Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297

Azman
Hi, I can't create the Azman article because that name was protected 10 years ago due to vandalism. Would anyone please be able to unprotect it so I can create the article? Thank you! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooofh, the protecting admin,, was the editor who welcomed me to Wikipedia and has sadly been inactive for over two years I'll remove the protection - TNT❤ 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you email him, if only to say hi. Who knows, he may come back. Thanks for removing the protection! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We got a troll editor on the loose
Look at what this person is doing to VeggieTales in the City and VeggieTales in the House https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/826070753 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/824015681 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823393379 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823394835 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/821493284 I think we should block this person from editing Makkat1 (talk) 10:56, 22 February, 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Those edits do not appear to be vandalism. Fish +Karate  09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My reading is that those series premiered on Netflix in 2014 and 2017. I don't think either existed in 2008 so they could not have been shown on some other channel then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's another one. It appears to be a UK series from 2013. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_%26_Duck&diff=prev&oldid=826073959] Zero reason to think it aired on a US network in 2005. Note look carefully at the dates above, it seems the above articles at least has a history of this silliness. See also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VeggieTales_in_the_City&diff=823827566&oldid=823394966]. I'm normally the first to yell WP:Content dispute but this does look a lot to me like something which isn't in good faith even if a few of the edits of that IP look okay. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe posting a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television should be the first step. can you prove how each of those edits constitutes trolling? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't trolling, it's definitely wrong information. -- Jayron 32 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-mobile diffs:
 * Users:
 * IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh 666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh 666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh 666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh 666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

George Soros Discretionary Sanctions?
Hello Admins. Seems to me we could use DS templates for BLP and American Politics at the George Soros article.  SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 04:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK vandalism
appears to be a sock of, given repeated false addition of the name "Richard Madenfort" to articles. I also suspect some WP:TEND is in effect, given their edit summaries of "Because the music union doesn't know who to pay?". The "Richard Madenfort" vandalism has gone back for several years; see Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935. There is no concrete proof that Richard Madenfort played on any of these songs. Lee Brice (album) is one of the targeted articles, and according to Allmusic, no one named Richard Madenfort played on the album. Given the evidence here, is there a way that we can add "Richard Madenfort" to the edit filter? Because this has been an ongoing vandalism for so long, and the person's constant use of IP ranges makes blocking ineffectual. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the sources you claim isn't reliable is the music union responsible for paying who played on the album.


 * https://www.afmsagaftrafund.org/covered-rec-artist_SR_Master.php?a=MTA2OTg0&b=VEhBVCBET04nVCBTT1VORCBMSUtFIFlPVQ%3D%3D&c=QlJJQ0UgTEVF&s=Rg%3D%3D


 * Which is also why guys like Kevin swine Grantt are listed as Mark Grantt. You can't pay fake names, just legal names. 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * then why does literally no other source on the entire Internet use the name "Richard Madenfort" or any variant thereof? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Allmusic sucks. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. But you seem to be deflecting the issue - you are removing sourced content because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Why is he being paid royalties for songs he didn't play on?


 * Who is more reliabe - a free site that everyone knows is full of errors, or a site that lists actual payroll but doesn't get indexed by google? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, https://lyrics007.com/artist/lee-brice/TlRRd05qRXo= does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results.207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A music union website is most definitely not a reliable source. You would do well to actually read WP:RS to see how we define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I am not going to bother to read a page that says allmusic is a better source than afm-sag-aftra for determining who worked on an album.


 * So you're telling me that he can delete information found on the album booklet on one album, and the actual work logs of a second... while using one word edit summaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=That_Don%27t_Sound_Like_You&diff=next&oldid=800787550 ), and that is acceptable.
 * But a payroll site isn't acceptable? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some guy removes an entire personnel section with one a one word edit summary, "no". Then removes another entire personnel section with a one word edit summary, "no". He removes 3 personnel sections with "no". And then, when someone looks, you see its all sourced. But they aren't just sourced, they are sourced from a non-wiki site - the SAG-AFTRA site.


 * It's not until you look at his editing history do you see that a longer edit summary exists. How are users of one article to know what his intentions are with those one word entries? Does everyone need to hunt his edit history to understand, or does the burden fall on him to provide those edit summaries? And why would anyone not accept sag-aftra as a reliable source?


 * Basically, entire personnel lists get removed because allmusic(which is full of errors) doesn't list him. And I am the one being given a "only warning" for reverting someone's section blanking of sourced content. All because of some 11 year old report... because it is impossible for someone to get a job in 11 years.


 * Maybe you're right. Maybe this isn't the place for me. Aren't encyclopedias to be fact-based? Yet, the very people responsible for paying workers is not considered acceptable, but one word section blanking is.


 * And nobody is answering the question - why is he being paid for an album if he didn't work on it? 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just punched his name into google (I usually do not use google). The knowledge graph seems to think he was the bass player for Alice cooper. Does this mean Google is also in on the "hoax"? Not that it matters, because I have already been given my 'warning' and am going to lose editing privileges. 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So, instead of waiting around all day for a response; Pretend for a minute that TenPoundHammer wasn't your buddy. And you saw him "section blanking" sourced content using a one-word edit summary, "no". What would you have done? Then he does it again and again. What would you have done to someone who was not your buddy?


 * And then you also see him section blanking sourced content but used a longer edit summary, "clearly unreliable sources, presence of "richard madenfort" indicates that at least some of this was faked", but how does one fake that content from that source? And, as previously asked, why would that source get it wrong? Clearly someone has a personal bias against this person, but the entire personnel list on these articles are being removed. I mean, how many personnel sections cite no source at all, but here you have them being removed for being sourced?


 * And then, when this inappropriate removal of content was reverted: I have been called a sock for adding content (I view adding content and reverting content as separate issues). How would you react if I called him underwear for removing the content in the first place? And I was given a "final warning" with the threat of losing the ability to edit. How does any of this make sense? I am in trouble for reverting someone's inappropriate section blanking. And, again, as previously mentioned, a copy of the liner notes and a site responsible for paying workers is considered unreliable? 207.148.4.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the sources, but as for the IP's behavior...rangeblock, anyone?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To 207.148.4.114: If someone reverts you you open a discussion on the article talk page. It's that simple. See WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. While edit summaries are useful, you should not be using them as a substitute for discussion. And we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here at ANI, so there is zero point explaining why you were right in the content dispute and the other editor was wrong. Also per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it rarely helps support your case complaining about what other articles do. As I said above, WP:Verifiability and WP:RS are very basic parts of wikipedia. If you aren't willing to follow them, if you aren't even willing to get a basic understanding of what they mean by a quick read, you probably don't belong here. Yes encyclopaedias including wikipedia are facts based, but we have found the best way to ensure we have facts is to rely on reliable sources to support these facts, not trust what some random person says is a fact. (Also we don't have to include all facts. As I said earlier, the fact someone's legal name may be ABC doesn't mean ABC is what we will say in the article if they normally go by XYZ.)  Frankly I have no idea why you think TPH is anyone's buddy. AFAIK they have never been particularly popular at the ANs definitely I have never had the greatest impression of them. But that's neither here nor there, most of us at least try to put aside our personal feelings about an editor and look at the locus of the dispute.  When one editor appears to be suggesting that they don't have to worry about sourcing, that editor is never going to come across well. (And the Google thing is particularly stupid. Google just takes their info from various places including wikipedia itself. They don't have to be 'in' on any hoax. The 'hoax' just has to have been wide enough that Google accidentally learnt it. And all this is besides the point since many of us have no idea whether there is a hoax because as I said, we don't rule on content disputes. All we know is that you need proper sourcing.)  Again, use the article talk page. Please don't complain that someone else didn't initiate discussion. You do it. And make sure you understand the basics like what a reliable source is, why we often avoid primary sources, and the need for anything which may be disputed to be supported by a reliable source. Because if you don't and think we should just trust you because you say something is a fact, you are liable to find complete opposition to your proposal when you initiate discussion.  Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

But he didn't revert my edits. I reverted his! Which, of course, is why he then reverted my edits gave me a warning and brought me here.

He has no business removing information sourced from the album cover. If you guys think SAG-AFTRA isn't a reliable source for information, fine. But an album cover?

So at least get it right - I reverted him. 144.202.66.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening
John from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2 just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving this . I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested or  to shut it down for the procedural issues  (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon:
 * I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.
 * This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2 in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was in charge of English  at  one time for  a group of 47 Catholic high  schools in  an archdiocese and also  lectured linguistics in  a Major Seminary. Without  any  relevance to  my  own religeous leanings (if indeed I  have any), I  have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on  the fence  when having  to discuss our guidelines with  one of their members. I would appeal  to  to  understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community  consensus in  which he is misiterpreting - in  good faith - the way  we work  on  Wikipedia. And as  so  often says, the project coordinators at  WP:WPSCH are only  janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.
 * If you are going to keep the "etc." at WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, which goes beyond the Wikipedia official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. 32.218.34.240 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you
 * Read the 2008 discussion about a similar issue?
 * Notify WT:WPSCHOOLS and Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, as well as any other venues you previously notified. It would be best if you could list every notice you placed in a comment to the RFC.
 * If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.
 * Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018   Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.
 * In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Wikipedia, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.
 * 1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Wikipedia; far from it.
 * 2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?
 * 3) Common use? Common understanding?
 * a)
 * b) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
 * --Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your (usual) evasive reply would seem to me to reflect WP:IDHT. Try reading all three lines of point number 3. And, again, THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES, no matter what canvassing you do. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Panel requested for a discussion closure

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

I know I already posted this at WP:ANRFC, but I think posting it here as well would give it more eyes (plus this is more of a request to get volunteers together to help close than to actually close it right then and there).

Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown needs closing, and a panel of at least three uninvolved editors is recommended since the discussion is rather contentious. Initially, we had me,, , and ; WBoG and Ammparad later recused and Primefac said he wouldn't be needed in the decision-making process (though that may've changed given WBoG's recent recusal).

Since I am the only one left and I absolutely cannot close the discussion alone, I am asking for at least two uninvolved volunteers, preferably admins, who are willing to help out. And sorry if this seems like canvassing; that was not my intention. Sky Warrior  15:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If no one signs up, I can take a look. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm experienced with closing RMs, and would be fine dealing with it. If it is to be a panel, I'd prefer another experienced RM closer as the process there is typically a lot more nuanced than in other discussion venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine,, twist me feckin' arm... Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope others will notice anyway that I've raised this at the RM, but just to save time I'll also point out here that a close might currently be premature, and that a panel might be neither needed nor advisable. But we'll certainly need at least one uninvolved admin to close... again in my opinion. And many of the RM regulars (self included) are involved. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Vandalism on biography
There is a malicious sockpuppet who keeps trying to add negative tabloid journalism onto Nam Joo-hyuk's page.

Here is the sockpuppet removing references and adding negative BLP material: After it was blocked, it keeps on returning as IP address to vandalise the page:. Looking at the page's history, there has been long-term vandalism of the page by the sockpuppet dating back to last year: by various socks of the same user. Is there a way to protect the page from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.203.211 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, so I've forwarded it to the correct place to handle these requests - Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been protected in such a way that for the next 3 months, the only users who can edit it are those whose accounts are over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Off wiki harassment
///. This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Wikipedia are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a setlist.fm page that was clearly vandalized by them.

Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled.  certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything.  There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock.  And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked.  It is literally impossible for an English Wikipedia administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that.  As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR.  Someone there will tell you if it's possible.  If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787.  I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy) is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Help the Anti-Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build
Hello everybody! Reminder that the discussion to select the improvements to the blocking tools is going on. Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A stub on Somdip Dey. Is it worthy?
Somdip Dey's primary work has been creation of several QR code encryption methods, which has been published. He also created the first prototype and led research in usage of QR code in transcripts and degree certificates, which are now slowly getting popular around the world. His work has popularised the data security in the field of QR code. Is it worth creating a stub on Somdip Dey, so that people know his contribution to this field?

Some of his noteworthy work: 1) Confidential Encrypted Data Hiding and Retrieval Using QR Authentication System 2) New generation of digital academic-transcripts using encrypted QR code™: Use of encrypted QR code™ in mark-sheets (academic transcripts) 3) Advanced Steganography Algorithm Using Randomized Intermediate QR Host Embedded With Any Encrypted Secret Message: ASA_QR Algorithm 4) SD-EQR: A New Technique To Use QR CodesTM in Cryptography: Use of QR CodesTM In Data Hiding and Securing

Somdip Dey's Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=KaCa2MgAAAAJ&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.15.48.211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion: "" As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion:, , and  ( is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * how would you disambiguate Abraham Lincoln if he appeared in a disambiguation page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board.  Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add.  As is JFK (disambiguation).  Fish +Karate  09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:
 * A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
 * An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
 * An explanation of what consensus means on Wikipedia, and what led him to believe he could ignore it
 * Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. — swpb T go beyond 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk?  There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance.  Fish +Karate  15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. — swpb T go beyond 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, with the understanding that should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-
 * The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
 * - "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
 * Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
 * Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. [..] Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
 * The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
 * If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy.  Mini  apolis  23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It sounds like he's willing to follow consensus, even if maybe he doesn't agree with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral. (piping in only because I was pinged above) - As I mentioned at some point, I don't DAB as much as I used to.  The "Qualified Support" comment above probably comes closest to my opinion.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Block required
Please block and revert all edits immediately. They are a WP:DUCK sock of /, repeatedly changing song genres to "bro-country" and vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson. I would also propose some kind of edit filter to stop their edits, because I had to deal with one of their socks just yesterday and don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole every time they show up. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like they are blocked and none of their edits is the current revision. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible hateful/vitriolic content in userspace?
So I found this very old sandbox from 2013 that contains some very hateful content in it. Should it be nuked? The user is indef'd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just gone and blanked it. Leaving it to the admin corps to decide whether it is worth deleting. Or it could go to MFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ...And I lost my innocence. If I were an admin, I'd delete it. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's run of the mill idiocy. But it's also a copyvio so nuked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Samee - Automated tool use
I started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Wikipedia. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand?  That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.
 * Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers.  samee  talk 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you.  The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here.  This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert].  samee  talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus  09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll. Thanks!  samee  talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Block for review
has blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action for personal attacks after acting on a spurious report filed by a suspected wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor that is quacking loud, but still causing much disruption by taking wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and trying to get rid of the user he wikihounds as soon as its possible.

Reportedly, as per the SPI, reporting editor was disruptively wikihounding MapSGV because MapSGV was working on an article that has been considerably disrupted by the sockmaster of this suspected sock.

Under such evidenced harassment, what really made Sandstein act on a such a deceptive and one-sided report?

I had already described the fallacy of this report on ARE. A good judgement would be if Sandstein had treated the deceptive report as spurious and/or blocked the filer as a WP:DUCK sock. While the block is not ARE related, his comments on ARE are problematic, where he is claiming that those who have low edit count(223) but if they are aware of Wikipedia policies then it is alright to falsely accuse them of being a sock, despite the user in question was editing and was notified of all policies since 2014. Bringing up edit count is also doesn't matter per WP:COUNTITIS.

Why Sandstein didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence, personal attacks and article disruption but singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as Sandstein claims. Sandstein went a step ahead with his misjudgment when he said that MapSGV should be topic banned if unblocked, but we really don't sanction competent editors for safeguarding disruptive incompetent editors.

It seems that civil POV pushing is indeed crossing the heights that you would get blocked even if you are criticizing misrepresentation of sources, disruptive POV pushing, having false allegations of socking and other facing other sorts of disruption from others including socks. Are we actually encouraging such deceptive civil POV pushing and that competent editors should be blocked only because they have been falsely accused of incivility, while they are responding to false accusations by incompetent editors and socks?

For all these reasons I find this block to be a bad block and support unblock. I posted this block review since I had commented on the original report and MapSGV himself requested for an ANI review. Lorstaking (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Overturn clearly a horrible block. Lack of evidence of personal attacks, and I see nothing but only logical responses from MapSGV to those who are engaging in WP:IDHT, WP:DE and WP:NPA. The suspected sock (Elektricity) had also wikihounded my contributions and then filed a malicious report ANI against me which was never taken seriously by others. But I wonder now, maybe Sandstein would've indeffed me because I was being targeted by a Wikihounding disruptive editor who is trying to be a Civil POV pusher. will you overturn the block already? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * <ec>I've just come from MapSGV's talk page, where I've asked Sandstein to reconsider the duration of the block. Indef seems too long, even if the block reasons were valid. However, I feel MapSGV was more likely the harrassee than the harrasser, and that the matter needs fuller discussion.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But he was being wikihounding and the harasser was just engaging in disruptive editing and is likely to be blocked for socking for topic ban evasion. How could Sandstein trust on his deceptive report without looking at reply of everyone else? also assumed that SPI needs to be resolved first. Lorstaking (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural decline unblockThis should be handled by discussion with Sandstein, and we should close this thread until he has the opportunity to discuss it with the blocked user. There is absolutely no reason for this to be brought to AN by a user other than the one who has been blocked when a standard unblock appeal is pending and Sandstein hasn't even had the opportunity to respond. Turning this into a tempest when it can be handled through the normal channels is not good for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AN was suggested by NeilN, if no agreement has been reached on MapSGv's talk page then we can just reopen this thread. Do you agree? Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * to me it looks like made a procedural note. He did not suggest you bring it here. Also, I'd prefer this go through the regular unblock template process. There is nothing extraordinary about this to make it require a review at AN, and I think it is awfully unfair to Sandstein for someone who isn't even blocked to be questioning his actions without so much as talking to him. Taking a block review to AN while a unblock template is still pending is highly irregular, and we normally don't review simple admin blocks here. There is no reason to suspect that the normal unblock process will not work in this case, and I'd prefer it be handled that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And the Edit-War of the Month Award goes to ...
. They've both breached 20RR (sic), and, who knows better, has neither reported the user nor engaged in article-talk discussion (nor even remotely explained his reversions). Could someone put an end to this nonsense? Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: has been blocked by  as NOTHERE. So we can all relax and enjoy the Oscars (in a few days), for some more interesting Awards. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , actually, I did – this is an obvious sock, and I've tried to explain this anywhere that I can. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion – it just took ages for someone to actually see it. As for the humour, I'm really not in the mood. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppets of blocked users are exemptions from 3RR, and the other user is blocked (although not for SP), so I'd say wait for the SPI to conclude and then come back to this. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I sent the AIV report to SPI. I'm not familiar with the user and it gave us nothing to go off of. SPI is better suited for reports as it will likely have admins who are familiar with the user watching the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban appeal by Twitbookspacetube
An appeal request copied from User talk:Twitbookspacetube's talk page:

"First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)"

