criteria. Would you agree that this is most unusual, and that you have circumvented the peer review process..? Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: Thank you for your comments - I had no idea at the time that there was such a process - or that the article creator could not grade created articles - I do now - thank you for letting me know this - I was wondering at the time why the articles did not seem to be graded by anyone - and thought the best way to get the process started was to grade the articles myself - and then be corrected with better rankings by someone more knowledgeable about the ranking system than I - I would not contest a responsible ranking of articles by someone who seemed to know the process - hope this explanation helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and for letting me know there is such a review process - and that there are those who are able to responsibly rank the articles - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not looking for warnings, I'm looking for policy. If the consensus is that there is no problem here, I'm cool with that.I'm about to write a shit ton of B class articles however :D Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I treat those ratings as somewhat meaningful but I wouldn't go all wikilawyer about it. Just post a note on the talk page saying you think the article doesn't meet level B quality standards because of XYZ, and that you want to revert it to start class. If no response within a few days, revert the rating. Otherwise engage in discussion. It's just like anything else. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My recollection from past discussions on this issue is that self-assessment is generally considered ok for anything up to B class. Above that, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

An article I wrote had its class downgraded and I asked about it here. It turns out there is a script which automates ratings (details at link). According to it, the probability of BlueBorne (security vulnerability) being B class is 0.19 while C is 0.22 and Start is 0.44. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the kind of issue that would need to escalate pretty spectacularly before it's relevant to AN(/I). FA and GA have an associated community process that regulates how they may be assigned and on what criteria. Some WikiProjects (e.g. WP:MILHIST) have a process for A-class. Some WikiProjects have criteria for B-class, but some WikiProjects do not use the B-class rating at all. Most WikiProjects use the common WP1.0 criteria for Stub, Start, and C-class, but there is no fixed process for assigning them: anyone can do so based on an assessment against the criteria (and editors can disagree as with everything else here). After the WP1.0 project was abandoned, the point of these ratings (except GA/FA which have wider scope) is to organise and track the work of a WikiProject. They have no mainspace significance, but messing with them or misrating an article will be disruptive to those WikiProjects and editors that do make use of them. Assessing an article as B-class that clearly does not meet the criteria for it is annoying; rating multiple articles incorrectly is rapidly moving into disruptive editing. --Xover (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Decided to clear the "B" ratings I noted in my created articles - this seems to add "???" (instead of "B") to the rating - which may be a preferred ranking notification - until a better ranking is assigned by an editor more familiar with the associated WikiProject - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, could that script please be shut off? If machines are going to grade the articles, they should write the damn articles too. I don't want to give them ideas though. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The script is based on WP:ORES, which is a handy little quality estimator. It's useful to, for example, get a rough idea from a set of similar articles which ones are most in need of improvement. I don't think anybody, including the creator, would argue that we should be relying on it without human judgment. Quite the opposite. It's a neat tool, but overestimates in some ways, underestimates in other ways, and demands consideration of context. As for the assessments in general, it's just another thing that can be decided by consensus where it's controversial (aside from GA, FA, and others that require a more formal process, like A-class for the WikiProjects that use that). I would dispute the original case above should actually be considered B. Looks like a classic "start" to me, but that can be determined on the talk page. I have no problem with someone assessing their own work, though. We have very few people who actually go around to other people to do those assessments, and if you don't reassess, chances are nobody will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible to get these IPs in a range block

I'm not well-versed on IP6's and rangeblocks, so if someone with a little expertise could help out that would be great. There's a site-banned user (Hidden Tempo) who is using rotating IPs for disruption on various talk and user talk pages. Here are a few of the recent IPs:

• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B056:5109:9503:2656:FE4B:EC23
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B022:729:B1E5:69BB:D07F:D909
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B021:4650:B955:FB91:1DF3:9A1
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B026:364E:187B:95BB:973:C19D

User:Bishonen can also confirm that this is the banned user...there's also an AN/I thread somewhere in the archives.

Is it possible to construct a range block that would block whatever stock of IPs this user is using? ~Awilley (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B056:5109:9503:2656:FE4B:EC23/41 is the range (that’s wide). It looks like it has a fair amount of collateral behaviourally. I’ll leave it up to you if it’s disruptive enough for a short block. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was helpful, thank you. A short block probably wouldn't be worth it. It's more of a long term abuse situation. ~Awilley (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Help requested on complex cross-wiki spam sockpuppet investigation

So, I just wandered onto Wikidata, checked my own contributions and found fr:Special:Contributions/MonsieurJohannes was busy creating spam pages on the French Wikipedia for the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu sockfarm. I also found out that some of the spam pages (NoxPlayer, Somdip Dey, SnatchBot software) had been created and edited by other sockpuppets and SPAs on other wikis - some obviously fitting the username generating algorithm used by Japanelemu, some blocked as socks under different masters, some neither. Some of these previously undiscovered socks have contributions on en.wp or have created other articles on foreign language Wikipedias that were also spam.