This user was banned in August 2017. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbookspacetube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) copied from usertalk by power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose You've lied repeatedly and have done nothing to show you can be trusted. A handful of edits elsewhere demonstrates nothing. Further, you have failed to speak to the many reasons you were banned initially, including . Nihlus  07:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I oppose any lifting of his restrictions. If he were to be unblocked, there need to be more restrictions. Nihlus  10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support after discussing on IRC, I feel like he's genuinely trying to contribute, but doesn't have the slightest idea how to set up restrictions that will allow him to do so without being disruptive. I propose:
 * A ban from all pages in the Wikipedia namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
 * A topic ban from all American politics articles.
 * One account limitation.
 * These three restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
 * All other previous restrictions are lifted.
 * This may let him engage in productive anti-vandalism activities without causing drama. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comments last time. Barts1a isn't some good-faith editor who just needs the chance to prove himself, he's a long-term troll whose various accounts wasted huge amounts of other peoples' time owing to his hobby of loitering on talkpages trying to provoke fights, and then lashing out when challenged. If we do unblock him, I'd strongly oppose lifting any of the restrictions, which were there for the express purpose of preventing him from dragging other people into timesink debates and from abusing the undo function to rack up his edit count blindly reverting edits at high speed regardless of their validity. At minimum I'd expect a total ban from AN and ANI and from all pages relating to dispute resolution, strictly-applied 1RR everywhere else, and a no-exceptions restriction to a single account; I'd be inclined to retain is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages at minumum from his existing restrictions as well (the restriction on Huggle is moot, as that requires rollback and no admin is ever going to grant that). User:Worm That Turned, you were his mentor way-back-when, do you have any thoughts on this? &#8209; Iridescent 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support (1) Sporadic editing of simple wiki is an understatement. 10 edits in just over 6 months is under 2 edits per month. This doesn't show me any sort of commitment to improving the encyclopaedia. The risk vs potential reward is heavily skewed towards risk with no reward. (2) The upshot, however, is that TBST has written an appreciable appeal, and responded to my query in quick time. Extending a fair amount of good faith and assuming sincerity on their part, there isn't a reason for me to assume that they will be looking for trouble. Note: I've interacted with TBST, but not any of their other accounts. (3) Power~enwiki's suggested restrictions are severe, but reasonable. Possibly with the exception of the AP2 TBAN as I'm not sure what prompted it, but I'll support it anyway as I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists is seemingly mutually exclusive with American politics articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question What were his previous restrictions? ! dave  13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is not allowed to use Huggle, is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute, is topic banned from all noticeboards, including ArbCom case requests and cases, is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages. They're listed at WP:RESTRICT under the main account's name, Barts1a. &#8209; Iridescent 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The combination of socking and a threat against admins per Nihlus above is a bit much for me. Add on that the unban request is only a half year from the ban, the bare minimum, and I see a another colossal editor time-sink if this problem editor is unbanned. Their request should be rejected with with prejudice- in my view it must be years, not months, before this banned editor should be even discussed in the context of an unban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to the fact that he is already under so many restrictions, and, like Nihlus, I would not support a lifting of the current restrictions in place. You have only made 22 edits in simplewiki, and not a single one in more than fifteen days. You should make more than just token edits: show us you can properly contribute somewhere else in the confederation. ! dave  14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support User:Power~enwiki. This project has a history of second chances and we have processes to deal with problems.  We issue blocks to prevent damage, not to punish.  In the spirit of our ability to forgive, I support unblock with Power~enwiki's conditions.--v/r - TP 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unbanning at all, but deeply oppose unbanning with any fewer restrictions than they had when they were banned. Long term disruption, dishonesty and socking, and inability to follow clear and simple and necessary restrictions; why in the world would we think it a benefit to try yet again?  And why oh why oh why would we think that reducing the restrictions further would result in less disruption?  If this is actually accepted, he needs to be kept away from all sources of drama, not just specific sources, and if anything we need to carefully think of more strict restrictions.  But after all this history, it makes much more sense to say "no thank you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unbanning and Oppose restrictions - This editor has had multiple accounts and seems to have fucked up his chances on every single one, I'm all for second chances but I feel with this editor he will blow his chance and as such I oppose any unbanning or restrictions. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel there's no point in unbanning with a 1RR restriction; if something like that is felt to be necessary I think 0RR will be more effective. As far as "all contentious articles", I think that's too vague to be useful.  I do agree this appeal would have been more convincing if he had more than 8 edits on simplewiki to show constructive contributions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Stated on IRC that if we don't unban them they are just going to start socking. I don't take too kindly to threats and neither should the rest of the community. Incredible "woe is me" attitude. Blaming everyone else for their problems. We don't need that. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see absolutely no advantage to the community in lifting this ban. Barts1a was a pain, no matter what ID he used, and earned the ban honestly. If Majora's report that they have said that they will sock if the ban is not lifted is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, that just puts the icing on the cake.  Giving editors a "second chance" is all very nice, but it's more important to protect the encyclopedia and its editing community from disruptive editors than it is to give proven disruptors another opportunity.  There are numerous things he can choose to do with his spare time in place of editing Wikipedia, let Barts1a find one that suits him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding their edits to Simple English Wikipedia, between August 24, 2017 and today, they made exactly 10 edits to articles there. . One was an article creation, the majority of the rest were obvious reversions. The rest of their edits were notifications of reversion on editors' talk pages, and "Welcome" messages to new editors, and such.   In short, their editing to SEW is of no use at all in evaluating their request - it appears to me to be totally pro forma.  They didn't even bother to put in the energy necessary to make a case for their ability to edit non-disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The history presented is filled with dishonesty and deception by et.al. There is no reason to trust that they have sincerely changed. If they had spent the last six months making significant contributions on another site and demonstrated they could resits the urge to contribute to chaos and drams then, maybe, there would be enough to confidently believe they had changed. As it is... nope.  Jbh  Talk  01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unban: I also talked to Twitbookspacetube on IRC, and the statements they made there completely invalidated the apologies they made to start this discussion. Claiming that everyone down to Jimbo himself is corrupt and trying to preserve their own power is the way to request an unban. The threats of socking also don't help. They clearly can't work collaboratively (at least in the English Wikipedia community). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

After his latest talk page post, I think an admin can close this. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose "IRC" being used as a reason for decisions made on-wiki. MPS1992 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

IBAN/Thanks
What do I do if I'm in an IBAN with someone, and I accidentally used the thanks option on one of their edits instead of another editors edit? I came here directly, as I realized my mistake as soon as I did it. --  Alex TW 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't unsend it (I just checked that), so coming here is the right thing to do. Naturally, don't interact further.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  05:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Start by hoping they don't notice, or are kind enough or busy enough not to care. Continue by apologizing (here) without mentioning to whom you are apologizing. Continue further by hoping no busybody here were sad enough to go through all your thanking entries to work out who the accidental target was. MPS1992 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , as did I, that's why I wanted to come here as soon as I realized and just make sure - even if it wasn't anything major, I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry., thanks for your help. In that case, I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor. --  Alex TW 05:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) Going forward, it would be helpful to provide specifics, so that we don't have to do all the legwork to try to figure out what you did, where, and which ban you're referring to. Having done that work, am I correct that you're referring to accidentally thanking Jack Sebastian a little while ago, a user with whom you have an interaction ban?
 * While the log doesn't (as far as I know&mdash;I don't play with the Thanks Log very often) show the diffs for which an editor was thanked, I note that there is an intersection between your editing in the last 24 hours or so and Jack Sebastian's at . Your edit and Jack's are both minor edits related to the character Izzy Bowen, which may raise concerns with respect to your IBAN. (AlexTheWhovian's edit came first; Jack's first edit came about for hours later; there were no intervening edits.)  Jack's edit was subsequently reverted by another editor Joeyconnick.  Both Jack and Joey ultimately reverted each other twice.
 * Now, would I be incorrect to guess that your "thank" was intended to be directed at Joeyconnick, expressing appreciation and support for his edit war with Jack? If so, giving out pats on the back to other editors who revert your nemesis most certainly is a violation of the spirit of your IBAN, and might plausibly be interpreted as a violation of the letter (see WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to...make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." My emphasis added.)  In  other words, even if you had thanked the editor you intended to – instead of the editor immediately before or after, with whom you have an IBAN – you were still skating on very thin ice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The thanks was most certainly not in the spirit that you portray, but to prevent further drama, I will nod, give my thanks to your view on the topic, and be on my way. --  Alex TW 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that immediately after posting to this board, you went ahead and thanked Joeyconnick twice&mdash;I'm assuming that's one thanks for each revert of Jack Sebastian. It's not a good look. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I stated in my second reply that I apologize for the accident, and have correctly thanked the intended editor, in relation to their intended edits. Thank you for your reply to my general question. --  Alex TW 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? So, User:AlexTheWhovian, I strongly suggest that you should be (1) trouting yourself for behaving in such a silly fashion and thus finding yourself in such a silly situation, and (2) learning not to be even watching or editing articles that are of interest to someone with whom you have an interaction ban. MPS1992 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do see what you mean now, editors do indeed go in to look for the specifics for a general question. I follow the article as I'm an avid watcher of the series, but I'm remove it from my watchlist so issues don't this don't arise. --  Alex TW 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, those 3 edits today by Jack are his only edits to the page. Ever. Instead, Alex has been editing the page since August 2017, so if anybody is the issue in that regard it is Jack. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should all run away as quickly as possible before anyone thinks we might care about who is editing or watching articles about television programs about comic characters. MPS1992 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did note that Alex's edits preceded Jack's, and I agree that neither editor comes off looking good here. Had Alex come here to report a concern that Jack was violating the IBAN – instead twice thanking another editor who reverted Jack – this discussion might have a very different flavor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant AN/I thread is Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972 - not too hard to dig out when it's the only IBAN to which Alex has been subject. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the interaction between the two editors, it looks like they have largely overlapping areas of interest. Since January 1 (i.e. under the ban), there's been some editing of the same articles, but largely not. For example, is a directly subsequent edit, but not a reversion. Note that Alex edited the page on 19th December, whearas Feb 3 was Jack's first edit. We also have  followed by, but again, not a reversion, and again, Alex was a well established editor on the page by that point. And finally,  followed by  - again, Jack edits for the first time, again, not a reversion. Whether this is WP:HOUNDing in an ingeniously subtle form or just a style of editing? Well, by WP:AGF (and a bit of WP:FRINGE), we have to take the latter option.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  06:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So, I go off and have a bit of fun in the sun and a big bag o' crazy happens in the meantime. I noticed Alex' thanks, and subsequent doubling-down on the thanks to Joey, but wrote it off as a 'what dafuq?' with a shake of the head. Yeah, Alex and I have a lot of interest overlap and were he not as prickly an editor as he can often be, we'd probably get along like gangbusters. But we don't, and I am not looking for his edits. He's off my watchlist, and those pages where i know he prowls, I am a bit more careful about any edits I do there. So yeah, I am pretty amazingly ingenious (and humble, too) but editing where AlextheWhovan also happens to edit is not part of a plan. I understand and observe the spirit and letter of the IBAN. I'll continue to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of my reversal of another admin’s actions.
The other day User:RoySmith blocked User:Sandals1. The logged reason for the block was ''Abusing multiple accounts: Based purely on contribution history, must be a sock. True new users don't find their way to AfD first thing.'' I questioned this rationale at User talk:RoySmith. They both defended their action and said to reverse it if I disagreed. I’m pretty sure being an undisclosed alternate account is not in and of itself a instantly-blockable-with-no-discussion violation of WP:SOCK, and it is entirely possible that this is a WP:CLEANSTART account, or the account of someone who used to edit as an IP, but Roy seems to feel that this comment, which admittedly may contain a lie or at least a half-truth, makes all those considerations null and void.

I have already unblocked the user as I do not believe the block was valid. If you can’t identify who is doing the socking and their edits are otherwise ok, I do not see how Wikipedia benefits from this block. Since it seems clear that one or the other of us is wrong here, I would like the community and our fellow admins to review this series of events and provide feedback. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If another admin says you're free to reverse the block, and you do it, you're on safe ground. On the handful of occasions another admin has disagreed with a block (and I can count them on the fingers of one hand), I have said I am fine for them to just undo it and discuss. It seems to work well. As for what action to take next, I think Roy should file an SPI if they haven't already done so, and let the results of that play out. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t see what SPI could do without having some idea what previous identity this person have edited under, I would fully expect that the reply would be . This is rather the crux here. It seems likely to me that yes, this person has editied Wikipedia under some identity before, but is that a block-on-sight offense or isnt’ it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Spending all your time at AfD to the exclusion of everything else is a little odd, but I don't think it's blockable without a consensus on ANI first. I simply mentioned SPI as an avenue that could have been tried instead of a block. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I probably over-reacted with my block. I still can't think of any possible scenario for a new account working immediately and almost exclusively at AfD other than being a sock. Beeblebrox was right when he said on my talk page, perfectly normal particpation in AFD discussions, but in some ways that makes me more convinced this must be a sock. People learn to make sophisticated arguments through experience. If somebody came up to me here in New York, claiming to have just moved to the US from China earlier that day, but speaking in perfectly fluent, unaccented, and idiomatic English, displaying a detailed knowledge of the subway system, and offering cogent opinions on the relative merits of currently trendy bars, I would suspect they'd been here longer than a day. Was I being WP:ROGUE? Perhaps. But, also consider WP:PACT. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're not just talking about suspicion they'd been around before. Unless either the new account is engaging in disruptive behavior, or you have good reason to believe they're evading a block or ban, there's no prohibition against simply using an alternate account. And realistically, I probably sounded more "sophisticated" than your average new user when I started editing, because I had edited before&mdash;as an IP. I don't see that alone as meriting a block, though of course it would be reason for heightened scrutiny if they do start to behave disruptively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But, did you start out with your very first edit, like this one, where the new user stated, This is my first edit? If you're going to go to the trouble to mention that, I would think you would say, This is my first edit as a named account; I used to edit anonymously.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe they said it was their first edit... because it was their first edit? A lot of my first edits were to AfD too, it's just an interesting behind the scenes area. You don't have to edit to read the guidelines. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I got started on Wikipedia when I noticed an AfD template on an article that I was reading. The AFD template says specifically, "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." and so it is quite plausible that a reader will follow this invitation.  The surprising thing is that it doesn't happen more often and this mainly shows how awful our interface is.  Kudos to User:Sandals1 for having the gumption to get started and for improving an article with their second edit. And kudos to Beeblebrox for assuming good faith. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I stand trouted.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

April fools cleanup
I am proposing that editors with the requisite tools help by clearing out previous years April fools jokes. I have no doubt another batch will reappear next month. But in the meantime could last years either be moved to userspace or deleted. If anyone wants to collect the best jokes for something then go ahead.


 * Articles for deletion/Dyslexia
 * Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (1st nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/1
 * Articles for deletion/Division by zero
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete
 * Articles for deletion/Delete
 * Articles for deletion/CNN
 * Articles for deletion/Arsène Wenger
 * Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C.
 * Articles for deletion/April Fools' Day (4th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Apple Inc.
 * Articles for deletion/22nd century
 * Articles for deletion/2048 (video game)
 * Articles for deletion/2018
 * Articles for deletion/Freedom of speech
 * Articles for deletion/Gatwick Express

And the numerous other pages listed at:


 * April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017

And if people think it's worthwhile, there are hundreds more at:
 * April Fools/April Fools' Day 2016
 * April Fools/April Fools' Day 2015
 * April Fools/April Fools' Day 2014

etc... back to


 * April Fools/April Fools' Day 2004

It may be worthwhile arranging the jokes in advance or something since many of these appear ill conceived or unfunny, which rather defeats the whole point of the exercise. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's likely you would need a wide-spread consensus to delete all of these pages, and to get that consensus you'd likely need an RFC at one of the Village Pumps (likely Proposals). I don't think just requesting it here is sufficient. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a distinct feeling, that any such proposal, would go down like a lead balloon, as it always has in the past... --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We G6'd the AfDs that no one thought funny enough to comment on last year as they prevented the AfD log page from loading. I see no need to G6 the remaining ones, but also think we'll likely just G6 the not-funny ones again this year after it is all done. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have started an RfC at Village pump (proposals) regarding what to do with them. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternate Account
As I create an account named MustafaAliIsAPakistaniWrestler for the reason given at user page, simply I need to know that is it permissible to create alternate account? Second, I need to know about this alternative account I've created that:


 * Does it resulting any violation of Username policy?


 * Are these added tags and userboxes ok or I have to remove them?


 * Will it result in losing any editing privileges?

Thank You. CK (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Sock puppetry (and WP:SOCKHELP to a lesser degree) have the how tos. You need to link them on each account page.  Generally, it isn't a problem to have two accounts as long as you never edit at the same time on the same article using the two accounts.  That makes it look like two people are doing so.  The key is insuring you never use them to make it look like you are two different people.  If you commented or voted at AFD using BOTH accounts, for instance, you would be blocked.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really don't see how you would be using that alt. account. You mentioned that you want to stop edit wars at Pakistani-related BLP topics. Why couldn't you do that with your main account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see anything in WP:VALIDALT that could be applied here. <b style="font-family:courier;box-shadow:2px 1px 4px #aaa;border:1px solid #ccc;padding:0 6px;background:linear-gradient(#fff,#ddd);color:#476;border-radius:6px">byteflush</b> <sub style="margin:0 2px">Talk 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed this makes no sense, and also you can’t use the name of a real, well-known person in your username, so I’ve blocked that account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * After loking around a bit I feel compelled to formally ask to voluntarily restrict themselves to one account as they do not seem to have a solid grasp of what is and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: I agree with you that you have blocked my alternative account and I got it because of Naming violations. No matter about this. Pakistani related BLPs are especially for those articles that related to OVERSEAS PAKISTANI who were born to a Pakistani Family but outside Pakistan, recent edit warring was occured in mid February at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) that he is Indian, Declaring Pakistani person as Indian appears to be incorrect as I've warned 2 IP editors for this thing, You're right at your blocking reason, as I've already appealed protection raise for that Mustafa Ali article.

RE: You say "Someone Correct Me", I can understand everyone's message as you don't needed to be worry about it I clearly got your message too. By the way, Thanks for helping, at least I got what is right or wrong here.

CK (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You don’t actually seem to have answered my question above, so I’m going to ask again: Will you agree to limit yourself to one account? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Yes I agree and from now I've decided to keep myself in one account. CK (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to update an incorrect image file
Hi. This file is an incorrect, unofficial logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:V8_JavaScript_engine_logo_2.svg A copy of the correct, official one is here: https://github.com/alrra/browser-logos/blob/master/src/v8/v8.svg

Unfortunately it seems the file can only be updated by administrators. Can an admin please take care of this?

Thanks!

Mathias, V8 (Google)

Mathiasbynens (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . You need to try to upload it on commons:File:V8 JavaScript engine logo 2.svg rather than here - the file is on a sister project called Wikimedia Commons and when it is there it should be changed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That whole thing about edit summaries
So as some of us have discovered (unfortunately) WMF have raised the cap on edit summaries from 250 to 1000 characters. The reason doesn't matter much, I suppose (Something something something non-English wikis something something bollocks), but the issue is we end up with copy/paste edit summaries like Special:Diff/828335644. There's already a VPR thread here regarding the issue, but until that is resolved, I am wondering about what we should do about these incredibly unnecessarily long edit summaries.

Now for the record, I am perfectly fine with edit summaries like this, as it's a bit long but it also explains the edit. I'm thinking threads like the first example or this, wherein the editor is simply copy/pasting their entire message into the edit summary. They just clutter up the edit history and don't give a summary of the edit.

If the answer is "nothing" then that's fine, I'm just looking to start a discussion about the administrative side of things. Is it worth performing a revdel on an edit summary that does absolutely nothing more than quote the edit itself? I've had a half-dozen people on IRC complain to me that they consider it to be "disruptive" (which would fall somewhat under the RD3 umbrella but not really). Do we just suffer through and ask nicely for those people to stop copy/pasting their text into the edit summary? Primefac (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And to reiterate/TLDR, I'm mostly wondering if this is an "ask people nicely to stop" situation or if we even can/should escalate to revdel should they continue with massively long/unnecessary edit summaries. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that both of the editors connected to the copy/paste edit summaries linked above know about the issue and have said they'll be making an effort to avoid it in the future. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a summary. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RevDel says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links."  Edit summaries that pertain to Wikipedia clearly do not qualify for this criteria.  It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD.  Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users.  The key is Purely disruptive - not just disruptive.  That's implies intent.--v/r - TP 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the irony did make me chuckle at first glance. Bad habits sure are hard to break, aren't they? — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 02:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to make small diffs from now on.--v/r - TP 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't concur, as to the idea of RevDel. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No comment on the edit summary change, but revdel would be entirely unwarranted and out of process here. ansh 666 04:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of revdel, it does seem like an area worth watching as it may be more enticing to use edit summaries for vandalism. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think revdel should be used for good faith edit summaries, and I'd prefer some of the technical solutions which are being proposed. I've already seen vandals who would love to exploit this, exploit this for the sake of disruption. To me these remain as good as ever for RD3. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is probably an amazingly stupid question, but is there any reason we cannot get the WMF to let Wiki's set the edit-sum char limit locally as part of their own management? Why *is* the WMF deciding how long we want our edit summaries to be on ENWP? I understand due to different languages and charsets one-size-fits-all may not be appropriate, but if you need to take more than 300 characters in English its not a summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For those not watching the HAPPYPLACE
There are two requests being made at ANI currently; one to lift a tban and another to enact a cban. Both are at the main thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your input and/or opinions are requested. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Gino Gambino Bullet club Request for Administrator
We need someone or a Administrator to come in and resolve this issue, We are having a current discussion about Gino Gambino and it’s going no where we keep providing reliable sources and this IP/Account User NotmemberofBC keeps removing it and saying BLP we need help and closure for this cause all were getting is no where I’d like some help for all of us and to get this done as quickly as possible, this IP Used has not provided any source claiming Gambino isn’t a member the user has broken 3RR multiple times

As I’ve taken a look at the notice board, the Administrators are taken a look at the sources further more I don’t think anyone should remove Gambino which is provided with a reliable source, if anyone would like to take a look at the notice board go search the Bullet Club TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is primary and the claim is controversial so it MUST have an independent reliable secondary source under WP:BLP! The reversion was right - he shouldn't be there! You didn't tell the notice board you used THAT I'll bet! (Which one? Nothing's showing up on a skim) 101.189.95.32 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thought as much. Checked your edits, and you weren't telling the truth. No notice board re the Bullet Club, and you were warned for edit warring as well. Admit you got it wrong and revert your edit. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the source is reliable since it's the promotion itself. Second, I gave two sources of live events where Gambino wrestles as part of Bullet Club. Another one, NJPW Australian facebok, where it includes Gambino as member of Bullet Club. So, right now we have 4 reliable sources. NJPW Facebook, MCW, the wrestling observer and PWInsider.  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Facebook is NOT reliable!! MCW is a primary source and can't be used when contested as is happening right now!! Wrestling Observer and PWInsider never reported his membership. Prove that he's a member with a news story, not show results!! (Thank God I can now edit the article!) NotMemberofBC (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That link given wasn't to the New Japan Facebook page anyway. It was to the tour page, which was run by MCW! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be reverting! That's edit warring! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources are fine. One is the MCW report, just includes Fale introducing him. Second, it's the NJPW Australian Facebook with the official cartel for the event. If you don't like it, here is NJPW official and verified Twitter with the same poster. As the article states, NJPW has the power to include anyone into the stable. The Australian tour is organized by NJPW in association with MCW, so every decision is taken by NJPW. PWInsider, a reliable source, says "New Japan Pro Wrestling announced this morning that IWGP Heavyweight champion Kazuchika Okada and Rocky Romero vs. IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions Evil and Sanada in a non-title match will main event their 2/19 event in Perth, Australia. Also announced was The Bullet Club (Kenny Omega, Gino Gambino, Chase Owens and Bad Luck Fale) vs. The Mighty Don't Kneel (Jonah Rock, Slex, Marcus Pitt and Damian Slater.)" NJPW iself includes Gambino inside Bullet Club. Dave Meltzer reports " Bullet Club (Kenny Omega, Bad Luck Fale, Gino Gambino & Chase Owens) defeated TMDK (Marcius Pitt, Damien Slater, Jonah Rock & Slex) Good 8-man tag match. TMDK did not look out of their depth against Bullet Club. Crowd was split, mostly supporting TMDK who were formed in Perth, but cheering for Kenny when he was in." Also including Gambino in the stable. Since then, this is your personal crusade against Gambino, but the sources are reliable and reports Gambino as member of BC. Even if this is a promotional move to gain Australian fans, stills oficial by NJPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there is several websites calling him member of BC. "At this weekend's November Rain event, fans experienced an emotional moment as Bad Luck Fale inducted Victorian wrestler Gino “Juicy” Gambino into the famed and exclusive Bullet Club faction." "They consequently discovered Mr Juicy (Gino Gambino) who made his debut as the first Australian member of Bullet Club at Wrestle Kingdom, during the New Japan Rumble, and the UnderBoss and Gambino alliance has Australasian fans thrilled for future potential." Cagematch profile "Gino Gambino Becomes The 13th Member Of The Bullet Club" I can gave more, but sadly, aren no reliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all we have all provided more than one source which vacaits the BLP and there is no edit warning if it’s your first revert TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Second I never said I went to the notice bored I said there was a discussion going on with the Bullet Club on the notice Bored, and thirdly when provided with more than one source makes it reliable and lastly all the reverts you have done have breached 3RR your lucky none of us have reported you if we did you would be blocked permanently so I’d take into consideration that your on thin ice TheKinkdomMan (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're on thin ice! Publicity stunt! You feel for it! Both of you, and PWInsider and Observer! Facebook isn't reliable and it's not the NJPW official page! It's a tour page run by MCW! Primary source! BLP says get a proper independent source and you haven't yet! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with the sources. That's your blindness and your personal crusade against Gambino. The tour is promoted by NJPW. The Twitter is verified, the poster is official. PWInsider and WON are independent reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. While I'm not convinced he should be listed as a full-time member unless he continues to appear more regularly, he was definitely advertised as a mwmeber by the promoters themselves. The PWI and WON sources are actually less definitive, however, as they're WP:ROUTINE card announcements and results, which only really establish that he wrestled alongside BC members, not that he was a member himself. That's why the NJPW sources are needed; they are not invalid sources as first-party sources are legit for establishing basic facts without interpretation. oknazevad (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See ? I don't have a personal crusade against Mr Juicy. I have a personal crusade for the truth, and the truth is it's a publicity stunt. The promoters that Oknazevad mentioned were NOT New Japan! They were MCW who co-promoted the tour with one NJPW person - Fale. Juicy's worked ONE NJPW show outside of Australia and that's it! No way that's the conduct of a full blown member! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to calm down here. There is a lot of ownership behaviour here that does not help resolve this issue - and there is an issue. There is no doubt about that. Sourcing provided is either not reliable or weak on the one side. On the other side we have unsourced claims that smell of original research. This is a situation that requires proper discussion addressing the issues of the weakness or sourcing (reliability on that point is irrelevant - the mention of WP:ROUTINE is an excellent point). To this end first and foremost Gino Gambino should remain off the list. This is the preference under WP:BLP until a consensus is reached. Any attempts to add him before such a consensus is reached should be regarded as edit warring. Let's talk about this, and in reasonable tones. Is that too much too ask? Addicted4517 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to discuss this when the IP oncly turn down the sources because "it's MCW" or "I don't think this source is reliable". Point 1, NJPW, the promotion owner of BC, made a tour in Australia. In that tour, Gambino was presented as member of bullet club (TMDK vs Bullet Club (Kenny Omega, Gino Gambino, Chase Owens and Bad Luck Fale)) The promotion includes him inside the stable. Also, he has no prove about the social media is controlled by MCW (he is only repeating over and over the sources aren't reliable since MCW is behind the shadows without proofs), for me, it's the NJPW Australia facebook and the official verified Twitter of NJPW. Even if it's a promotional tactic, looks like NJPW includes him as part of BC. As Oknazevad said, its advertised as a BC member by NJPW (not MCW as the IP said, since its a NJPW tour, not a MCW. Again, no proofs) so at least, he should be in the table. Maybe as a part timeer, like others, but is advertised by NJPW as member of BC. Again, it's hard to discuss wwhen the IP repeat the same nonsense arguments over and over and I gave several sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said over and over because you haven't proven your claim to begin with! Fact - and you can look this up - Fale put the tour together. Not NJPW. He used the NJPW name because that's who he works for. Fact - he couldn't have done it without local back up, and that's where MCW came in! Your sources are out of whack because they are wrong! Or maybe weak like Addicted pointed out! If Gambino is a member, why was he NOT wearing a Bullet Club tee during his appearance on Being the Elite, and everyone else WAS! Huh? Where's his appearances with the Club in Japan? One run in a Rumble where he was NOT acknowledged as a member! That's all! The circumstantial evidence against him being a member is over whelming! And you are choosing to ignore it! Hey, how do you think that article appeared in the Herald Sun? MCW promoted it, which is why you can't use it because of WP:ADV!! The onus is on you to prove beyond any doubt that he is a member, and you can't because he's not! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have sources about the NJPW tour is made by Fale? No, every source said the Australian tour is promoted by NJPW. It's WP:OR, since you have no proves Fale made the tournament using NJPW name. Also, your only way to turn down the sources its saying "sources are wrong" without a real reason. The Australian Tour its a NJPW tour, not a Fale tour. Your only claim is MCW it's behind everything, behind Herald Sun, behind NJPW Twitter, behind the PWInsider. It's irrational, you turn down sources just claiming MCW it's behind everything. Also, you can proofe he is not a member because doesn't wear a tshirt. Here is Fale giving him a BC TShirt, does it proof it's an official member? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't because that's an unreliable source! Twitter is an unreliable source! Why didn't Gambino wear his tee on the Being the Elite video? As far as Fale NOT running the tour? He gave a speech thanking the crowd and singled out Bad Luck Fale as the person who put the tour together, even asking that the audience gives Fale more love than they've given anyone else. (see in the notes under Cody Rhodes beating Rocky Romero). You think MCW had nothing to do with the tour at all? If they weren't involved there wouldn't have been any Australian wrestlers on the tour!! Guess what? That includes Gambino! You're a fan boy who has been tricked and are too proud to admit it - that makes YOU irrational. The circumstantial evidence is there, and you are ignoring it out of convenience! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an issue here regarding what constitutes a member of the stable. Is it really reliable sourcing that proves this, or is it the promotion itself. As the article clearly passes WP:GNG, the argument regarding sourcing needing to be not WP:PRIMARY is ok, but not everything needs to be independent. If a company said that they had a new stable, and mentioned who they were, that should be all the information needed to prove that they are members of the team (As there is no real contracts regarding these types of teams). So, the big issue here, is if New Japan or any partner have said that they are a member, or if it's speculation. I'd actually argue that regardless of if he is a member or not, he should be mentioned simply for this reason  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem. You're ignoring WP:BLP. That invalidates your argument over WP:PRIMARY because there's controversy pressing the need for an independent secondary source, along with invalidating your other argument. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The IPs argument is besides the point when multiple sources are claiming Gambino is a member, he may not be a full time member however being advertised as a member proves the sources to be correct to him being a member, I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere with this I think we should bring in a Administrator, the IPs argument comes to a end with Gambino being advertised and claiming a multiple reliable sources are wrong, not to mention when did I or HHH Pedigree use Facebook as a source TheKinkdomMan (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WRONG! There is evidence that he is NOT a member as I have said time and time again, not to mention most sources of yours being unreliable. HHH Pedigree did use Facebook as a source (the NJPW Australian tour page). Bottom line - proof is needed that Gambino is a full time and current member that is independent of NJPW and MCW that isn't advertising or routine and is reliable. Guess what? There isn't one! Clear as glass!! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your WRONG your by providing a source saying he isn’t so until you do that he is a member, if you read the guidelines on here you would know that, further more he didn’t use FB as a source he used it as evidence and no reliable source is wrong until proven it is unreliable, I advise reading more of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies, not to mention your not proving the source is wrong when we are proving it’s reliable, so tell me who would win this if a Administrator was brought in TheKinkdomMan (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Password hijacked
Hello,

It appears that someone has stolen my password and is clandestinely making edits to articles using my username. I have a commited identity.

Please assist.

Thank you,

Aldo

algocu (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Account blocked as a precaution. DoRD is looking at it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is you and not the password thief you will need to change your password and regain control of your account - then pick an admin to verify your committed identity to get unblocked. Then you will need a new committed identity. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the CU data, I don't think that the account was compromised, so after discussion with and TonyBallioni, I have unblocked it. Algocu, it is suggested to use a strong password, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and - what?  Above it is stated above that edits made under this userid were not made by the account holder.  Algocu, were you mistaken and you attest that all the edits made under your account were actually under your control? If not, can you be more specific about what is going on without revealing personal information?  (e.g. this is a My little brother did it situation (with an actual little brother)?) —  xaosflux  Talk 16:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no recollection of having made the edits in question. I also cannot login to change my password. algocu (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then...who are we actually talking to?  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Algocu, you are clearly logged in or else you couldn't be editing under your userid. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I (algocu) sent the notice that I believe my account has been hacked. That is still the situation. I have no "little brother," and no one else should have access to my account. As I said originally, someone seems to have made an edit to the Talk:Trump page, and signed it with MY username (algocu), AND I DID NOT MAKE THAT EDIT. I ALSO HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENTAL EDIT. I ALSO CANNOT CHANGE MY EXISTING PASSWORD. algocu (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why, precisely, can't you change your existing password? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Algocu, I ran a CheckUser against your account. All of the edits for the last few weeks have come from your IP address and apparently your device. Either someone else has accessed your device or you somehow made the edits in question yourself. As you are not blocked at this time, you should be able to change your password via Special:ChangePassword. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, so let's assume that an editing session went awry, and somehow I made an edit I didn't intend or realize. Bizzare, but let's be pragmatic. Yes, I am logged in (I never logged out).

At present, when I go to the Special:ChangePassword page, it asks for my password. when I enter my password, it is rejected. So what should I do next? algocu (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Try Special:PasswordReset instead. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, done and done, case closed. Still bizarre, but thanks for your help and patience. Feel free to archive this discussion. algocu (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Block threats from admin's joke alt accounts?
If an admin has another joke account, is that joke account also an admin?

Set aside for a moment the question of whether such joke accounts are a valid justification for an alt account (and I find it impossible to justify some of them), and assume that they're visibly connected such to meet that requirement for alt accounts.

If an admin has another joke account, and this is used to run some sort of fake persona, then does that persona also have the powers of an admin? In particular, can such an account threaten to ban [sic] or block another editor? Can they do this for a non-valid blocking reason, such as disagreeing with the alt account, or that worst of all wiki-crimes, lèse-majesté? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific case, account or incident in mind, or is this just a purely theoretical exercise? oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a specific case (and it's not Bishonen / Bishzilla). Am I going to say which admin is cheerfully throwing around casual threats of blocks? Of course not! (but it wouldn't be hard to work it out) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Young User:Floquenstein's monster? <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">bishzilla</b> <i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;">  ROA R R! !</i> 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
 * The answer to the generic question can be found in WP:SOCK and WP:ADMIN: Since adminship as a status is granted to a person and not an account, the rules for conduct apply to all edits, no matter under which account (or, as WP:SOCK puts it: Policies apply per person, not per account.). If a certain admin has done certain things you find objectionable, try to resolve the issue with them and if it fails, name them here. Nothing useful can come from hypothetical discussions. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 13:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What admin(s) have a "joke" account. I've seen "alternate" ones but they always have a specific reason for having them and that is explicitly stated on the user page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you classify a "joke". always seemed to fit the bill in my book. --Majora (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, for one. I'm rather fond (and slightly terrified) of them. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Bishzilla's alt account Bishapod and Bishapod's alt accounts Darwinfish and Darwinbish? PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember seeing that "joke" in the last week or so, and didn't do anything because I thought it was some sort of inside joke between two editors. Hope someone can provide a diff or link.  But my memory is seeing something like "You've been blocked.  Just kidding." and it was from an ALT account.  It's not funny. — Maile  (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Accounts get tools. If I started another account today it would not even be autoconfirmed. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it should be fairly obvious that a block threat from a joke account would be a joke. Bishonen at least is fairly good at separating out serious matters; not sure about anyone else. ansh 666 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently, admins can assign rights to their alt accounts. 1. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But not the admin bit. And +1 what said - "it should be fairly obvious that a block threat from a joke account would be a joke". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)




 * Maybe some can, but I can't ID 1000 admins or their alt accounts. If some non-admin threated to block me I'd report the account as a vandal and would expect a block to be issued. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Andy was talking about joke accounts. Not sure if this discussion is going anywhere without a concrete example, though. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It's my humble opinion that some people wear their undergarments too tight. John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocks for everyone! Wikipe-tan 02:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For joke accounts to qualify as joke accounts, the joke account has to be fairly obvious as a joke otherwise it wouldn't qualify as a joke account, and therefore I endorse the summary that anything from a qualified joke account is a joke. Alex Shih (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need Bishzilla to come and help with this? Anyway, I've only seen joke accounts used among people who are very well acquainted and who know they are kidding around.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, folks, I wouldn't rouse Bishzilla from their slumber, the consequences could be dire! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late . We are doing it any way. Pinging . We need help here! BMK, you started this idea. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  04:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you've done it... (link removed)   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Joke's on you. It's restricted on Youtube. HA! Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  04:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stupid regional content... Works fine for me. In any case, I think the 'zilla's portrait might be due for an update, so I might whip out the ole graphics tablet and get to work this weekend. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, its what happens when you are forced to have Restricted Mode on Youtube. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  03:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can usually spot a joke account because it writes in dino-speak. I'm pretty sure it's the hidden sixth pillar.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Godzilla-speak. Hence Bish "zilla". Godzilla. Get it? No? Ok, I'll go read WP:ANI then. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  04:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, 'zilla-speak. I humbly beg Bishzilla's forbearance.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * [On her dignity]. Bishzilla mentioned above. Have admin tools at one time. Not also an admin — tools transferred from less useful admin Bishonen by little crat. Bishzilla better admin! Courageous, independent! Block sitting arb, get admonished by puny arbcom! <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">bishzilla</b> <i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;">  ROA R R! !</i> 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
 * This branch has a lot of nuts. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What do nuts have anything to do with joke accounts? Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  03:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sry85 election interference should be ban from Wikipedia
https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%89:22sep/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt.Col.Thita_Manitkul

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thita_Manitkul

English? Sry85 deleted her Thai Wikipedia And Using the Wrong English Version intentionally.How can the person who is not neutrality in politic be writing Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.97.171 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B2_%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.97.171 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Editors here at the English Wikipedia don't have any authority or influence over what happens at the Thai Wikipedia. Someone can be an editor at both, and thus have some influence at both, but as the languages are totally unrelated and don't have a significant geographic overlap, I doubt that there are many editors (especially editors active enough to read this page) who are active here and there.  Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is entirely correct. With regard to the rest. English is a mandatory language in Thai schools -- according to our article anyway. Thailand was a strategic location and ally of English-speaking countries in the 20th century and many people from such countries were stationed there. Thai expatriates often settle in English-speaking countries, and some expatriates from English-speaking countries settle in Thailand. But of course, just as you say, unless there is some sort of significant problem that affects multiple wikis in a way significant enough to notice, then English Wikipedia problems are dealt with locally on the English Wikipedia, and Thai Wikipedia problems are dealt with locally on the Thai Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Links to youtube videos
(moved from WP:ANI (permalink))

When I encounter links to youtube where the uploader is (or seems to be) violating the copyright of the actual copyright holder, I remove them and leave a note with the person who posted this that such links are not allowed.

I today removed one such link from WP:AN, but this was reverted rather rudely. Discussion at the user's talk page was fruitless.

Can people here indicate please if my reading of WP:LINKVIO is correct or not? I'll drop a note at the user talk page, but I'm not interested in any user-oriented action here, just an indication whether such links may be posted or not. Fram (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the YouTube upload is wholly a violation of a copyright (a random user uploading a full episode of a copyrighted show not in PD) then yes, that is 100% an ELNO situation, and we cannot include such links anywhere. --M asem (t) 14:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To add, ELNO wouldn't apply to a video that includes fair use "copyvios" (like a user's review of a movie using movie clips), though that now likely falls in ELMAYBE. But in the case in specific, it is a short clip without commentary from a copyrighted film. For YT, that's probably not going to trigger anything, but for us, that is a copyright violation, and does fall in ELNO. --M asem (t) 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a clip from Godzilla (2014 film) and from the way that it has been uploaded, it is probably a copyvio. The clip is 1:02 long, and YouTube makes some allowance for this. It isn't the most flagrant copyvio I've ever seen.--14:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant - it will likely slip past any of YT's filters, but human logic tells me that unless you are adding commentary to that clip yourself (which the uploader did not), you can't claim fair use for that and we should treat it as a coypvio in evaluating it as an EL. --M asem (t) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See the title, if you think this is likely to slip past the filters. It's an explicit description of the scene. And another user points out that it's disabled in their region, which demonstrates that youtube has already addressed a copyright concern regarding that particular video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Youtube videos have a comment section that uploaders can freely disable. There are comments on that video. To say that it is not uploaded for the purpose of commentary is missing the point that there is no requirement that the commentary come exclusively from the uploader. See the court ruling in Righthaven, LLC v. Hoehn which is referenced at Fair use. It rules that the copying of works for the purpose of discussion is permissible even in cases where the entire work is copied. And before anyone points out that there are few comments, note the lack of any qualifications in the ruling on the length of said discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Our copyright rules are a maze for the unwary. As for YT videos, users should not be put in the position of having to make a legal decision, e.g., whether something is fair use or not. In my view, we should err on the side of removing YT videos that may be copyright link violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I for one salute Fram for his brave battle to defend the intellectual property of Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros.. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially in this case as the link is for purely humorous purposes. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Are we really having this discussion over a joke? Really we are?  Ok... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already pointed out that it was linked for the purpose of satire, but Fram apparently wanted submission, not correction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "satire" exception in our policy, and there is very little satire in simply posting a link to a 1 minute movie clip like that. A joke is not the same as satire. We don't allow e.g. fair use images to make jokes in discussions (well, we don't even allow them if you wanted to write satire here). Fram (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair use is not a copyright infringement, and our policy addresses only copyright infringements. Additionally, there absolutely was commentary by me which explicated the joke. Whether or not you got it or thought it was funny is -frankly- your problem alone. As for the other things you say we don't allow: I'm not seeing any policy links in there, just bare assertions again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines says "Non-free images: Non-free images should not be displayed on talk pages." Fram (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Displayed" != "linked". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. I said "we don't allow fair use images", I didn't say "we don't allow links to fair use images". I'm willing to provide evidence for my "bare assertions", but I'm not going to defend or prove assertions I didn't make in the first place. Fram (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I fail to see the point, as I didn't "display" the video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the best advice I can give to Mr Pants is to click here (this video is on an official channel and not a copyvio), scroll to 2:36 and follow the advice therein. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the current time, I'm tempted to do it repeatedly. The only good reason not to which has been given so far is "just to be safe", which is a valid reason, but wouldn't apply in a situation in which an editor can demonstrate that the upload was fair use. I might point out that Fram's arguments presumes that it was not fair use, which is trivial to disprove. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do disprove it. Please prove how linking to a Godzilla film clip with the commentary "Now you've done it... " is in any way satire (it is a joke, we get that). Please also show how it is "fair use", certainly considering we have things like this available on Commons which would make the joke just as well. Fram (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already have. Again, since you seemed not to get it the first time: Whether or not you got it or thought it was funny is -frankly- your problem alone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a very strange definition of "proof", apparently. Repeatedly shouting down someone is not proof of anything. Fram (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignoring for the moment that this seems to be your tactic: The originator asserting that something is satire is the best proof that it's satire which it is possible to get. Now, it might be possible to make a compelling case that the assertion was a lie, and thus invalidate it, but you haven't even tried. If you still don't get it, you could try asking me to explain the joke, in which case I will. But you haven't tried that, either, instead you've demanded that I prove it's a joke. Well, absent any reason to doubt my honesty, my assertion that it is serves as proof that it is. Would you like me to explain all the nuances of the joke to you, so you can understand it? It's on several layers, and it pokes fun of both the film and Bishzilla. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A short video excerpt from a contemporary film, without sourced commentary in the accompanying text. is not a legitimate use of non-free content under English Wikipedia policy. Whether it is under the laws of the United States is not relevant. To 's point above, we do not expect our editors to understand intellectual property law or be intellectual property lawyers. We expect them to follow the policies of this wiki, which in some circumstances, may be stricter than the laws of the United States. Linking to a likely copyvio video that has no accompanying sourced commentary is clearly a violation of the intent of the policy, even if undertaken in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was commentary in the accompanying text. The literal commentary was "Now you've done it," and it carried implications further than that which should be fairly obvious to most people. As I mentioned to Fram above, I can spell them out if someone asks, however I generally avoid explaining jokes for what should be obvious reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is you making a joke, which may be your personal commentary, but it is not sourced commentary, which is the requirement of the policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you even mean, here. Are you saying that talk page comments require sourcing, or are you saying that the policy you linked to specifies that such commentary must be sourced? Because neither assertion seems to be true. If you mean something else, I haven't caught it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain how linking (not hosting) to a YouTube video (and this one specifically) is a copyright violation on a discussion board? I'm failing to see the problem here. Nihlus 15:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC) style="color:#090">32</b>]] 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim is that it is a violation of WP:ELNO, specifically "Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation." Whether this is worth is for one party or the other to put this much effort into deleting or retaining is probably a more relevent point, however.  -- Jayron [[User talk:Jayron32|<b
 * It only took me two clicks to "retain". Personally, I'm enjoying this discussion, so unless it becomes a serious time sink with no obvious end in sight, even this is fine. So far, there seems to be a loose consensus that we should err on the side of caution (NeilN, Bbb23 and Fram, so far) when dealing with potentially copyright violating material, so there might be a benefit from this thread in the form of a clarification to our policy. The only dog I have in this fight is the assertion that this particular case is not copyright-infringing, either on my part or on the youtube uploader's part. Anyone who wants to argue that with me is in for a "fight", as it were, but other than that, I mostly want to see where this goes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If that clip was a couple minutes longer I would have blocked you if you had restored it after being warned not to do so. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would have immediately appealed the block, and this thread would have started anyways. Whether or not the video clip was a copyright violation is not really a question: I've already linked to court opinions showing that the presentation of copyrighted material for the purpose of discussion is fair use (this case was upheld by an appeals court). No part of that decision hinged upon any factor which is different between that case and this one, so any judge would simply cite that case, were the uploader sued. I've also pointed out that youtube has addressed a copyright issue involving this video already; they've blocked it in different regions, according to another editor who was unable to watch it. So we've got my opinion (admittedly worth squat), youtube's opinion (worth more) and a court's opinion (worth a whole lot).
 * As for whether it was policy vio: look at the discussion on my talk page. There's no clear evidence of policy violation there. Fram's initial complaint did not cite a policy, my response cited a policy which specified "copyright violations", not "fair use", and Fram's reply to that cited the same policy I'd already cited, with the presumption (untrue if not unfounded) that the upload was a copyright vio. At that point, the assertion that my comment was a policy vio hinged entirely upon whether the upload was a copyright vio. Now, since then, a few others have mentioned more policies and guidelines which shed more light on it, and make a better case. And if the community believes that the policy clearly prohibits the linking of youtube videos that could possibly be copyright violations in talk space, I'll not object to it being removed again (tbh: i'll not object to it being removed again no matter what, so long as it's replaced with something that doesn't break the responses to it "[Removed link per discussion at blah blah blah]" or the like). But I'll not take a single editor's word that some action of mine is a policy vio even when I honestly believe it wasn't, and if I were blocked for that, you can be sure that I would not be the only editor to object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:YOUTUBE says "Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations". I'm not the world's fussiest person about occasional links to YouTube videos, but the policy should be borne in mind.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKVIO, which claims to be "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations", for what it's worth, clearly states; "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." I don't think our policies get more clear than that. Fram (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were linked in an article I would definitly remove the link - it does not clearly meet fair use and Wikipedia practice is to err on the side of not including/linking. As a one off on the back-end of Wikipedia I would say it clearly falls under the 'meh' rule. As in 'meh' it is not worth the drama of removing it and 'meh' it is not worth the drama of argueing about it of someone removes it. The only non-'meh' opinion I have on this is Someone please close this unwise thread down.  Jbh  Talk  15:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies everyone, but it was slightly rhetorical. Please read up on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and move on.  Nihlus  17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for a name change for this project article - Wikipedia:Kollam
Hi,

A new project page has been formed recently for the city of Kollam in India in the name Kollam. But I can see that normal project entries have names in the format WikiProject Chennai, WikiProject Bangalore etc.