Example: SnatchBot software created by obvious Japanelemu sockpuppet Banglipompo here and MonsieurJohannes on fr.wp. jp:SnatchBot created by Keke1970 who also created jp:PMインターナショナル and jp:レジストラー・コープ. Both pages have a substantial cross-wiki presence - PM-International and Registrar Corp USA were created by obvious UPE socks, pl:PM-International was created by obvious sockpuppet Lithumagin, ru:PM-International AG was created by Luxembompamu (a blocked sock in a different investigation) and sv:PM-International AG by blocked Japanelemu sock Italiemek. All three of those accounts have spammed en.wp.

A non-admin mop

I don't think I can finish this investigation alone. Much of the evidence has already been nuked under G5, so admin tools are desired. MER-C 11:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• No admin tools but I'll pitch in with my non-admin mop. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

IP 2401:7400:C802:1A7:C95C:4334:46DF:BAD9 blanking Teahouse

Is there an administrator around who can block IP 2401:7400:C802:1A7:C95C:4334:46DF:BAD9? I've already posted something at WP:AIV and someone responded that it's probably a case of WP:LTA. The IP just keeps blanking the Teahouse over and over again, so if blocking isn't an option then maybe WP:PP the Teahouse is. For what it's worth, I didn't notify the IP of my post at AIV or here because it seems obvious that they only interested in WP:DE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: The account was blocked by Zzuuzz. The LTA concerns were raised by LightandDark2000, so perhaps there's a way to try and sort that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64, which will hopefully suffice for a day. The last vandalism from the /48 was 12 days ago. I've taken a look at the wider range, but I'll leave any further range block for others at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Jerzy

So, we have an administrator that was ArbComBlock-ed almost two weeks ago. Is this the correct state of affairs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. See JerzyA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). El_C 14:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For reference, it was discussed at ANI a couple of weeks back before being semi-formally kicked to ArbCom. Archive is here. Also has some examples of the "contributions" that were being made there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed on the functionaries list, but usually when an account is subject to an {{ArbCom block}} there is a very very good reason for it and it is something that should not be discussed in public. ArbCom hates adding to its workload so when they make something appealable only to them it should be taken seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the expectation is that an admin would be defrocked in these circumstances, not merely blocked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

They were asked to contact the Committee by email. It's possible they have just yet to do so. El_C 18:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since admins can no longer unblock themselves any blocked admin is de facto not an admin, so I don't see the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

El C is correct. Jerzy has not yet contacted us (neither account has email enabled) and until we can verify that he's in control of the admin account, we placed an arbcom block. We didn't think it would take this long. A desysop is likely if he doesn't get in touch. If so, I'll lift the block after that. Katie^talk 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Didn’t a very similar situation happen a while ago? 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, Centrx was blocked and desysopped after posting silly questions on the Main Page. It was an obvious case of a compromised account or an admin gone rogue. I'm seeing nothing of the sort in Jerzy's recent contributions; as far as I can imagine, the worst possible interpretation of the diffs presented at ANI is that he's decided he needs an enforced break and wants to make absolutely sure that he gets that enforced break without doing any significant damage. Yes, we shouldn't tolerate people persistently adding nonsense of this sort, but it really is harmless compared to dumping "What is the Big Lebowski" right at the top of the main page or compared to most of the other things that will lead to you getting blocked and desysopped quickly. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I was more reffering to the strangeness of his ranting on his alt accounts talk page, which seemed similar to the ranting that Centrx did. I wasn't talking about anything his main account did. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I never saw any strange ranting by Centrx, or anything strange beyond those questions, but I didn't look into the situation, so I can't speak to this statement. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

softlavender

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – this is not a forum for content disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

She deleted 2 paragraphs from Kitchen_sink_realism which is a small page already, citing the 2 paragraphs as a personal essay, which is absurd. Instead of simply adding citation needed tags, she deleted them. I have made a revert and added citations to both paragraphs now, but I have a feeling she will delete them again for some spurious reason as she has done so before. Please can you prevent this from happening? Cardbottleenvelope (talk)