So please rename the project article of Kollam too in the same format. ie, WikiProject Kollam

Thanks Arunvrparavur (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done - I moved the page. WP:Kollam is going to RfD. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  06:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian
User:Andre Kritzinger has passed on, as per a post on his user page by another editor on 2nd March. Can a sysop do the decent thing and protect userpages? I have already nominated his userpage for indef protection. Rest in peace. Thanks <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 09:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need more evidence and proof than a link to someone's personal off-wiki Facebook account post to assert this. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with exactly how this is done, but I would guess that it takes more than just an edit like that in order to assert...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template from the user page and redacted the edit summary containing the external URL (for privacy reasons and possible WP:OUTING) until I can make sure that no policies were violated.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a breach of privacy policy, as any information on the URL was stated on the user's user page - I've removed the redaction on the edit summary.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The more I look into it, the more I see that this is most likely legit and confirmed. ✅ and with sincere condolences :-/  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines is the guideline, but most often we are forced to use something other than WP:RS for verification. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Andre Kritzinger was a devoted and prolific editor on South African topics, and since Wikimania 2018 is being held in Cape Town maybe a tribute there, in some form, would be in order. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect name on image in Wikipedia space
contains a picture of Cary Grant and Randolph Scott at a restaurant. It is not a picture of them "at home" as an editor on Wikipedia has insisted.



The original uncropped photo shows clearly that it is at a restaurant, and the Modern Screen article so states. Unfortunately, renaming the bad title is not able to be done, and there is no noticeboard which seems to remotely apply. Collect (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb and others case closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Subject to the usual exceptions, is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
 * 2) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
 * 3) Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Results from Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents survey research
Hello all,

Last fall, as part of the Community Health initiative, a number of experienced En.WP editors took a survey capturing their opinions on the AN/I noticeboard. They recorded where they thought the board working well, where it didn’t, and suggested improvements. The results of this survey are now up; these have been supplemented by some interesting data points about the process in general. Please join us for a discussion on the results.
 * Main summary
 * Full survey results
 * Quantitative data analysis

Regards, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Browder and Russian election interference


Hello, this WP:BLP is in the news, and rather predictably seems to be subject to ideological tides. Could administrators please watch this article and help each other keep it clean.

The requested action is for administrators to watch these two articles. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Stray TfD tags on user talk pages
Last year, Template:Proposed deletion notify-NPF, which is substed by the Page Curation toolbar, was nominated for deletion using WP:Twinkle; for some reason the nomination tag wasn't noinclude'd so now the tag and category show up on a bunch of user talk pages (though not all of them on that list). I'm about to head off to bed, but if anyone (admin tools definitely not required) could clean them up, that'd be nice. There's no rush, of course; I'll go through Category:Templates for discussion myself sometime tomorrow if nobody takes care of it before then. Thanks, ansh 666 09:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned it up... just so people aren't looking trying to figure out where the problem's at.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   17:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks GMG. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ansh 666 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIV- Again and again
Dear administrators, please look at those statements of the User Путеец - N1 - Please do not interfere with the work, N2 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=829946540&oldid=829946213 Do not you think that this is a simple trolling? He cancels all my edits without thinking or reading sources], and again, today - N3- Your opinion does not matter, and the argumentation is not valid, without reading the sources. Please do something. How long he will abusing me without any interference of the administrators ?? I am sorry for telling this, but in Russian wiki for these kind of behaviour he would be blocked a few days ago. M.Karelin (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , you should probably read WP:FORUMSHOP. There is an existing thread on this at ANI, and there is no need to have multiple thread's on the same subject. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this issue is about multiple violations of WP:CIV agains me, one of which was done a few minutes ago. There is another issue in ANI, that topic is not about violation of CIV. M.Karelin (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I ll remove this from here and will write a request there. Pay no attention to this. M.Karelin (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld's old copyright violations
We'll need to discuss how to handle this best. It turns out that User:Dr. Blofeld, who is with 96,000 articles created our most prolific article creator, has in a number of cases (so far early in his career, more research is needed) created blatant copyright violations. We can start a CCI, but these take years and the scale of what needs to be checked is huge in this case. User talk:Dr. Blofeld shows the initial concern, raised by User:Orland, and further research confirming clear copyvios from multiple sources in multiple articles. His many, many geography stubs are probably allright, but I fear that e.g. his many film articles have used copyrighted plot summaries. Fram (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised if there's anything problematic about his more recent creations. Partly because he's been involved in so many disputes, he's been under something of a microscope for years, and I'd think it unlikely that someone wouldn't have spotted a problem if there had been any issues recently. (The 96,000 figure is a little misleading, as the geography stubs are mostly just "Foo is a village in Bar" database scrapes; doing a very quick dip-sample, a lot of the film articles also seem to be microstubs like this.) I'd suggest giving it a couple of days for him to answer—even if he's retired, I'm sure someone can get hold of him and ask him—as despite my many disagreements with him over the years, I've no doubt he's editing in good faith, and he may well put his hands up and say "yes, I used to do cut-and-pastes but I stopped doing it once I understood it was a problem". If it's only his early edits that are problematic, it will be a lot easier to handle; likewise, any investigation will be far easier if he's onside and can explain where he feels the problems are, as opposed to feeling persecuted and refusing to cooperate. I certainly don't intend to nuke his contributions, since wiping the history of something like Paris or Thimphu would be hellish to repair. &#8209; Iridescent 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Kinda off-topic non-admin comment I'll never understand why "Foo is a village in Bar" sub-stubs are allowed to survive more than a few hours. In early 2013, I created a microstub on the guy who commissioned Japan's best-known poetry anthology and the page was PRODded (and promptly deleted) weeks later by a sock of a user who was site-banned for harassing me; when I emailed an admin who helped me prevent another related incident, he essentially said "Yeah, but that one was so short that I would have deleted it myself if I came across it with a PROD tag and didn't know either you or him". Since then I've been frankly terrified of mainspacing one-sentence articles (almost all my articles stay in my user space until they're more than 100 words long), and I will never know why this never seemed to happen to anyone but me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this. If memory serves someone (Arbcom?) at some point in the past (possibly before I came on board) ruled that any populated place on the earth was a legitimate subject for an article, even if a sub-stub, and whammo! Wikipedia became a gazetteer.  Of course, one can also ask if we really need articles on every Pokemon character, but Gnu forbid we start paddling up that stream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not since at least 2007 have we had an article on every Pokemon... The history of the related navbox should be illustrative. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Hijiri 88, our policy on people is different to our policy on places or pretty much anything else. The minimum standard for an article on a living person is much higher, see WP:BLP "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." How could a microstub be balanced?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not a living person, though: he's been dead for 758 years. A microstub could be balanced by simply saying "Utsunomiya Yoritsuna was a Japanese warrior and poet of the early Kamakura period.", which I assume is something like what I wrote in 2013. For long-dead people, there is no policy other than V, which doesn't directly govern whether a topic gets a standalone article; GNG and all the topic-specific notability criteria are guidelines, and seem to be interpreted far too liberally in some cases. Administrative districts that only exist as lines on a map and are in practice only used for taxation purposes should not be treated the same way as settlements with populations that self-identify as being from the village of Foo in Bar and have done so for generations. If Telugu Wikipedia doesn't see fit to devote one of its 65,000+ standalone articles to Achanta mandal, it seems a bit weird that we would have one, doesn't it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iridescent and would be somewhat surprised if this is a long term issue, though we do need to look. Any obvious copyvios need to be dealt with but I also believe in a statute of limitations. Unless there is evidence of recent abuse I would oppose any sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a sanctions issue so much as a cleanup issue. I agree with Iri that it is much better to have him cooperating (and I'll take his word on it that it is unlikely that Blofield had recent copyvios), but the cheer scale of the cleanup, even if limited to a few years, would be pretty large (and difficult to cleanup because figuring out who copied whom at this point will be a PITA with all the mirrors and copying from us), even if it wasn't 96,000. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rosiestep, you're probably the one who's worked most closely with him; are you aware of any recent issues, and can you see if you can get hold of him to see if he remembers when he stopped cut-and-pasting? If this is only a few of his very early edits we're talking about, it makes things much easier; I've no desire at all to wade through even 10,000 articles looking for potential copyright violations, especially given that many of the sources won't even be in English to start with. &#8209; Iridescent 22:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While this is concerning, he's been editing for nearly 12 years and the examples cited so far are over a decade old - not that it's a excuse, but many will have been edited somewhat since then, some significantly, so they are no longer problematic. Are there any recent examples of copyvio articles? Aiken D 22:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but many will have been edited somewhat since then isn't how it works. A copyvio is a copyvio even if none of the original text remains; if anything, that makes it more difficult, as it means we have to go through the history revision-by-revision revdeleting those that are problematic. Provided the violating text is present in the history, then as far as the law is concerned we're hosting it. &#8209; Iridescent 22:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck to whoever takes that on that responsibility, sounds like a mammoth task. Aiken D 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a spot check through May 2016, which is where I first start running into the potential for close paraphrase (and ignore the percentages in the earwig, I only use it to identify potentially problematic text and compare it against the source manually).In Cynthia Bouron he wrote She filed a paternity suit against Cary Grant, claiming that he was the father of her daughter. The LA Times wrote In 1970, Milosevic's ex-wife, Cynthia Bouron, alias Samantha Lou Bouron, brought a paternity suit against Cary Grant, saying that he was the father of her daughter Stephanie Andrea. Whether or not that is close enough to be a violation of our policies is the question (I am leaning yes, but I'm also pretty strict on these things). I don't see much else during that time period, so it could be a one off, but I am also just randomly spot checking. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like plagiarism, just a couple of words changed. Aiken D 22:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that is very minor plagiarism. If one badly paraphrased sentence is all someone can find in ten years worth of articles, that is extremely minor stuff. Also, it is is not copying a creative work, but rather repeating widely known statements of fact. The error here, if any, is extremely minor in context. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that is very minor plagiarism. If one badly paraphrased sentence is all someone can find in ten years worth of articles, that is extremely minor stuff. Also, it is is not copying a creative work, but rather repeating widely known statements of fact. The error here, if any, is extremely minor in context. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if there are significant problems in recent articles. I've dealt with Dr. Blofeld a fair amount and am also active in cleaning up copyright problems (the two are unrelated!). I feel like I noticed one old article ages ago that had some close paraphrasing issues, but I never noticed any pattern of copying in anything recent (or anything old, for that matter). And I don't think that Cary Grant sentence is remotely concerning. There are not that many ways a simple factual sentence like that could be written. Maybe if it was a whole paragraph like that, but a single sentence?.... I have zero heartburn over the matter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bit more than just factual with little ways to paraphrase in that sentence, so I would consider it in need of fixing, but part of the reason I posted that was that in my estimation there really hasn't been that much (if any) recent issues. If that was a one off, it suggests that our focus should be on the earlier stuff, as I haven't found anymore through my 2015 spot check. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

To the extent there is a problem involving decade-old contributions to articles with hundreds of revisions since, it may frankly not be fixable. I'm not sure what the implications of that may be&mdash;though they are probably less than some people might fear, if we've never had a complaint in all these years from an actual copyright-holder&mdash;but I thought I'd flavor the discussion with a tinge of stark realism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the trouble is that now we know there's a potential problem, all the duty-of-care and precautionary-principle stuff kicks in. (I agree entirely with Calliopejen1 about the Cary Grant sentence, FWIW. It's not plagiarism if it's a simple straightforward statement of fact and there's no other way to word it, any more than it's plagiarism that most biographies start with "Name was born in Place in Year".) &#8209; Iridescent 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle you are correct, but in the realm of practicality, a review of all those articles and revisions simply won't happen. If we try to undertake one, the common experience is that we'll wind up with a big project in which people lose interest after a week. So logically, we need to proceed on the basis of some spot-checking of the most likely problems and work from there. Reaction to any copyvios that are found also needs to be proportionate; I don't feel the need to revdelete 1000 revisions of a page that used to have two infringing sentences in it, for example. The community simply is not going to drop everything else it is doing to address the problem described here, assuming it is a problem, and as a practical matter we can't expect it to try, no matter how fully we try to respect rightsholders' legal and ethical rights. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above, if there is to be anything done here, it should focus on the ones most likely to be of issue, which does not appear to be recent. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I entirely agree—per my comments above it would be wholly impractical to carry out a selective revision deletion on Paris (to which Blofeld has over 500 edits) even if it were found he'd copied the whole thing verbatim. More realistically, we'll end up doing a Sander v Ginkel and bulk-deleting those articles created before a certain time, to which there have been no substantive edits by anyone else, after a grace period in which anyone interested in cross-checking them against sources can do so. ("Created by Dr. Blofeld" AND "no sources cited at the time of creation" AND "at least 30% of the original text remains" AND "nobody volunteers to repair it after it's been tagged as potentially problematic for a month" would seem to be an obvious metric to catch most of them if this does turn out to be a problem rather than a one-off.) &#8209; Iridescent 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of the above. There are two conflicting issues here. One is the ideal, i.e. what we should be doing to deal with what may, or may not be a significant problem. The other is the practical reality. Which is to say what are we realistically able to do? My guess is that we are going to just have to dive in and see how deep the water is and go from there. Copyvio is not my forte but I am willing to help if anyone wants to point me in a given direction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I reiterate that it would make sense to wait until Dr. B has had a chance to respond, before any detailed discussion of mechanisms? It's eminently likely that he'll say something along the lines of "There was a brief period when I didn't understand sourcing and plagiarism requirements" and be able to give us at least rough dates, and it will make things much easier if we know either that this is a case of a just a couple of articles, or a systemic problem. &#8209; Iridescent 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not possible, they've announced themself as retired. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As to that, please see Iridescent's first contribution near the top of the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that what? Four in the past month? If someone else is keeping count, please notify so I won't have to try to keep count. It's tedious.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's no practical consequence for article content, and the concern is legal liability for WMF, why not let WMF handle it (or not) as they see fit? Then we can all go back to doing things that matter to our readers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I can help, if someone makes a way to systematically help.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me know how I can help. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I contacted Dr. Blofeld via e-mail, and told them about the situation. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Sure, I'll reach out to but for the record, I find it hard to believe that he was a systematic copyright violater. This is an editor with more DYKs, GAs, and FAs under his belt than most of us, meaning his work has been reviewed by various people over a long period of time. Also, just FYI, there's a retired sign on his userpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Digging through 10 year old revisions for potential copyvio is a lot more work and less productive than going to Category:Stale_userspace_drafts where every third page or so is likely copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Disgusted that Fram has raised this in this manner. Like most people in the old days it took some time before I even knew about the copyright guidelines or how to source or research. Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios, we're talking 2006, 12 years ago. I remember that article and thinking it was legit, Finnish Google translate was atrocious at the time as well. Given that over the years I've been tough on copyright myself and have warned many people against copying text the idea that I'm a Sanders v Ginkel type and suddenly we need to delete all 96,000 articles out of panic is ridiculous. I prefer to use multiple sources and write my own text anyway. I know Fram has some deep rooted insecurities, particularly with authority, but be my guest Fram and go through all 96,000 articles as you obviously have nothing better to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if it’s just potentially your early articles with some problems, it’s not as big of an issue as first thought. Aiken D 10:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone inform Dr. Blofeld about our NPA policy? "Finnish Google translate" has nothing to do with taking a 10K text in English and copying it wholesale into enwiki, nor with copying text from the BBC or from a 1992 book. "Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios", no, many of your early articles contain copyvios. When you learned afterwards that this wasn't allowed, you should have cleaned them up, not simply ignored the problem. Fram (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In December 2009, he created Filipe La Féria. Too bad that it's an unattributed translation of the Portuguese article at the time. So this extends the problematic articles at least from 2006 to 2009 already... Fram (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly unless we have evidence that this problem continued for a substantial fraction of Blofeld's editing career then deleting 96,000 articles would be a massive overreaction. Aside from the unattributed translation all the examples pointed to so far are within the first year of Blofeld's editing career. It isn't terribly surprising that a new editor screwed up and it doesn't mean he did the same thing for years afterwards. Sure, we should do some spotchecks on more recent contributions, but unless they turn up evidence of a significant problem people need to stop panicking. (And no, failing to attribute a translation in 2009 is not a significant problem.)  Hut 8.5  11:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I dug around a bit, and I think (based on this) that the author of the material copied from here for the original version of Olavi Paavolainen, that the author is a Petri Liukkonen. It seems that the material he wrote may have been released under a CC license, see Template:Books and Writers. Maybe others with more time can follow up that aspect of this - there has been clear copying, but it is possible that some of it was either legitimate or not attributed properly. See also User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi and I will ping User:GreenC and leave a note on their talk page to see what light they can shed on this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this page: "The Books and Writers website is Copyright Petri Liukkonen under the Creative Commons Finnish license BY-ND-NC (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/fi/deed.en)". Which is a non-commercial license and additionally doesn't allow derivatives, so Wikipedia can't use it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Kind of amusing to be vilified for early edits when Fram was making these sorts of OR/unsourced claims early on. "This makes "Ommadawn" one of the first successful world music albums in Europe. " Really Fram, how interesting. Not to mention this gem which includes some obviously machine translated text "In 1603 and 1604, he works as a diplomat in Spain. He will keep on combining art and diplomacy throughout the rest of his career. " "He moves". Fram clearly didn't write that in his own words. Again here we have further evidence of using machine translation to paste text into articles with "This fascination with architecture and the possible and impossible cities it can create is further researched in The Gates of the Possible, "Together they create several books." etc. The text is still there though it has been fully translated but mostly unsourced and likely a copyvio. I strongly suspect Fram did this sort of thing for a very long time. Shall I start a new thread for Fram as well. Or can we discuss his poor quality work here?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the stats on François Schuiten, the primary author is Fram and the copyvios tool reports 66.2% likelihood of a violation. (The point here is that since I haven't deleted the article per G12, it means I don't think there's a blatant and obvious copyvio here; rather that checking for these things is hard.) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333, you have basically three choices: provide solid evidence of me posting copyvio's, retract the accusations, or get dragged to ArbCom for conduct highly unbecoming of an admin (accusing someone who has actually provided evidence that a wikifriend of yours has made clear copyright violations, of doing the same, but without any evidence, coupled with your other very poor comments here). That my first edits were unsourced statements is not really comparable to making copyvios, is it? And that you consider someone writing historical articles in the present tense as evidence of machine translation, and not of perhaps a poorer grasp of either English or the writing standards and habits here, is really unbelievable. The François Schuiten article: well thank you for highlighting that Casterman has copied my text! I'm really flattered, actually.
 * If you had actually done the work needed for a copyvio check, instead of posting your insinuations here as if there would be fire with your smoke, you would have seen that I e.g. first wrote "His father, Robert Schuiten, and his mother, Marie-Madeleine De Maeyer, both were architects. He has five brothers and sisters, and one of them is an architect as well.": other editors improved this to "His father, Robert Schuiten, and his mother, Marie-Madeleine De Maeyer, were both architects. He has five brothers and sisters, one of whom is also an architect.", and the Casterman site has "His father, Robert Schuiten, and his mother, Marie-Madeleine De Maeyer, were both architects. He has five brothers and sisters, one of whom is also an architect." So apparently I copied this from that site but slightly reworded it? Or I copied an old version of that text, and both Casterman and enwiki improved it afterwards in the same manner? Or just perhaps I wrote that text myself, others improved it, and Casterman copied it without mentioning their source? Too bad that you didn't really delete it per G12, as that would instantly have meant your deadminship for involved and wrong use of the tools. If this is the best you can do, then you have no business joining this discussion as you are not qualified to judge copyvios apparently. Fram (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fram's edits are at.
 * The original at: http://www.theobscurecities.com/thecreators/ 1983 for the Belgian monthly comics magazine (Ã Suivre). Every story focuses on one city or building, and further explores a world where architects, urbanists, and ultimately âurbatectsâ, are the leading powers and architecture is the driving force behind society. Styles explored in the series include stalinistic and fascist architecture in La FiÃ¨vre d'Urbicande, skyscrapers in BrÃ¼sel, but also the gothic cathedrals in La Tour. This fascination with architecture and the possible and impossible cities it can generate is further explored in The Gates of the Possible, a weekly series Schuiten created for the newspapers Le Soir and De Morgen in 2005.
 * And Fram's edit: from 1983 on for the Belgian monthly comics magazine (À Suivre). Every story focuses on one city or building, and explores further a world where architects, urbanists, and ultimately "urbatects", are the leading powers and architecture is the driving force behind society. Styles explored in the series include stalinistic and fascist architecture in Le Fièvre d'Urbicande, skyscrapers in Brüsel, but also the gothic cathedrals in La Tour. This fascination with architecture and the possible and impossible cities it can create is further researched in The Gates of the Possible, a weekly series he creates for the newspapers Le Soir and De Morgen in 2005.
 * It does seem like there might be a problem there.  D r e a m Focus  02:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the archived version of that website is from 2013 and made the edit in question in 2006, it actually seems more likely that they copied from us, which is not unordinary for biographical blurbs of creative professionals, especially when English isn't the first language. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its the official website of the book. Seems odd they'd do that. The reference given during the edit is De Weyer, Geert (2005). "François Schuiten". In België gestript, pp. 153-155. Tielt: Lannoo. So I guess a comparison would have to be to it.  D r e a m Focus  02:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the official English language website for the series. We don't even know if that website existed in 2006 (there was no reference to it in the diff you cite, and given how everything else was cited it seems odd not to cite it if that is where you are getting the information.) Also, see my last sentence: Wikipedia's license explicitly encourages this type of reuse: we allow our information to be used commercially per our license, and while attribution is required, it is almost never given, especially in cases where creative professionals and their PR people lift the Wikipedia biography for the biographical blurb. Again, this is not rare at all for creative professionals. Wikipedia notability is a very low bar to pass, and most of our BLPs are not public figures. Oftentimes our content is the most well-written summary of their professional life, so they, their PR people, or their fans just use it without attributing because I don't think anyone has ever successfully sued for damages under a Creative Commons license, so it is relatively risk-free from a business perspective. Fram has also stated above that he wrote the text himself and that the author copied from him. Given all the facts that we have, that does look to be the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tony here. Fram's version contained a grammatical error (a weekly series he creates ... in 2005) that was corrected on-wiki (I don't know when or by whom, but it was before 2013) before being copied onto the external website. Yes, it's theoretically possible that Fram, in a weak attempt at paraphrasing, made a perfectly good sentence ungrammatical, and it was later corrected to, by pure accident, read exactly the same as the external website does, or that Fram originally copy-pasted an ungrammatical sentence without noticing it, it was corrected on-wiki, that original copy-pastees happened to correct it the same way, but both of those seem like unlikely coincidences. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just Dream Focus trying (and failing badly) to take revenge for some old dispute from years back where we stood on opposite sides. Just like Ritchie333 and GreenMeansGo, although with these the disputes are more recent. Not really clear how Dream Focus sees me copyviolating a Dutch language book in English and Casterman doing the same: did we both use the same machine translation and violated the copyright of that book in the exact same way? Right... Never mind that the Casterman site is an exact copy of a later version of our article than my rewrite of it, as I already explained above. Perhaps we can spend some more energy on the actual copyright violations and unattributed translations and drop the sideshow? Feel free to dig in my contributions, but please bring some better evidence than this... Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please assume good fiath. I was curious as to how it could happen, it seemed suspicious to me, but then TonyBallioni explained it well, his reasoning made sense.  I no longer see a real problem.   D r e a m Focus  16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was just rather tiring when I had given basically the same explanation (with an example of how the Casterman site copied later versions of our article, not my older text) and then getting the same accusations (or questions) yet again, in a discussion which isn't even about my edits. If I had created copyvios, then that would be worthy of a discussion; but they have no impact on the discussion at hand, it's not as if I baited someone into making copyvios or told them that this was allright. Discussing the OP instead of the reported editor is expected when it is e.g. a conduct dispute between the two, with edit warring and so on. But in this case it looks suspiciously as a diversion / poisoning the well technique, and you seemed to continue the same tactic, which was not really welcome. Fram (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Gathering hard information
, please can you help us built a list of which articles you're aware of that are likely to need work to clean-up. —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (ie. without judgement, just for getting hard information that we can collectively begin to work with).

Fram will no doubt identity every problematic article ever made and I dread to think what I did in the early days. Let Fram get his daily shot and feel authoritative, today's drug is on me Fram, feeling good? There will be lots of unattributed translations from other wikis as for a long time I assumed we were one project. Let Fram get high for a few weeks and find them all himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , just the facts please. You will likely have some memory of which material was used in many cases; eg. particular books and so forth.  Together, we can collectively solve this much more quickly.  —Sladen (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Without having the technical skills myself, shouldn't it be possible to create a bot that runs each of those edits against the copyvio detector and create a list of possible problematic articles to then manually go through? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can collectively undertake a Guttenberg plagiarism scandal-style bruteforce approach, but it is likely to be far more effective and easier to just ask ; which is what is being done here… —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (With running the bot, humans still have to process + sift the results, many of which show up as false positives against Asian tourism sites).
 * Can you stop the PAs - this isn't Fram vs Blofeld. As Sladen says, just give whatever you remember/whatever information you have on problematic articles that are there Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hang on, you're both volunteers here, why are you interrogating me as if you're some high court judge and speaking to me as if I'm this criminal? If you want a constructive conversation delete the ANI thread and my talk page notice and I'll speak to you privately in a civilized fashion where I'm shown an ounce of respect. It was 2006-2007 a long time ago now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, copying material from another enwiki article is just as much a breach of copyright as copying from another language WIkipedia. Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like treating this all as an AN issue is getting precisely nowhere. There is WP:CP for this kind of thing. Copyright is indeed a serious issue here, but that hardly is an argument for declaring open season based on matters from a decade and more ago. It is the reason why there is process, and there are people who specialise in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That page clearly isn't the right place to post this either, it deals with single pages (or sometimes two or three) where the reports have stayed open for a very long time (reports from 2 1/2 years ago). POsting this problem there is the same as burying it out of sight. The copyright violations may be "from a decade or more ago" (although the issues persisted at least until late 2009, so 8 years ago, and more scrutiny is needed to determine when these issues ended), but some of the copyright violations are still present in current pages (and all are available from the page histories), so this needs some action. Deciding which actions to take is what this AN is about. We don't have a good process to deal with many copyright violations buried between countless edits and page creations: deleting everything would be overkill, but not acting on this is basically sending out the message that we don't care about copyright violations, even when we know about them. Fram (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So what is clear to you is not necessarily clear to me. Try User talk:Moonriddengirl. She cares. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This feels like a lynch mob debating how the successful town lawyer is?was (maybe) caught for (or warned about) speeding.... whilst some whisper about the little girl who was killed in a hit and run... and another offers to "fetch a rope". If there are editors here that believe that their first articles were as good as what they would now create then I think they are deluding themselves. This section is titled "Our most prolific article creator IS (or was????) a copyright violator". Is this the Daily Mail or the National Enquirer. I wonder if anyone would approve that as a DYK hook? WHO can defend that word "is" in the title? NewYorkBrad notes that we could end up with a large project that no one wants to help with. I fear that this might be even more true than he predicts (Wikipedia is a project). If you are going to sort through Wikipedia's history editor by editor then count me out. Asking Dr B to take part in his own show trial in a tone that make him feel like "the accused" creates a very bad smell. Lynch mobs and witch hunts are bad examples in human history that we do not need to clone. (I will not reply to any replies under this title). Victuallers (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Our most prolific article creator is (or was) a copyright violator..." has the appearance of being a personal attack rather than a title that will get cooperation. Hard to believe that 9-12 years and 96,000 page creations later any editor will be able to remember what pages they might have copied. Good luck on the searching, but I'll be fishing for problems in more problem infested pools. Legacypac (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as problematic articles go, I can see Olavi Paavolainen (and I note Fram has edited the article - is that restoring a copyvio? Who knows?) which is tagged for copyvio cleanup, and Filipe La Féria, which appears to be just a missing "translated from" note on the talk page. Is there anything else? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Legacypac (no, really!). Imagine if a regular editor came here and started a thread with this title, but put an admin's name in, instead of Dr B. It would be closed faster than you can say boomerang. I think the burden is on Fram to provide some hard evidence of Dr B being a "serial copyright violator", rather than just a few good-faith article expansions done more than a decade ago.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised Fram hasn't had a go at me for telling him "being right and being a dick are not mutually exclusive" once. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333, if you can't even be bothered to read the discussion at Dr. Blofeld's talk page (which he since removed), where other clear copyvio's were discussed, then please don't bother commenting here to attack the person who brought the issue here. Being right and being a dick are not mutually exclusive, but it's still better than being wrong and being a dick at the same time. Fram (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked for more information. You started the thread - you get the information for me. I have better things to do with my life, like my loving partner, children and family. We just had a nice Sunday lunch and a walk. It's better than arguing with some jerk on the internet who thinks everything they say and do is right. I'm out of here. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I started the thread, yes, and in my very first post I said " User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Copyright problem: Olavi Paavolainen shows the initial concern, raised by User:Orland, and further research confirming clear copyvios from multiple sources in multiple articles." If you genuinely wanted more information, you would have read that discussion. I'm glad you're out of here, I guess it is too much to hope that you mean a permanent retirement? Fram (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, you aren't helping yourself by acting indignant at people pointing out your blatantly lazy behavior when it comes to editing. I'd counsel you to take your very well-deserved lumps and do everything possible to help us clear up your mistakes to keep this from becoming a Johann Hari or Essjay -style hammering of Wikipedia. If you aren't prepared to help in that way, just follow your "retirement" exit strategy and go the fuck away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And telling him to "go the fuck away" is so helpful, right. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you were offering a criticism instead of asking a question, right? In answer: yes, yes it is. If Blofeld is getting snippy about being called out on his - at best - sloppy editing habits - then he neeeds to have a very long vacation at some place that is not Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the Jack that lectured me multiple times on my talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I throw something shiny, will you go chase it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've said, if people are genuinely concerned about my articles, quietly get on with it. This ANI is unnecessary and nothing positive is going to come from it. Fram has a very long history of chastising editors over poor quality work and seems to relish any situation he can act with authority and belittle others. Perhaps in part he genuinely wants to produce the highest quality encyclopedia, but we're all volunteers here, no wonder the site has become what it has become if editors don't respect each other. Given that a very large number of my articles created were empty stubs anyway... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you or anyone would have accepted it if I had "quietly" deleted hundreds of your articles, would you? And not researchng this further and relying on your memory ("The only articles I can think of which might be vios are those Finland writer bios from that site, thinking that the text was public domain for some reason.") would have been wrong as well. Fram (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Unattributed translations / copies:
 * was a pure copy of the Finnish article at the time. Attribution has been made a year later on the talk page by another editor.
 * This synopsis seems suspiciously like a machine translation of some Spanish tex. No one writes a movie synopsis like this: "In the compass of your lie you did not listen to my truth, but to the aim the understanding put light in your reason, and arose for both."

Copyvio's / too close paraphrasing:
 * and from  (Dr. Blofeld often used the same text as the start of multiple articles)
 * and from
 * and many other Argentinian films: it looks as if the synopsis is taken straight from Allmovie.com (e.g. ), unless respected movie historian Hal Erickson (author) has taken his synopsis from Dr. Blofeld instead... Also e.g. and  And not just Erickson, also his collaborators like Clarke Fountain did the same for other films, compare e.g.  with . And Bruce Eder as well,  vs. . I guess the chance that they were all copied by Dr. Blofeld is just slightly greater than the chance that all these Allmovie writers put their reputation on the line by copying from the same enwiki editor instead.
 * is a copy of IMDb, with a summary written by L.H. Wong from the Singapore Film Society
 * History of European Exploration in Tibet is apparently a straight copy from this 1986 book by Elisabeth Benson Booz. The copied text is still present in the current article, which I've now labeled as copyvio to hide it (I would normally have deleted it immediately, but considering that others might want to check this I went with this approach for now)
 * This seems to be cobbled together by copying multiple sources, including lifting lots from this article
 * This is another article copied straight from Petri Liukkonen

This is just by going through some of his larger article creations from 2006 until June 2007, by which time he had created many thousands of articles. It looks as if, if we don't want to check all the articles against sources one by one, we could best simply delete all his contributions to biographies and movie articles created in 2006 and 2007 (and check if the problems persisted in his more recent contributions, like the example from late 2009 I gave), and in each case check if some of his original texts remain in the current article, in which case the whole article needs deletion as a copyvio. This is not about a few articles, this is about dozens or hundreds of articles. Other categories may have the same problems (see e.g. the Tibet article, which doesn't fall in either category), but his geography microstubs are probably free from this problems and can be ignored (I hope!). Better solutions are of course welcome, but simply ignoring this seems unwise. Fram (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As I suggested above, can't a bot do that? I think deleting thousands of articles based on a suspicion is overkill when it's not that hard to let a bot check whether they actually are copyvios. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 13:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If a bot exists which can do this with some accuracy, then fine. However, we have a number of issues here, including unattributed translations (hard for bots to find), and copyvio from sources which have since gone offline and are only to be found through specific internet archive / wayback captures, which may also be hard for bots. And the bot somehow needs to be able to make the distinction between "enwiki copied from this site" and "this site copied from enwiki", as we deal with old copyvios. Fram (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a coder but I assume that both checking against links in the article and a copyvio detector should be possible as well as a regex comparing a machine translation to another wiki-page. The bot might also check against a list of known mirrors to avoid those links. In the end, a bot can only help make life easier for manual checking, not do all the checks itself. But still, how about you post something to WP:BOTREQ outlining what a bot should be doing in your opinion and the experienced editors there can tell you what can be done? Even if only some of it were possible, it would be a huge timesaver. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 15:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that percentage wise this editor's creations are no worse and maybe much better than ghe average creation many years ago. Why not develop a solution to check pages from the old days regardless of creator. I bet checking contributions of random occasional editors will find more problems per hundred pages checked than by targeting one prolific creator. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Of course, once a bot has been created for this purpose, it could be set to check other pages as well. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 20:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There has previously been no interest in creating such a bot, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Given the vast amount of likely copyvios waiting to be addressed at WP:CCI, reviewing Dr. Blofeld's early edits (most of which are fine) is a very low priority. I encourage people here who are concerned about copyright violations to go there to help clean up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I can see this awful back and forth personal sniping as being good for the wiki. The articles will get checked a bit more, the quality will be higher. However in the meantime a hugely prolific creator gets slimed for volunteering a decade's worth of work. If Wikipedia were a factory, this would be akin to someone coming in to work for free for ten years. Upon retiring, instead of a going away party, they get an anal probe and have to walk a gauntlet of people cheering F-U. Good for the wiki, bad for human beings. Just saying.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, not very good for the wiki either. KJP1 (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about section header
I have noticed made a change to the current section header (addressing the concern raised by a couple editors), which was promptly reverted by. I was wondering if we could have a discussion about this current section header. Alex Shih (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC) I prefer the new heading that refs Fram's copyvio machine translations. Can Fram please post a list of their problematic edits for everyone to review? It would save everyone a lot of time. We can't have machine translated copyvio or unverified additions left unfixed. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. Our most prolific article creator is (or was) a copyright violator... is technically true since Fram has provided evidence of a couple of articles (comparing to  is a smoking gun), but if all we're looking at is a few of Dr B's earliest creations before he understood the rules it's fairly misleading since it gives the impression that Dr B is a prolific copyright violator rather than a prolific editor who made some mistakes in the early days. One could with equal accuracy describe me as a copyright violator because in my early days I made this edit merging a bunch of stubs into a single article and didn't understand the rules regarding attribution to the editors of the previous articles. It would probably be less misleading to go with something like "Potential copyright violations in early edits by Dr. Blofeld" if you really feel we need to mention the name in the header. &#8209; Iridescent 12:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a less sensational heading would be more appropriate (Copyright violations from Dr. Blofeld). It doesn't matter that he's "our most prolific article creator", as copyvios can occur without being the article creator. Aiken D 12:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It matters that he is our most prolific article creator as a standard CCI would be hard, and it's not even possible to make a list of articles they created through the standard link in his contrubutions history. Being a prolific editor and article creator has a clear impact on how we can technically deal with this, and on how bog the problem may be. E.g. 1% of his articles would still be nearly 1,000 articles... The copyright violations which have so far been found were made between 2006 and late 2009, so it's not really in "a few of his earliest creations only". And "potential" in the section header is absolute rubbish, there are confirmed clear and large copyright violations (not just some sentences, but a whole 10K article). I'll dig a bit deeper into this tomorrow, I don't have the time to check more articles now, but the whitewashing in Ritchie's changed section header is completely unwarranted. Fram (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Ritchie333 has indicated at his user talk page that he was editing as a friend of Dr. Blofeld, not as an uninvolved admin. Fram (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fram, I am certainly not a friend of Dr Blofeld, but to my eyes you're coming across as a vindictive crank rather than someone raising a legitimate concern. &#8209; Iridescent 17:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across. Apparently everyone here thinks it is no problem that we have dozens of copyvios in the histories, with some or many of them remaining in the actual histories, if the one that produced them is a cornerstone of our society or somesuch. Can you please tell me what I am supposed to be "vindictive" about? And can you perhaps also indicate what isn't legitimate about the concern? Fram (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vengeance is mine", GmG? You seem to like defending copyvio editors. Fram (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he's defending civility. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no no no. Thank you both. I'm actually actively debating whether it's worth taking the time away from doing other things to start collecting diffs for a case, because this appears to be sustained and fairly egregious disregard for our standards for civility. But I figured since they fairly obviously act like they haven't read this portion of policy, it may actually be possible that they haven't, and I may as well have a diff showing that they have. That's literally all I was doing. And now I have. Fram has already made it abundantly clear they don't value my opinion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you or anyone list one actual machine translation, with the source perhaps? Otherwise, can you all drop the personal attacks because some wikifriend of yours turns out to have been a problematic editor for his first few years? It really is highly unbecoming of you all. Fram (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears clear that, while this might present a lot of work, it needs to be done. We need to check Blofeld's backlog of articles for copyvio. If Blofeld isn't going to be part of the solution, we cannot let him be an obstacle either. I'll help out if his backlog needs to be divy'd up and checked, but automating the flagging process might help us target Blofeld's more problematic articles. It could also help us have a infrastructural frame of reference should we consider (at some future date) checking all wiki-en articles from oldest to newest for copyvio. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you change the title of a highly-active thread this late in its life, it's normally good practice to use Template:Anchor so as not to break the section links. 61 edit summaries in the page history of AN linked to. Honestly, the original title may have been sensationalist, but it wasn't inflammatory or offensive. It more accurately represented the view expressed in Fram's original post (that it was a problem with his old edits and may still be a problem -- I'm not saying I share this view, mind you) than your edited version, so changing the title without directly noting inline that you did kind of changed the meaning of Fram's original comment, even if it may have brought it more in line with later findings. I've gone ahead and anchored the old title, anyway. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. We don't need no steenkin' process. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I didn't notice this subthread discussing specifically the title of this thread. I just noticed that a link I placed to this section on another page had been broken, decided to fix it, and did a very brief check of who had done it. My comment about how the original title was not a violation was meant to be incidental, and I probably would not have made it if I thought that by doing so I was joining in a debate about its appropriateness. I never would have pinged you, User:JzG, if I had noticed that it wasn't just an sudden, unilateral action by you. Sorry for the mix-up. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've started Arbitration/Requests/Case specifically about the conduct of Dr. Blofeld and Ritchie333 during this discussion. I left out the more occasional snarkiness and sideshow posts like the one by Legacypac above, but the continued disruptive statements, personal attacks and dismissiveness from these two editors just was beyond the pale. Perhaps we can focus here now again on the copyvio's by Dr. Blofeld (see the many examples I posted above) and how we can best deal with them? Fram (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an outsider here, I can't see how starting an ArbCom case can possibly help with restoring the focus back on the content in question and away from the behavior in this thread. Doesn't that keep the focus on behavior with approx. half of the people commenting here likely commenting on that Case request instead? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 13:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If people keep their comments on behaviour for that ArbCom case, then such comments can stay out of here. It's perhaps wishful thinking, but I don't believe that letting the worst offenders continue unchecked would have been a better solution. Fram (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for admins to monitor articles
These 2 articles were full protected indefinitely by User:Jenks24 (who is now inactive) in late November in an effort to stop edit warring and to resolve a long-running content dispute, but the effect of indefinite full protection has been to completely stop all discussion and improvements to both articles. I made a request to reduce the protection level at WP:RFPP, where User:kelapstick said that "any unprotection will require some degree of administrative intervention/monitoring" and recommended that I ask here for volunteers. Any other thoughts on this issue are welcome. Iffy★Chat -- 09:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't help but think that indefinite full protection should be a very infrequent thing. Especially where articles have acknowledged issues as these two do. I've watchlisted both articles, for what it's worth. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest unprotecting the articles with the caveat that editor warriors will simply be blocked. Full indef runs counter the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e. anyone can edit). - F ASTILY   21:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Most Avicenna1985 and Shadegan warring. I think with semi/EC protection any disruption can be prevented with blocks Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - No need to fully protect indefinitely. Moving down to extend confirmed for a few weeks and then semi protection would do the job. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's extraordinary, I can't help wondering if Jenks selected indefinite duration by mistake. Mind you, nationalist edit wars can drive any admin distracted. I've changed the protection to semi for a month, for both articles, and put the chief warriors' talkpages on my watchlist. We may need extended-confirmed prortection, but let's try semi first. I'm not promising to monitor the articles closely, as I don't want to go mad myself. If required, please come back here, or go to WP:RFPP or WP:AN3. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I'll keep the articles on my watchlist as well. Iffy★Chat -- 22:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