A) Per WP:BURDEN info in an article must have sourcing or it can be removed by any editor. B) This is a content dispute and does not belong on this notice board. You are free to start a thread on the articles talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits welcome to post-CSD notices

As mentioned here last month, I've been (slowly) working on adding to Twinkle the ability for sysops to automatically notify users upon CSD deletion. I've created the corresponding templates, and wanted to make folks aware of them so it's not just me writing them. You can read more at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Edits welcome to new post-CSD notices, but the tl;dr is that I'd appreciate any changes anyone sees fit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC – Global ban for Meister und Margarita

• Meister und Margarita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have created a RfC at Meta for User:Meister und Margarita, a member of this community. The RfC can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita. All are invited to participate. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dead notice board

Hi, I made a report to this notice board Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and when I scrolled up I saw that there is no one replying there. No admins or experienced editors answering the reports there. Why?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Similar complaint in 2016. It should probably be marked historical? –xeno^talk 23:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, I see people there going back to 2008 or so...no special reason for admins to be there, though. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I picked one or two reports on the board. Rather than responding on the noticeboard, editors and admins go straight to the article in question and answer/address the questions/issues there. Not regularly, but enough to suggest that the board does have its uses. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• If responders aren't going to confirm they've handled it on-board, then that should be made extremely clear at the top. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

On User:It's gonna be awesome/Chinese Communist Party has invaded Chinese Wikipedia

Obviously, User:It's gonna be awesome is libeling others, and he was already been blocked due to libeling and personal attacking. This is a x-wiki issue. he did almost the same thing on Zhwp. --Humbleblue (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Your reaction tells everything. Time is precious. I will just contact the Foundation. Additionally, I think the article is quite well-sourced and has been backed up successfully. It is better to restore the article to let the general public decide whether or not it's an attack or a public issues for sure. BTW, just wanna ask whether or not Humbleblue is from mainland China and how did you reach here. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  No, we do not let the general public decide whether something is an attack, or otherwise violates our policies. In order to protect Wikipedia, we keep out things like libel, personal attacks and other things that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. You may argue that something does not violate a policy, but that is for the community and the Foundation to decide. - Donald Albury 11:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • • Thanks for the reply. Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10:Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

The deleted article collected actually up to 50 sources and many more sources yet to come. Moreover, if the number of internal links that redirected readers to Chinese Wikipedia had been counted, the total amount of sources would exceed 100 approximately. Thus, a review is strongly recommended. However, I know time is precious for everyone. So I may not keep arguing here. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Indeffed for endless soapboxing (see also Draft:China threat theory, Cult of Xi Jinping, Chuan Ping, Category:Political prisoner in China, Category:People who were forced disappeared), blatant personal attacks on named editors and named living individuals (see deleted page in the section header), and obviously not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You may want to review their subpages, which has copies of China threat theory and Cult of Xi Jinping.--Auric talk 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Upload request

Hey, I have an upload request (requires admin rights to upload the new version) in File talk:Extended-protection-shackle.svg, I used {{Edit request}} but User:Spintendo keeps removing it on the grounds that it's not "edit" and it's "upload". Please take a look. The change is almost invisible to naked eye. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, {{edit request}} is the wrong template for such requests; you want {{Edit fully protected}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

On an aside, I don't really understand why our basic edit request template {{edit request}} is apparently for COI editing..... --Izno (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the template. Yes that's a good point. Why COI for such a basic template. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

quick check of deleted article

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

---

Can someone with admin eyes tell me what Harold Drotning contained when it was deleted? I'm trying to see if it had any sort of copyvio on it. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a very short stub - basically "was an US Army officer who won the Distinguished Service Cross" and then the citation for the medal. If you'd like it restoring let me know. GiantSnowman 13:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikisource import

Do we have any admins with import rights on Wikisource? I came to this issue after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full translation of the Behistun Inscription closed as transwiki to Wikisource. I've put {{Copy to Wikisource}} on the article, but I notice that Category:Copy to Wikisource has items in it that have been there for many years. No one seems to be patrolling the cat to take the necessary action. SpinningSpark 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably Billinghurst (talk · contribs), or he would point you in the right direction. Whether it is acceptable is another question, there has historically been a lot of resistance to text that difficult to verify (or even if it has been), and that is understandable as there is a lot of fiddling to get it into mainspace. cygnis insignis [used to work there] 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)