David McGimpsey
As an article, not just as a BLP, well ought to have administrative eyes noting both its content and revision history. Collect (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect - The article has been fully edit protected. Are there other issues outside of the content dispute involving the user claiming to be that article subject that needs to be looked at?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I protected then immediately unprotected the article, once I checked the times; the article had been unprotected for 12 hours, and discussion had been going on in the intervening 12 hours by the principals. The protection was not needed, so I undid it immediately, since the edit war has clearly stopped, and everyone is clearly behaving now.  I've watchlisted the article, just to make sure it DOES stay cordial, but everything looks OK for now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know. Okay, we'll keep eyes on it and take things from there if needed :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same name user who complained has been blocked per "ublock-famous". Nothing since.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 admins have opined on the talk, so I expect things will remain cordial.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin closure on move review
Can someone take a look at non-admin closure on move review here: Move review: Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. User made a procedural closure and then went to the newly opened RM to propose that denominational article on animosity towards Eastern Orthodox Christians should be renamed to "Anti-Catholicism (Eastern Orthodox)" literally! :) So, what just happened there? Where is the logic and justification in making a procedural closure and then proposing that the same article on animosity towards Eastern Orthodox Christianity should be renamed as anti-Catholicism in Eastern Orthodoxy? :) During the discussion on move review, the same user had some firm opinions about the subject in question, but it seems that there is some serious confusion on his part regarding the content of the article and basic denominational terminology. In the case of this closure, the matter should have been left to some experienced administrator. Sorabino (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The move review seemed to be heading towards an endorse anyways. No need to undo it; I can't see it being overturned.  No issue with a non-admin closure there.  The second move discussion is underway, and there's no problem with proposing ideas during it.  Paine Ellsworth is an experienced editor, and as such, is as justified in closing a move review as any admin is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. We had some further discussions there and it seems that everything will be resolved positively. Sorabino (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Update about WMF’s Anti-Harassment Tools team work in 2018: Blocking tools
Hello all, thank you for the input over the past several months about the blocking tools. From all the participation on Blocking tools and improvements talk page on English Wikipedia and on Meta, our discussion with our legal department, and our preliminary technical analysis, the AHT team has decided to a) investigate two projects now, b) next build two small changes, and c) later in the year follow with a third project. The details are below.

First, the team will investigate and decide between:
 * Project 1 - Block by combination of hashed identifiable information (e.g. user agent, screen resolution, etc.) in addition to IP range. We are still defining what “hashed identifiable information” means in our technical investigation, which can be tracked at T188160. We will also need to decide how this type of block is set on Special:Block (likely an optional checkbox) and how this type of block is reflected in block logs.
 * Project 4 - Drop a 'blocked' cookie on anonymous blocks. The investigation can be tracked at T188161.
 * If these projects are deemed technically too risky, we will pursue Project 2 - Block by user agent in addition to IP. User agents data is already available to Check Users.

Next, we will do two feature improvements- adding an optional datetime selector to Special:Block (T132220) and improving the display of block notices on mobile devices (T165535).

In a few months (likely around May 2018) we will pursue some form of Project 5 - Block a user from uploading files and/or creating new pages and/or editing all pages in a namespace and/or editing all pages within a category.

Additional ideas can be added to on wiki discussion pages and also user blocking column on Phabricator for future discussions and decisions. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Seymour High School (Indiana)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Seymour High School (Indiana) ? Thanks, IndyNotes (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
Hello.

My apologies for being a bother, but I received a topic ban for 6 months on November 25 last year, due to tendentious editing and WP:SYNTH, but was told that I could appeal to lift it after 3 months.

I have behaved well and only sporadically edited entertainment articles ever since, so I wonder if it could be possible to do so.

I now realise that my extreme overwork and lack of sleep at the time made me act without common sense, and that my editing was inappropriate, incompetent, and unprofessional. For example, it is not at all a good idea to insert 33 references into a single page, at the same time, and in a very sloppy fashion.

I am still concerned about the area, but have calmed down considerably since then, and would try to stick to strictly adding a few of the most reliable references to statistics from official institutions, and do so in a more professional manner.

That said, I do not have much time available due to working a lot elsewhere, so I would not be able to edit much anyway.

Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add, this appeal is for the topic ban enacted by myself back in November 2017 based on community discussion (log AN/I archive). I have yet to look into recent contribution history. Alex Shih (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In case anyone wonders, David addressed Alex at the latter's talk page before starting this request. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Questions: 1)So what's the hurry? 2) What are you going to do differently? The problems that resulted in your topic ban were exactly about your persistent attempts to add sources (reliable or otherwise) in support of an agenda, basically stuff like this list you made. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Calton's second question seems reasonable, and an answer would seem to be needed. Calton's first question does not appear to make sense without some further explanation, and could be reasonably ignored for the time being. MPS1992 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion: assume I had a good reason for a question before advising someone to ignore it. Does that sound "reasonable" to you? --Calton | Talk 17:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I would try to only stick to inserting a few very reliable statistics sources here and there, and do so in a better structured/more professional manner. Given that Wikipedia's aim is to convey truthful matter-of-fact information, I think that should hopefully be alright, as long as I am careful to avoid inserting opinion references and the like.
 * Agenda is also too harsh, as that would imply that I have a coherent ideology, which I don't. As a centrist, the closest thing that I have to an ideology is: "Dogmatic fundamentalism and environmental destruction are bad" and "Reliable facts and case-by-case analysis are good". Concerned is a more accurate description.
 * Persistent is also rather unfair, as I had only made comparatively few sporadic edits regarding this area. Compare that with Snooganssnoogans, who has made thousands in likely hundreds of pages at this point. David A (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My first question (So what's the hurry?) is because this is a six-month topic ban he's appealing at the halfway mark. Yes, explicitly allowed but: what's the hurry? Reading the discussion that earned him this topic ban and the MFD discussion for his original list of refs shows me how anxious he was to add all the anti-Muslim material:
 * Am I afraid of Islamism? Yes, obviously, but so is 60% of Europe according to the statistical research that I have read.
 * I should not be banned simply due to having read a lot of disturbing information, and turning very worried due to this.
 * So I am going to be silenced simply because I cite valid reliable statistics that some people are uncomfortable with, regardless that they are usually correct? That is downright Orwellian, and definitely not how a reliable encyclopaedia should work. 
 * Just to clarify, I am not afraid of immigrants. I am afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals. I am also afraid of various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera) (The above three quotes from here.)
 * Also, I am admittedly a paranoid sort from being used to that lots of people are either not basing their conclusions or opinions on empirical facts, or outright want to censor them from public view and destroy the lives of anybody who mention statistics and the nature of reality. (That one from here.)
 * I'm getting a distinct sense of someone here editing so he can Right Great Wrongs. So, again I ask: what's the hurry? --Calton | Talk 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mainly just prefer to have the ability to be free to contribute with reliable statistical information, as I am worried about the increasing amounts of fundamentalist extremism in society, right, left, and religious alike, and think that the only way for the public to be able to make rational evaluations is to make said statistical information readily available.
 * Also, there is a massive difference between having anything against regular secular Muslims (which I definitely do not), and being legitimately afraid of genocidal hate groups, regardless of their type and origin. David A (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose About six months ago, I commented "This editor has openly acknowledged their many personal impediments to NPOV editing in this topic area, and their cumulative contributions to this discussion verify their complete inability to edit neutrally about Muslims and crime in Sweden.," I see nothing in this appeal that reassures me that this editor will not return to their problematic editing behaviors, as they frankly admitted a variety of serious psychological problems that adversely affected their editing. To be frank, I see no evidence that the underlying problems have been solved. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the only things that I actually have a diagnosis for are autism, OCD, and ADD. Anything else was mostly due to stress from severe overwork and reading quite a lot of disturbing news, but alright then. David A (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

*Support. I remember David A as a useful contributor who was good at dealing with disruptive POV pushers. Given the recent improvements and convincing unban appeal, I am positive that he can return to his productive editing once again. Capitals00 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird, I remember him as BEING a disruptive POV pusher, which is why he wound up at WP:ANI in the first place. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck my vote. I didn't realized that topic ban was temporary and only 100 edits have been made since topic ban, all on non-controversial subjects. Capitals00 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I lack any confidence in this editor after reading the ANI thread that lead to their topic ban, and it has not been helped by their statement above. It would be a total disservice to lift the tban when David has thoroughly demonstrated a lack of competency in the field; they also allow their emotions to hamper their editing. When I decide on these sort of things, I ask myself: "Have we been better off with the restriction in place?" I find myself giving a resounding yes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. His responses are the opposite of reassuring, especially his sudden proclamation of being a "centrist". --Calton | Talk 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is nothing new. I performed a political compass test quite some time ago, and received that result. I used to get leftist anti-authoritarian results, but have since read lots of new information that give me lots of mixed viewpoints. If you want an overview of the more important of said personal viewpoints, I have listed them in my personal userpage. Being autistic, I have limited mental filters, so lying does not come naturally to me. This is definitely not something that I am making up. As you may have noticed, I have been very honest about personal handicaps, despite that they have been used as arguments against me. David A (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you've used claims of personal handicaps as rationalizations for bad behavior. The WP:ANI is littered with them -- really not worth listing here -- and you, just now, did it again when you tried to imply that having autism means you must be telling the truth. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that interpretation. I am just a very self-aware and introspective person, who tends to be open about the way that I think and function. I think quite a lot about such issues. David A (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, we're right here. We can see you doing it. Bending yourself into more self-rationalizing knots when we have the receipts isn't doing your case any good. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am being as honest as I can about how I think and function, and you keep being rude towards me. If that is not good enough for you, then I do not know what to do. David A (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, I genuinely don't function in the same manner that you do, and my social skills are very poor, but I am trying my best, and would appreciate not getting constantly attacked no matter what I do or say. Thank you. David A (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Editor has made fewer than 100 edits since the topic ban and none on controversial topics, not nearly enough to demonstrate that they've learned to address the issues which led to the topic ban. The topic ban is very narrow and tailored... so I don't see any evidence that this editor wouldn't return to exactly the same problematic behaviors on exactly the same problematic articles as before. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per the OPs statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, since this appeal seems to have been rejected, I have no problem accepting the result. The last time was extremely stressful to me, as I recurrently felt abused, so I do not want to go through something similar again. This was just intended to be a polite request. Not anything more. David A (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I had so much to do with the original topic ban that I think it best to neither support nor oppose this appeal. But I do have a comment to David: you say you have "behaved well and only sporadically edited entertainment articles ever since". (My bolding.) I'm very sorry if you took the ban as implying that it's a good thing to edit only sporadically in other areas, because the opposite is true. We very much want you to practise your Wikipedia editing, away from the topics that triggered you so much back in November, and to demonstrate how constructively you can edit. Compare NorthBySouthBaranof's comment above. I understand you have little Wikipedia time due to work, but insofar as you get a chance, you'd help yourself far more by editing more entertainment articles, and any other interests that you have outside of immigration to Sweden, and wait out the ban until it expires in May. In my opinion. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Okay. No problem then, although I am currently extremely busy managing one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis for at least 8 hours every day of the week.
 * However, while I am here, I would greatly appreciate if somebody could please inspect the editing of Snooganssnoogans as well, over the last year or so. Given that I was topic banned for tendentious editing for inserting references to comparatively very few pages in a very sporadic manner, whereas he has been enormously more extreme in that regard according to my experience, it might be of interest, and would avoid severe double standards. David A (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your army. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are concerned about tendentious editing, he has done hundreds of times more of it than myself, so some consistency would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Comments from David A really don't seem to indicate he properly understands the reasons for the topic ban. For example "I was topic banned for tendentious editing for inserting references to comparatively very few pages in a very sporadic manner" really doesn't come close to understanding the problem - which was the appearance of editing with a strong anti-Islam and anti-immigration agenda. And User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links really doesn't inspire confidence - it looks more like an anti-Muslim hit list. You may feel you are trying to be neutral, but when it's a subject on which you have very strong personal opinions and which inspires strong emotions in you (including fear, even), it's very hard to actually be unbiased and edit from the WP:NPOV angle that Wikipedia requires - hard even for people not diagnosed with autism and OCD. I really do think the subject area of crime/immigration/Islam/Sweden is one you need to steer clear of, and I very much agree with Bishonen's suggestion that you work in other unconnected areas - there must be many subjects which don't instill fear in you. The more you can do that, and the more you can show us you can work without any sign of political agenda in areas where you do not have a strong personal opinion, the more successful you are likely to be in the long term. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Understood. (I needed to organise the statistics that I read in the news somewhere, but it may have been a bad idea.) David A (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can delete the page if you wish. David A (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"may be blocked from editing"
It has come to my attention, has recently threatened to block a user from editing. Here

From my knowledge, non-admins can not block users. Being a non-admin, does GSS-1987 have the capacity to make such comments?

JassiDosanjh (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a standardised warning template, which can be applied by any editor. "You may be blocked," is a different statement from, "I will block you." Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 12:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can, however, feel free to read the harassment warning I just placed on your talkpage as, "I will block you". Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OP blocked as a sock of an editor I blocked yesterday. Doug Weller  talk 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

All user accounts are restricted from account creation while doing so from a blocked IP or range
Hi, fellow Administrators! I'm creating a discussion here due to a situation that I ran into while attempting to assist 1997kB with a block notice that he was receiving. He's currently caught in an IPv6 rangeblock where the only option ticked is the prevention of account creation (the IP range is not hardblocked). While attempting to create an account as part of his ACC duties on Wikipedia, he receives a notice that "account creation from IP addresses in the range *IP RANGE* is blocked" and is prevented from doing so. After some troubleshooting and some additional testing on the Test Wikipedia, I was able to find that absolutely no user accounts are able to create accounts if they attempt to do so while from within a blocked IP or IP range if the "prevent account creation" option is ticked - even if you're an account creator, IP block exempt, or even an Administrator. This block option prevents and halts all account creation from within that IP or range.

While I agree that this restriction is correct when it applies to anonymous users as well as for any user accounts without those user rights while from the blocked IP or range, I feel that having the IP block exemption flag should allow the user account to create additional accounts as usual when in this situation (up to their limit of six accounts per 24-hour period of course). Additionally, users with the account creator flag (on top of having IPBE probably), as well as Administrators should be able to do so without restriction or hitting the limit. If I'm wrong, if others disagree with my thoughts or feel differently than I do, or if they have any input to provide, please do so. I think that I (well, 1997kB actually) discovered a situation that hasn't been accounted for and doesn't apply consistently when taking the relative user rights into account.

What should I do to have this discussed and by those that should be made aware? Where should I take this situation and this concern? Thanks, everyone :-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the first step should be to determine what thought has gone into the conflict between "prevent account creation" and advanced user rights. That would be at WP:VPT where someone could probably find a relevant technical discussion. Also, what happens with IPv4 range blocks would be relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. I will state here for the record that I did not test this with a user account from behind an IPv4 block - I only tested this in the situation that I attempted to troubleshoot with 1997kB, which was an IPv6 range block. There may be a way that I can test this situation on test-wiki, but I'll need to temporarily sacrifice my IP address in order to do so.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: After performing some additional testing on test-wiki, I can say that the account creation restriction I explained above applies exactly the same to IPv4 range blocks as well (whether you're behind an IPv6 or IPv4 doesn't matter). However... it was discovered that if a user does not have IPBE, they cannot load the Special:CreateAccount at all if behind a blocked IP range with the option set. But... if you do have IPBE, you can load Special:CreateAccount... but it gives you a similar error when you try to create an account using the form on the page. Quite a surprising and inconsistent discovery regarding this restriction.... how would the IPBE user right impact your ability to load Special:CreateAccount where not having it wouldn't? I'm quite puzzled...... (also, a big thanks to SQL for helping out and testing this with me).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Confirming this behavior - tested against a fresh MW install downloaded from gerrit. Not blocked, Blocked w/o IPBE or admin, Blocked w/ IPBE or admin. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just confirmed this on the beta cluster, finding myself in the surreal position of being blocked from creating accounts while logged into a steward account. I think at this point this is no longer an AN issue but more a VPT issue – I doubt anyone wants users exempt from blocks to still be subject to account creation blocks. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * T189362 filed. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  04:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Event
Just an FYI, but per this thread, there will be an event going on tomorrow, in case anyone on Australian time happens across a suspiciously large number of related edits from related IPs. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

White space vandal returns, again
He's back, as 189.38.168.1. Perhaps, Wikimedia should soon step in & deal with this individual. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why Am I receiving a FINAL WARNING?
I have edited the article Veerapandiya_Kattabomman providing a reliable source adding information which was deleted by another user, and the other user has reported me to admin spacemanspiff, who gave me a final warning on my talk page.

While I refrained from edit warring and the other user continued to do multiple edits, I had warned him on his talk page, he then went on to report me to adminstrator spacemanspiff, who gave me a FINAL WARNING threatening to block me from editing, giving me the reason that I had done something wrong in the past. All this while I did not do more than 2 edit revertings, while the other user made 4 edits altogether deleting sourced content which I added. The only reason the admin gave final warning on my talk page was that I had done something in the past, which I am absolutely unaware, but assuming he is right I did something wrong even then it makes absolutely no sense to me, because If I had done something wrong and fixed my attitude now not doing same as before even then am I never allowed to edit on wikipedia again, even when I stick to wikipedia's guidelines; will I receive final warnings threatening me of getting blocked from editing? Ripapart (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The Admin seems very biased to me, I may be wrong but thats my POV. Ripapart (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you have posted this in the wrong place but, for example, there was this warning some time ago. I think the concern now is more one of general competence. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Spacemanspiff's warning is super vague. It'd be very helpful if he'd point out specific diffs to the user.  How can the user improve behavior if Spaceman doesn't provide an example of it?  Additionally, Sitush, you've fixed it now but initially your reverts on the linked article could've been better.--v/r - TP 14:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was pinged to the editor's talk page though this seems the place for the discussion now. In any event I took a quick look at their editing and talk page history and two things struck me. First there may be some CIR questions here. And secondly it is possible that this might have been handled a little better. I am not referring specifically to the final warning so much as the broader interactions between this editor and the community. This is a newish editor with only a little over 150 edits. And while clearly there were some efforts to help them out, and I am seeing some evidence of competency issues, posting warning templates on their talk page might have been a bit BITEY. A little mentoring might be more constructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TParis, you're wrong. The latest version of my edit is bugger-all different from the first version - the movie was already mentioned and all I did was merge two sentences + remove the inappropriate statements that Ripapart kept adding, as I also noted on the article talk page. Yes, the cinema book remains for the alternate name but that is going to go, too, because it is poor and incorrect.
 * I think me, Spiff, Bishonen, NeilN etc are all becoming jaded by the constant warfare and incompetence. We need more interested admins, not snipes from ones who never get involved (by which I do not mean WP:INVOLVED). - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean particularly in Ind-Pak-Afgh topics?  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do. Sorry for the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the warnings/advice/invitations to discuss that Ripapart has removed from their page, TParis? For instance mine, which concerned some egregious userpage posts they made today — i.e. not "in the past" or "a year ago", as they are currently complaining on their page. It wasn't a template, but an attempt at mentoring, Ad Orientem. Ronz's post about sourcing here from January 2018 was friendly and helpful, but all is simply removed. I wouldn't say Space's warning was vague; it was a specific reference to past warnings, that are no longer on the page. The user is allowed to remove warnings etc, yes, but simply ignoring them comes at a cost, and makes it look like they're unreceptive to advice and unwilling to learn. For recent disruption at articles — again, not in the past, Ripapart — see and . It looks to me like the user is editing in good faith (although aggressively), but unskilfully. See my links to article histories — apparently they have trouble taking on the difference between history and a movie narrative. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Anyway, Ripapart made these edits introducing the topic of the film but also introducing a new citation. You did a blanket revert of all of their edits including the constructive ones.  They reverted you restoring the exact same material.  You again reverted without discretion.  They restored the material again.  Only then did you get specific with your reverts.  Had you done that from the start on this article, the situation would've been resolved quickly.  Your approach didn't improve the problem.  Sitush made some bad reverts and started templating another user.  Am I surprised to see that they thought that was the culture here and returned the favor?  No.--v/r - TP 15:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I said above? Nothing has really changed except the addition of a source for an (incorrect) name. We have a major problem with ethnic pov-pushing in articles relating to south Indian states, notably those relating to the Tamil- and Telugu-speaking areas. A blanket revert of such stuff is fine; my last changes really did nothing different, except move the film from one section to another. I also opened an article talk page thread when it became obvious they were going to keep reinstating. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong there is missing information stop bluffing that nothing has really changed. You are accusing me of POV-pushing here, why would you delete that content when it is backed with a reliable citation?? I think you are indulging in pov-pushing but accusing me of it, if it is in the source why would you not allow it on the article? Surely looks like pov-pushing on your part to me. All information I have added is valid information with news article sources, still missing on the article. Here is the diffRipapart (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (multiple conflicts) I think you have misread what I said above. Yes, information that you added is no longer in the article but the difference between my first revert and my last changes are effectively zero, other than to leave in a source which needs to go because it appears to be wrong (the thing about the alternate name). The information that is no longer there should not be there, for the reasons I have already explained to you on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk)
 * this is not really the place to hash out content matters, which should be discussed at the article talk page, but if you read and accept Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film) then that should make it abundantly clear why the material you tried to add was inappropriate in a historical biography. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are lucky that you got a final warning unlike those these days who get indeffed and topic banned without a warning. Lorstaking (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your misrepresentations are not helpful here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You can explain me what I am misrepresenting and which incident I am particularly misrepresenting and also make sure that the incident involved a "final warning" from an uninvolved admin such as in this incident. Lorstaking (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you're referring to MapSGV who was blocked and subsequently topic banned after evidence was presented at AE. Not without a warning as they were notified of discretionary sanctions. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a warning, it is just a notification that the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and it "is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault", read about alerts, there is no mention of a warning. However, a warning is made only after finding of a fault. This is why I said that the filer of this report is lucky that he got a final warning that if he engaged in disruption he would get blocked, not only once but twice, one can debate if it was clear enough or not but I can still read it to be well within WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Lorstaking (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are warned that "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks." You can call it notified/informed/told/advised/cautioned - the intent is the same. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we agree that there are many meanings of it, still many reports after giving D/S alert ends up with a reminder and/or warning. My initial comment still remains unchanged that filer is lucky that he got a "final warning" from an uninvolved admin compared to those who didn't had such a warning before block/ban, in the sense that if they repeated the behavior they would get blocked. I was particularly talking about the way filer was warned. Lorstaking (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be an advantage if SpacemanSpiff was able to weigh in here, but unfortunately he's on break for personal reasons for a few days. (Real Life, remember it?) Please don't be in a hurry to archive this thread. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC).


 * This is a clear agenda editor who has been warned exactly for that since May 2017, there's been enough hand holding done for the editor too as is evident from the numerous talk page posts, if after all this someone wants me to explain to them how their behavior has been disruptive then I'm not sure why we even wonder why we lose out editors, especially with an inability to identify agenda driven disruption and asking good faith editors to go through multiple hoops as Tparis seems to suggest above while giving the disruptors far more room. I'm not sure I'd like to waste much time over here, do as you please, this was a warning and not a block. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @SpacemanSpiff "Waste of time"? You have such haste! You should respect everyone first and learn the basic and core principles of Wikipedia - good faith, "it is clear this is an agenda editor"? You are personally attacking users - a very poor taste of words and you need to be first reminded of good faith which you are absolutely missing, how can you call yourself an administrator you need lessons of good faith first. I am unsure how you came to be an administrator inthe first place. Ripapart (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking policy for IPv6 tunnels
Good morning,

I've launched Firefox on a new laptop, and have noticed a new block on Hurricane Electric. This block is 2001:470:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and doesn't touch logged in users (anon only). The block has been put in January by Coffee. Their talk page explains they aren't currently available for Wikipedia.

Hurricane Electric is an ISP providing IPv6 connectivity through tunnels both for servers and domestic use. This is the fairly standard and recommended way (and perhaps the only one, now Sixxs is closed) to get IPv6 connectivity if the ISP doesn't provide it.

This /32 bits block is rather wide, as it affects 2^96 IP addresses, ie 79 228 162 514 264 337 593 543 950 336 IP addresses. This is a fairly big number, 79 octillion addresses, the IPv6 space is huge, as is this block. To stress the huge size of this block, this block blocks more IP addresses than the whole total number addresses available in the IPv4 space (there are only 2^32 IPv4 addresses, ie 4 294 967 296).

To get a new IP address, users must configure a tunnel, a fairly complicated process (rOPS roles/core/network/files/ysul_ipv6.sh.jinja for an example of script to setup such a tunnel) and not something easily throwaway. Tunnels are NAMED, with a DNS resolve giving the login of the account (for example in the example below, the client-side tunnel address is 2001:470:1f12:9e1::2, and resolves to nasqueron-1-pt.tunnel.tserv10.par1.ipv6.he.net, giving the username and the tunnel server city, here Paris. On my domestic connection, my tunnel resolves to dereckson-1...).

The tunnels given by default as /64 spaces. It's also possible to require a /48 space, but I'm not confident this is used for abuse. I've also found they've been rather responsive by mail for DNS-related issues, so I wonder if they'd be reactive on their abuse contact point (abuse@undefinedhe.net).

This is a rather important issue, as Wikimedia is committed to support IPv6 deployment, we participated to the World IPv6 Day and World IPv6 Launch Day for example.

So, I wonder if a discussion about an IPv6 block policy would be valuable, as /32 blocks, the standard for IPv4 doesn't seem to be convenient for IPv6.

--Dereckson (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Electric is a colocation provider. These are routinely blocked the same way as proxies; see Colocationwebhost. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Their IPv6 blocks aren't used only in a colocation context (a real minority of their use).
 * They also provide IPv6 connectivity for individuals withouth IPv6 offered by their ISP, so they are widely used in an individual context. --Dereckson (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think colocation provider is the most useful term in many circumstances including this one, though I will concede we've blocked a number of other HE ranges. I remember dealing with Sixxs before. These IPv6 tunnels are peculiar things in terms of policy and I think we need to treat them on a case by case basis. Without wanting to diminish the collateral, when there's a total of 340 undecillion IPv6 addresses, and most are assigned at least 18 quintillion of them for their personal use, I find talk about large numbers of IPv6 addresses to be somewhat unconvincing. There are really several relevant questions including: principally what proportion of vandalism we are getting from the range; whether anyone uses these ranges in order to evade other blocks; and whether there are plausible alternatives for good faith users. On the latter point I note that while it may seem obvious to just avoid the tunnel, it's not always going to be practical.
 * Having reviewed the contributions from this range, including with the checkuser tool and using checkuser logs, I think reports of previous checks on the range are capable of being overstated. The vandalism is currently not in great proportions, and there's a lot of good faith editing. I'd suggest that the /32 block is lifted with a recommendation to make blocks of /48 or narrower (and preferably /64). I'm happy to go ahead and do this, leaving a respectable period for any objections to be raised. There was recently another thread about this /32 range, and I note that Coffee was not over-insistent on retaining the block. I don't think a wider discussion of the IPv6 blocking policy is really needed. /32 blocks aren't made that often, and I think most people know that's a pretty big range. And as I say, IPv6 tunnels are peculiar things. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern would be that these are functionally identical to open proxies / VPN providers. My ISP does not offer IPv6 access, and I can still edit the encyclopedia without issue. IPv6 tunnels are very useful in evading blocks, however. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  07:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree, however I also think we have to think a little outside the box and look at what's actually happening. You probably know as well as I do that anyone intent on evading a block is going to do exactly that, and there are many more straightforward ways than using a series of IPv6 tunnels. I would compare this in some ways to many of the mobile networks which already edit. Pretty much anyone can use them, and of course you could go home later and dig out your old PC if you can still be bothered. Like the mobile networks I think we have to balance the disruption against the collateral, and what I'm seeing at this time is more collateral than disruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a rather large negative for sure (increased / easier evasion / socking / etc ). What's the positive / benefit to the project? These are editors that can already edit Wikipedia over IPv4. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  22:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is you're thinking of this as solely a wikipedia issue. People may very well have desire for IPv6 for reasons besides wikipedia. You are forcing them to disconnect their tunnel to edit wikipedia anonymously. For some users who don't have that level of technical control over the internet connection this may not even be possible. Even if it is possible, it may create other issues if they have a reason to want to use other services over ipv6 while editing wikipedia. The alternative is to force their browser to access wikipedia over IPv4 but this is something beyond the realms of many people. Perhaps if the foundation implemented an IPv4 only site e.g. en.ipv4.wikipedia.org but that doesn't exist. If there is sufficient problems from these IP ranges perhaps this restriction on people is justified, but IMO this needs to be demonstrated. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I should mention is that while I don't know about HE, Sixxs at least assigned a 64 tunnel which was static. You could get a 48 subnet if you had enough 'points' (generally earned from keeping your tunnel active) and I think gave a reason, again this subnet was static. You could I think get more tunnels if you wanted to. You could probably also sign up for multiple accounts. But Sixxs was generally noted for being fairly blunt and doing whatever the hell they want to with any user's service. I'm sure some people used them for block evasion and other nefarious purposes, but while people could probably do this once of twice, I strongly suspect anyone trying to make a career of it would find themselves shutdown without even us saying anything to Sixxs. Frankly I think most people would have had it far easier to get their ISP to continually change their IP even ignoring technical issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The allocations are static on a per-tunnel basis but users are free to create/delete tunnels as they wish. The address space is not assigned on a per-user basis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its better to be safe and block it then be sorry and see tons of vandalism from this IP 72.73.117.105 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and I saw alot of vandalism as well from the range 72.73.117.105 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The block of this range, as far as I know, is very simple. Anyone can setup an IPv6 tunnel using that service (which is greatly simplified by the scripts they provide), and prefixes for tunnels are essentially chosen at random. Thus it is effectively an open proxy, and has seen abuse before.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ on the comparison with an open proxy: it can't be assimilated to an open proxy: as zzuuzz established above, there are lot of good-faith editing in those ranges and Hurricane Electric seems to be the most important source of legitimate IPv6 traffic from domestic connections, as all the IPv6 early adopters use it.
 * The numeric prefixes aren't random: there by assigned according the tunnel server location, sequentially. But more importantly, an open proxy is something you can connect directly to without credentials. A tunnel is linked to a known identity (an username, a mail address, a domestic regular connection IPv4). --Dereckson (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to nitpick over details - yes, these tunnel brokers are more akin to anonymizing VPN hosts (which are also normally blocked) than open proxies. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  22:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SQL: you seem to consider IPv4 is still usable once IPv6 tunnel is there, but that doesn't how networking IETF RFC decided it will work. The RFCs require IPv6 to be tried before IPv4, and that's what the browser do: that means if you've IPv6 enabled, browsers will use IPv6 to connect to en.wikipedia.org, and so the fact the IPv4 isn't blocked is not useful at all: you can't - without providing a custom DNS resolve configuration - ask a site to use IPv4. So the benefit to the project is to avoid to have to ask yourself "what's the procedure to disable IPv6 to connect to en.wikipedia.org?". Because there is no easy solution for that (the quicker solution is to edit /etc/resolv.conf adding IPv4 for the text load balancers and all the .wikipedia.org subdomains, and to determine what IP to use according the datacenter you wish to target like eqiad or codfw). --Dereckson (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what IPv6 has no advantages and alot of disadvantages including weaker security, higher abuse risk and many websites do not work with IPv4 while most websites work with IPv4 so we need to block this ip address to prevent abuse as well as to get as many people back to IPV4 as possible as its safer and less abusable 72.73.117.105 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a forum on the merits of IPv6. And,, no - you can edit wikipedia without the tunnel without issue. If there is a great need to edit via an anonymizing tunnel, I'm sure IPBE would be available. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  22:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, IPBE wouldn't work here because all of this is over anon editing only. The range is only blocked for anon so all of those with customized tunnels can still edit with an account. I'm not sure why this thread is here...editors should sign in.
 * Well editors can sign in would be justification to disable all anonymous editing. The foundation at least has rejected this. (I think the community at a minimum would be no consensus.) IMO there needs to be sufficient actual problems from an IP range to block it. Not theoretical problems or people's personal belief that editors don't need IPv6. As I said above, this isn't just about a need to edit wikipedia over IPv6 since forcing editors to disable their tunnel to edit wikipedia is forcing them to change how they use their internet connection, and there are good reasons why people may want IPv6, whether or not others here agree with those reasons. And forcing your browser to only access wikipedia over IPv4 is likely beyond the abilities of many people even those capable of setting up HE tunnels. At the very least, if we are going to disable editing for largely theoretically or philosophical reasons rather than actual problems, we should be asking the foundation to make an IPv4 only site to at least make it easy for those who wish to anonymously edit, which for better or worse the foundation says they should be able to when there is sufficient reason to stop them, without having to significantly change their internet connection to edit wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument. This isn't about IPv6 vs. IPv4. This is about that range having real and not hypothetical problems AND the fact that it is viewed somewhat like a proxy. Its block history (cu log) shows that there have been real problems. Sometimes, blocking anon editing stifles account creation where it is being abused (LTAs, UPE socks, spambots) and regular editors cannot see that when evaluating anon edits in a range. On a different range, I remember editors working it out about "good" edits happening anon. That was painful to watch because there were four different sockmasters using that range and most of those "good" edits belonged to them. I don't know if that applies here but such things should be taken into consideration before sizing up what is collateral damage. My point being that they aren't really impeded from editing if they have an account...it is a simple solution.
 * I'm the author of User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 and endorse blocking this range because yes, I've seen abuse from it. Those who know enough to set up a tunnel should also understand why we block it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

White space tester is back
He's back, this time as 201.27.115.2 to disrupt virtually the same articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IPlinks template added. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just curious: What could be the purpose of this? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The report or me adding the IPlink? I added the IPlink template for the convenience of others.  Poking about, 201.27... appears to be the same as 2804:14C:123:AE2F:649A:F0F7:A719:9090.  I don't know if a range block will be needed as it was with the other address. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the vagueness, what I meant was why would a person make these sorts of edits? It's pretty low-grade as disruption goes, not the usual sort of vandalism. And it's an IP so it's not like they're trying to hit autoconfirmed or 30/500. Just idle curiosity. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I have no idea WTF's wrong with them, either. If I had any clue how to do range blocks, I'd block an area comparable to 2804:14C:123:AE2F:0:0:0:0/64 for a comparable time.  As is, though, I'd either just block that range or (if I rolled a 20) block all of Latin America.  Don't want to do that, so... *sits on hands* Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a rangeblock calculator that might help. No math needed, just copy+paste.  It also warns you if you're about to block all of Latin America, so I wouldn't worry about that ☺️ -  F ASTILY   04:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP. It's a recurring nuisance who I regularly range block.  It's basically a form of crapflooding, though there's occasionally page blanking mixed in.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential spike in vandalism b/c if youtube (according to The Verge)
Hi admins, just wanted to be sure that you have seen this piece by The Verge. Looks like youtube is going to now start linking wikipedia articles on videos about sensitive topics. Will likely result in an increase in vandalism. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Doc James mentioned it at WikiProject Skepticism shortly before I did here, sorry for the duplicate, I didn't see the other until now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock requests from Turkey
As you are probably aware, Wikipedia is banned in Turkey. I don't agree with the ban, but I don't have any power or authority to challenge or overturn it. With that in mind, what should happen with an unblock request like this one? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IP block exemption says "" and "" It seems to me they have the genuine and exceptional need part. IMO they've been around long enough here and elsewhere that they can probably be trusted but since I'm not even an admin, it's not something I've ever dealt with. I'd note however the page suggests you should contact a checkuser first. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Understand your point, but Wikipedia policy has no legal standing, whereas the Turkey ban has. I'm wondering if such a request would need to be escalated up to Office? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if granting this IP a block exemption would put you or WMF in violation of the Turkish access ban? That's definitely an office question, we can't give legal advice here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it would probably be best for the editor to just email the functionaries team anyway. They may already have experience with this. I'll suggest it to them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get why we should care about Turkish laws. Some portion of our content no doubt violates obscenity/moral/religious laws of various countries but we don't check with WMF when editing this content. We just have to comply with U.S. law (excluding copyright considerations). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, Wikipedia has from time to time been banned in China, but we have granted IP block exempt to allow good faith contributors from that country to edit via Tor or other proxies. I would have thought we should extend the same courtesy to contributors from Turkey... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that circumstances involving government censorship were one of the main reason for granting IPBE (the Great Firewall being the example I’ve always seen used.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, doesn't he say Turkmen Wikipedia and thus Turkmen language ? Implying Turkmenistan and not Turkey ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, though that doesn't change the general issue I wanted to raise. If anything, Turkmenistan's track record of censorship of free speech is even worse than Turkey's. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TJD, the user has edited eleven total projects, including both tkwiki and trwiki.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I original wrote this as a reply to the editor concerned but decided it probably wasn't very helpful, especially after someone else got involved. Maybe it's slightly of use here so I've reworded it. I noticed we have a Advice to users using Tor, although it doesn't look to be that helpful. It links to WikiProject on closed proxies which links to WikiProject on closed proxies/List of servers. But that project looks to be fairly dead to me as it was lasted edited in 2016 and only lists one editor, and that editor only edited once in mid 2017. However as it's possible they are still running it despite the inactivity, if anyone needs it they and feel they meet the criteria WikiProject on closed proxies/Criteria they you could try following WikiProject on closed proxies/Usage instructions (mostly emailing the one editor who is listed as having an active closed proxy outlining your reasons).  As an addition here at AN, that page does point out an obvious thing, if someone uses wikipedia via these methods they do so at their own risk of government sanction. That said, this applies even if a website isn't banned and even if a website is banned, it may or may not mean access to all of it is forbidden.  My impression is since the TOU already provides a disclaimer, we're generally encouraged not to provide any more disclaimers, people are supposed to understand by using this website (whether reading or editing), they do so at their own risk. This applies to admins as well. While the foundation does have their assistive fund, ultimate if you aren't comfortable doing something because of any legal risk, don't do it. I don't think it's likely the foundation will tell you it's okay or not okay. Still if anyone feels the foundation may want to know, you're free to tell them.  Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Turkish law had nothing to do with the blocks or declining the IPBE request. At the time of their request, they were logged into a proxy where only anon editing is blocked. They weren't truly blocked and could have edited. 1 What this person is doing is signing in to different proxies. They could edit on Feb. 4 in that proxy but signed into a different one the next day declaring that it isn't a webhost. Not truthful at all considering that proxy is down under and far removed from their declared location. They've acknowledged that they are using proxies but decided to not tell the truth in their first request. On the same day, they signed right back into the one that allows editing and requested IPBE even though they weren't blocked. Today, they have signed into another blocked proxy to lodge their request. They have found access but are trying entirely independent proxies. My advice is to go back to the one that they can use to edit.
 * He admits to changing to the many proxies and also admits to intentionally vandalizing here. I reiterate my decline of the IPBE.
 * has granted a one day temp IPBE but from what I've seen, I wouldn't call that user trusted.
 * I wish I had seen this prior to granting IPBE (which is for one year, not one day); I had no clue this discussion was in progress or I would have waited before flipping the switch. I was pinged to Sir artur's talk page by and confirmed 1) the editor is frequently effected by proxy blocks and 2) they are active on multiple Wikipedia projects with no current blocks or sanctions that I could find. In addition, a check didn't turn up any technical evidence of socking. If the consensus is that IPBE should be declined, I can easily uncheck the box.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Our posts were just one minute apart.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They weren't granted the global requests that they made at meta. That request was archived. Additionally, a steward has never responded to them here. On the Russian wiki, he claimed that his IPs weren't a problem when editing the English Wikipedia on Feb. 4 (link) and they granted him local IPBE. I don't understand why he was requesting in the first place because he has no edits on ru.wiki but that IPBE request and hasn't edited there since. The request at ru.wiki seems frivolous. On the English Wikipedia, he had seven edits in all of 2017 which is not what I'd call a pressing need. That's why I didn't think that he edited frequently enough.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The question was raised above as to whether the editor is in Turkey or Turkmenistan. He has edited both Turkmen Wikipedia (contributions history tk::Ýörite:Contributions/Sir artur) and Turkish Wikipedia (contributions history tr::Özel:Katkılar/Sir artur). My understanding is that the two languages are so similar that anyone with a knowledge of one can easily adapts to the other. He or she could therefore easily be in either of those two countries.
 * There seem to be enough doubts cast above about the editor's need for IP block exemption that it looks as though perhaps it should be revoked. However, is there also a case for leaving it in place but carefully monitoring any edits for any abuse, with a view to removing the right the moment anything untoward is seen? After all, any edits made using IP block exemption must occur in the contributions history of the account, so they will be visible. I am not expressing any view one way or the other, but just mentioning what seem to me to be relevant considerations.
 * Apologies for having invited you into this mess. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also the option of changing the length of the IPBE; as of recently we can now choose from 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and a year as finite options. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever is decided here as both of you have presented workable options. I had given my ADMINACCTability here on this page for why I declined and one minute later the IPBE was granted.
 * I knocked the expiry back from 1 year to 1 month. If they abuse it we can revoke it, if not we can reevaluate in 1 month. If anyone else wants to change the duration or revoke it, please don't feel that you need to get an ok from me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Paid article writers
I got an e-mail today from someone who was offering to write a Wikipedia article about me for a fee:
 * Hello Robert,
 * My name is Ali. I am a freelance writer and I write Wikipedia pages for individuals and companies. I looked you up and you are not on Wikipedia! Would you like to have a Wikipedia page? If yes, then I can help you. Having written Wikipedia pages for over 400 individuals, I can write an excellent page for you. For your safety and assurance, there will be NO upfront payment required. You only have to pay AFTER the work is complete and you are happy with it. Academics who have accomplished much less have Wikipedia pages because they have got them made. It's time you get one too. Just send me a message and I will forward you the cost and time frame details for writing your Wikipedia page..
 * Best,
 * Ali

I don't know if this has come up before (I wouldn't be surprised if it had), but it may be something we need to be looking out for. --RFBailey (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct response of course is to request as many examples as possible of their past work for review. You know, you're really on the fence on this one, and you need to make sure they're the right investment.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   19:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But to answer the original implied question, yes, it has come up before, enough so that we have a policy on it, WP:PAID. It's allowed, though difficult, as long as it is disclosed, and the contribution needs to be approved by an unconnected editor. A noticeable fraction of Articles for creation are this. --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a functionary, I think our team would love to see the full email and any and all other information regarding who this is and what they have written already. There’s a good chance whoever this is is part of one of several groups already banned by the arbitration committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I have absolutely no intention of sending this person (or anyone else) any money or asking them to write anything. (I know that I don't meet WP:GNG(!).)  I can pass on the full e-mail if anyone (such as User:Beeblebrox) wants to see it.  --RFBailey (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken point on a couple of cases, and I know a few others would be interested in looking into it. So yes, please do forward it to one of us (or ). Or both. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded it (from my work e-mail, where it was sent to) to the functionaries mailing list. --RFBailey (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , the email is interesting because the person or the firm behind them apparently knows that WP:PROF is a more manageable (and perhaps lower) bar than WP:GNG and chances of deletion are lower for academic articles. That's the reason this individual or firm is perhaps targeting academicians. Lourdes  18:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, having now read it, I'm pretty sure I don't meet WP:PROF either. But I guess, as with all e-mail scams, they only need one or two suckers for it to be worth their while. --RFBailey (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Standard Offer of User:ZEdzEd3168
Editor is requesting a standard unblock with the following reason: "I didn't use any other sockpuppets or evade my block through IP for past six months. I followed standard offer. I promise not to use or create any sockpuppet to lead a block. I'll also control my mental illness so I won't play trick anymore. I'm sure that it won't happen again. I'm here to request someone to post this to WP:AN. $10^2$ 4279  計算過程  08:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)"

Also request CheckUser to check if there is socking in the past 6 months, and notifying the blocking admin:. --B dash (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you want to help out your friend, but it might be more appropriate to let an uninvolved administrator evaluate unblock requests. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We still need, I think, a more thorough explanation for the confusing chronology Alex Shih refers to on the user's talk page. I confess to not being able to make sense of everything the user has written. A check user earlier in February seemed to be clear, according to comments there. --<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that created two Nato-alphabet named socks (Alphabravocharlie, Deltaechofoxtrot), and then this user created two others intending to mimic that user (Golfhotelimdia, Juliettkilolima) for some reason, and got blocked as a result.  I'm inclined to support this, but I'd like a clearer statement as well before officially doing so. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is the editor's comment on the talk page signed "User:TEntEn4279"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be-- blinded by the text shadow.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been a rename from what I can tell, and that was their old name. They must not have updated the signature. Also, for the record, I'd oppose an unblock just from looking over the talk page on two points: first, they haven't stated what they plan to do after they get unblocked, which for me is a requirement in any unblock/unban discussion. Second, I don't think they have the communications skills necessary for work on a collaborative project, which means by unblocking them, we would likely be causing more disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too was concerned about your second point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wary - see Sockpuppet investigations/Dragoon17cc. Supposedly CheckUser has separated this user from that master but the fact still remains that they abused multiple accounts of their own, while intending to mimic a prolific zhwiki vandal. I'm also not confident they have the proficiency in English to edit here, and am concerned that on their talk page they speak of their desire to "fix some grammar error or something like that", a sentence fragment which itself is not proper grammar. I suppose I'll support per WP:SO and WP:LASTCHANCE, but I'm not very confident. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per TonyBallioni. Prior convoluted socking history, requests to unblock during the minimum six month period, demonstrably poor communication skills, lack of clear meaningful discussion of proposed future editing... too many strikes in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Just in case it was unclear from my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to be fair, I won't vote in this standard offer. --B dash (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Un-archived, not closed yet. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  22:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose reluctantly due to competence concerns. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for admin eyes on off-topic dispute at Talk:MOS
Could we please get some admin eyes on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Parts of the discussion have become personalized and gone off topic. My attempt to collapse the off-topic thread was reverted, and now a meta-discussion about tat is derailing the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Movepage-summary
Could some administrator please delete MediaWiki:Movepage-summary? T182602 has been resolved for over 2 months already. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's entirely fixed given the followup comments - ? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to T182602, T182602 points out that patches were submitted on T183069 instead. There you can easily find that 404048 to fix Timeless exists and was merged. So as far as I know it's good to go. Anomie⚔ 18:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Hampton/Ryan Hampton (writer)
Hi, can somebody help me? I want to create an article about Ryan Hampton (American writer), but there is already a page about Ryan Hampton (driver). I've asked for a help on my talkpage, and I was recommended to create a draft with a title "Ryan Hampton (writer)", but looks like there's permission error and this pase can only be created by an administrator. What should I do and what kind of block it is?Little Rabbiton (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , you should use the Article Wizard to create a Draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive296#Ryan_Hampton_(Author) -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

MER-C 21:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Little Rabbiton and are ✅ to . .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by User talk:Spring3390 on the article Pyo Chang-won
A dispute has been presented by an editor, User talk:Spring3390, on whether the article on Pyo Chang-won, and blanked the article. I have refuted this dispute in the talk page, that they are verified facts based on reliable sources. The editor went to two noticeboards to continue this dispute, but to no avail. Now, this editor made a direct legal threat of informing Pyo Chang-won to take legal action and once again blanked most of the article.. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not excusing legal threats in any way, but that article certainly strikes me as troubling. Korean politics is well outside my area of knowledge--even so, that second paragraph looks to me to be way over the WP:BLP line.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I directed them to WP:BLPN, which would be a better way to raise concerns. The article does need to be read and perhaps trimmed by someone with more time than I have at work .Were they notified of this discussion?--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In response, user has renewed an apparent legal threat. I have invited the to discuss here.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some legitimate BLP concerns on the article, but the legal threats look to be indef-block worthy. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but regardless of the state of the article, the user must be blocked for two obvious legal threats. I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave them education and an opportunity to not be blocked. More than ample opportunity to not be blocked. The choice was theirs.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A quick look shows the following which appears to be based only on primary sources. Since his involvement in public affairs, he became well known for causing many political scandals, such as plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation, blaming Korean Christians for the 2016 South Korean political scandal, accusing political opponents of having the same mindset as group rapists and sponsoring exhibition of sexually explicit materials on then President Park Geun-hye in the parliament building. He is also known for assertive speech on political opponents and social issues. Pyo Chang-won is unacceptable at Wikipedia because it uses highly charged language with very flimsy sources. I can't read Korean, but there appear to be no secondary sources—it's just piled-on attacks. Even if someone deserved attacks, an article at Wikipedia has to be phrased differently. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's enough. I've removed the disputed material, pending discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for help for non-controversial move
Per most cited sources at Ja'net Dubois, this actress' WP:COMMONNAME is spelled Ja'Net DuBois, with cap B and N. Because of a previous redirect from that to "Ja'net Du Bois", which is a valid but less common stage name, the current page cannot be renamed "Ja'Net DuBois". She has never been credited as "Ja'net Dubois", so this seems a non-controversial technical change. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

AIV CSD Backlog
WP:AIV has a backlog right now. Would appreciate someone attending to it. Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unfortunately I just noticed that we are also getting backed up at CSD and I can't work on that. Anyone out there? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On it. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged again.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost empty now. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what would be best here, but it's kinda crazy
Please look at this. I have never seen anything like this on any page of any wiki before! What is going on here, and how should this be handled? I wasn't sure exactly how to report this, which is why I just put it in the general admin noticeboard.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 16:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Semiprotected three months. Thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not the only article affected so I have blocked the IP for a week too. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on permanent implementation of ACTRIAL
There is currently a request for comment at Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation about whether or not autoconfirmed status should be required to create an article in the main space. This is a follow up to the recently ended autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Need fellow-admin help in splitting up the history of a page
I did a bad move of Polypodium hydriforme which ought to be at Polypodium (animal) per the naming convention for monotypic genera for animals but I moved it instead to Polypodium (which is a plant genus with many species) - now the histories got mixed. I thought I could delete the plant related revisions alone and move the animal related history back to Polypodium hydriforme but I think I have only further messed it up. The plant and animal related revisions are fairly easy to identify from the lead which shows if popups is enabled (actually I have ended up hiding the plant-related revisions). Can an administrator who has knowledge of splitting histories of an article please help me. I am sorry to have created this mess and was hoping I could clean it up myself but afraid could not find the instructions to do this myself. <shame-faced> Shyamal (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. DrKay (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Watching- fingers crossed. The plant related revisions have been hidden, hopefully that saves checking every edit. Shyamal (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the redirect history may be lost but I believe the revision text relating to each organism is now split. DrKay (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. It looks fine. Will fix up the broken wikidata/interwiki links. Shyamal (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'Period moving' vandal.
Do you remember the 'White space vandal'? Now we've got the 'Period moving' vandal. He/she tends to edit unregistered from a Mobile phone & attacks the List of current heads of state and government & List of Presidents of India articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress
We need an uninvolved admin with a keen eye to close an SPI, with strong behavioral evidence. Problem is there's a ton of it, and it involves a contentious editor or two. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Attention Needed at WP:ERRORS
We have an ITN blurb making controversial and unsourced claims that have already been removed from the linked article. I am INVOLVED so I can't fix this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, we need "attention" at ERRORS every day. Some errors linger for the whole day without even being addressed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello? Anyone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Immediate issue handled by Tony B. Many tanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New user vandalising pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Graham787

Pretty much all edits are vandalism from a 3-hour old account. Juxlos (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for close (Economic Appeasement)
Hi. Up top, buried in the middle of all the other requests to close RfCs, is a request from the initiator to close Talk:Appeasement. I am not a neutral party in this RfC, I am heavily involved. Normally, I would take the position that not all RfCs require formal closure, especially when the results are obvious, but my own (quite biased) interpretation is that the initiator is not seeing clearly that the responses do not support his stance, and if there is no formal closure, he is likely -- because he is quite persistent -- to edit the article as if his position in the RfC was supported, in which case I would revert because, in my view, there is no consensus for his proposed changes -- and then we're back to where we started some months ago.

This could all be avoided if an uninvolved editor -- preferably an admin to make it as "official" as possible -- would be kind enough to evaluate the RfC and formally close it. Advance warning, though, there's a lot of verbiage to wade through, although not all that many actual opinions when you come right down to it.

And, of course, I'll abide by the close whether my evaluation of it is upheld or not, as I'm sure the initiator will as well. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Outing vio needing rev del
committed an outing vio here. I have removed the content from the AfD, however, someone needs to nuke it for good. Thanks. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it has just been revdeled, but frankly I’m not sure I agree. Outing is when you make a link between an on-wiki identity and an off-wiki identity that the user has not made themselves. It appears in this case that a user did explicitly link their account here to a facebook account. That’s not outing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there's no need to oversight this - TNT❤ 20:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who did the revdel. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just OS'd it to err on the side of caution, but I'm perfectly at home with anyone reversing that. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What? Oh, yeah. I'm iffy on it as well, but did so on the side of caution.  Ain't gonna wheel war or nuthin'. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, now it will take an oversighter to put it back now, but I happen to be one so I’ll deal with it. And for the record, “remove it first then discuss” is the preferred method here, so no problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry didn't mean to do anything wrong here.. CamdenEric (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out you didn’t. Your remark has been restored. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the error, still...I'd rather err on the side of caution (especially when it comes to something as serious as possible outing). Nonetheless, it was not my intention to make extra, unneeded work for anyone. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

please re-read the large pink box that appears every time you try to post here. It says, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here' ... was this especially unclear to you on this occasion? MPS1992 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee,, considering the unnecessarily rude tone contained in your query, I'm forced to ask two things, one for which I will provide my own answer: (1) Are you familiar with WP:CIVIL? If not, please re-read the policy (it's an important one, because it keeps hackles down and allows for a happier Wikipedia environment); (2) Did I break Wikipedia by posting what I did after missing what's in the pink box?  The answer is: 'no', WP:IAR, and can we change the channel and get back to our regularly scheduled programming rather than static now?  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling us about your opinion of this situation and about how you feel about it. I am reassured that you know, now, not to handle situations like this again. MPS1992 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (Not an admin and not even close)Remove this if you wish, and I'll probably be attacked for this because of "escalating the situation", but if I recall correctly, IAR says to ignore a rule only if it prevents you from improving Wikipedia. How, exactly, did this prevent you from improving Wikipedia? -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that as soon as I saw the title of this thread my first thought was to find the outing and suppress it, then come straight back here and remove the entire thread so as not to point to where the outing took place. It was only when I determined it was not really outing that I decided instead to reply here. Frankly, there are so many notices on this page and in its edit notices that it isn’t surprising that some of them routinely get ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, it's scientifically proven that most people skip over such notices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Banner blindness is kinda similar, but I've seen the same principle discussed regarding warning messages and instructions as well as advertising. (I do confess that my sense of humour was quite disappointed that article had no big maintenance tags on it, being ignored...) -- Begoon 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Begoon, I've placed one. I've spent a while copyediting a bunch of the article, but it needs a complete go-over, and I don't have time to do it all myself.  Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Help with inadvertently editing logged out.
I have inadvertently edited an article logged out. It is possible to have the edit history altered to credit the edits to myself and somehow hide the IP address? DocFergus (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , the fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you and done. DocFergus (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , to answer the other part of your question, there is no way to reattribute the edits to your account. All that we can do is hide the IP address.  ~ GB fan 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I could add a dummy edit I suppose, but I think regular visitors will probably tumble that it was I. DocFergus (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a way to reattribute the edits to your account. Revert the other edits and then you revert back. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I am that bothered. But thanks anyway. I believe anyone looking at the editing history will guess. DocFergus (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

My edit came up as my IP instead of my user name
This edit came up as my IP address and not my username. I am not sure why. Is there any chance an admin could delete the post and replace it under my signature? The next edit is my signature. I am not sure what happened. I just don't like having my IP out there and clearly connected with my username. Thank you.Casprings (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Casprings, were you logged out? How can an admin know it was you? --Malerooster (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit suppressed, in the future please d not post this kind of request on Wikipedia. This is an oversight matter, please contact us using a method at WP:OS.  ~ GB fan 23:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Casprings, how was the edit clearly connected with my username? It wasn't until you posted in here. Next time, if there is one, don't edit the comment to replace the ip with your signature. --Malerooster (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually reattributing it and contacting OS is the way to do it. That way no one can say there is sock puppetry and the IP is not reveled.  ~ GB fan 23:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ah, ok. --Malerooster (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I will go to OS next time.Casprings (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a website which specifically looks for an edit where an IP signature is replaced with a user name. The website then permanently records the fact that the user has a particular IP address. (I haven't seen the site for a long time, but that's how it used to operate.) Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at...
Backlog at Requests for page protection.--Moxy (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

History merge help
Hi, I think I've got myself into an almighty mess (of pretty much my own doing) and I don't know how to get out of it.

Last week, a new user created Sarah Frey which was promptly marked for CSD G12, scrubbed to a stub, then tagged CSD A7. At this point, I decided we probably had a better chance of creating Tsamma juice, one of her products, moved the article to that title, and started expanding it. At the same, I edit-conflicted with somebody else who thought moving to Draft:Sarah Frey was a better idea. We quickly agreed that working on the juice article was the way forward.

Today, I noticed that Frey is documented in sources independently of the juice, and probably deserved her own article. I then realised it would probably be more suitable to move the original edits for Sarah Frey back to the newly spun out article, as that's where people would expect to see them. I tried to merge the original and current Sarah Frey histories together, and move the Tsamma juice history into a separate article, but I couldn't get the right combinations of moves and deletes to do what I want. Tsamma juice is properly up to date but all its attribution is lost because it's in the wrong article.

At this point, Sarah Frey has the following history :


 * 17:47, 15 March 2018‎ - 20:39, 15 March 2018‎ as Sarah Frey (including reorganising to draft)
 * 20:39, 15 March 2018‎ - 12:47, 19 March 2018‎ as Tsamma juice
 * 17:41, 20 March 2018‎ - present as Sarah Frey

There's no overlap in edits between any state. The edit I made at 20:39, 15 March 2018 is effectively creating a new article; there is no text from the previous diff in it, so that can safely be called the first edit with no loss of attribution. The related talk pages, mercifully, are not affected and are in the expected places with the correct history.

Any ideas how I can fix this? I suppose a quick and dirty way is to just point to the relevant from / to diffs on Talk:Tsamma juice, which covers us for attribution purposes. Or can you pull part of a history of one article and put it in another, where's there's no overlap? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a WP:HISTMERGE can handle that (and perhaps, especially, Special:MergeHistory). to assess also. --Izno (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have moved the tsamma juice edits of Sarah Frey to Tsamma juice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Anthony. I've never touched Special:MergeHistory myself and I'm aware that you can really screw up articles if you get it wrong, so best ask for help. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

List of bridge failures cut-and-paste history cleanup
List of bridge failures was moved to List of 19th-century bridge disasters, which is currently a CSD, and the content copied to List of bridge failures. Needs an admin to clean up. Chris857 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Have undone the cut-and-paste move, I don't see any particular reason to move the article to that title. Many of the examples listed are not from the 19th century and there wasn't any attempt at a split.  Hut 8.5  21:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock appeal from Hidden Tempo
has submitted an unblock appeal via. After reviewing the the previous discussion on this and consulting with other administrators, I am copying his appeal from UTRS for community consideration while leaving his TPA disabled. The following is the unblock request for Hidden Tempo:

''Hi all. Submitting my appeal per Ponyo's instructions for a standard offer appeal. As I have waited six months without sockpuppetry/block evasion and not created any extraordinary reasons to object to a return, I am here to appeal my indefinite block/revocation of talk page access. Per WP:OFFER, I am not here to apologise for past infractions, but to maintain courtesy and express my willingness to move forward productively. Learning from my last unblock request, I have no desire to resurrect any old disputes about the legitimacy of the block or criticize the editing history of any admins or other Wikipedians. Water under the bridge, as it were. As I have no desire to violate WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPT, WP:3RR or any other policy on any article, I would like to return to the project and continue to improve an assortment of articles. Per WP:OFFER, I am promising to avoid the behavior that led to the block ("disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring"). I believe a 1RR violation was my sole instance of edit warring, however I now understand and respect the fact that what I perceive to be WP:BLP violations is no excuse for violating 1RR policy, as explained to me by and others. : Thanks for the consideration.''

CheckUser data on the account is stale, but it picked up nothing on previous IPs in the CheckUser logs. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support with the indef TBAN on American politics from the block thread staying in place. I dislike this user, but don't see a good reason to keep a full block in place. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I've ever seen a similar restriction off the top of my head, but if this going to be a thing, I feel like it should come with some kind of HT is restricted from appealing any administrative or community sanction other than a single post on AN. The community may then discuss the appeal, but HT is forbidden from making follow up comments. It can be appealed at such and such time or what have you. The last extended debacle was just...an egregious waste of time of the sort that could have written a month's worth of GAs instead.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per historical timesink. Their talkpage is an iteration, a reiteration, and a regurgiteration of anything that can be iterated, argued, dissected or wiki-lawyered. Their talk page is currently bigger than AN/I, and took up the time and energy of twenty admins over a course of three months—at the end of which, having been told that TP access was revoked (for that very reason), they immediately submitted three UTRS blocks over the next three days. Sorry: the promises are fine, but I think this was an egregious case which requires longer than the minimum six-months the WP:SO recommends. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 17:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting: it is true that the standard offer is a standard offer, and one wonders what was standard about this case. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the standard offer is also just an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth,, those UTRS requests were regarding their talk page and some perceived vandalism to it. Had nothing to do with actually getting an unblock. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Primefac. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 16:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Give the behaviour of this user, 3RR/1RR violation and block evasion that this user has in the past, WP:TBAN won't work and I says that this user will not get unblocked. This case will requires longer than 6 months than WP:SO. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C9AB:1D0A:F284:1E2A (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Good grief – Certainly not without a TBAN on American politics. And GMG has a point about preventing a repeat time drain. Six months seems brief considering the disruption. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose When a request starts with saying, "I am not here to apologise for past infractions..." I get suspicious. When an editor with this type of intense history of disruption says that, well, why don't you think you should?  As  says, a lot of people went through a lot of effort over this, and an honest apology would be the minimum indicator of actual remorse and intent to not repeat the previous actions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support with indefinite (at least 1 year) TBAN on American politics, broadly construed. Would add "0" RR, may discuss/suggest only, GMG's restriction above, and the understanding that even a whiff of violating conditions or socking will result in a permanent ban.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the standard offer is at best a minimum threshold for an appeal to be taken at all seriously, we certainly aren't obliged to unblock someone who's abided by it. Attempting to rehabilitate disruptive editors is a timesink and they tend to annoy constructive contributors, who are the people we want to keep around here. This one looks like a particularly big timesink given the roughly 300k of post-block discussion on their talk page, not counting several UTRS requests. As a suggestion a statement that someone won't edit disruptively is more credible when it is backed up with evidence, such as contributions to other wikis.  Hut 8.5  18:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm all for second chances but this editor seems to have tested the patience of everyone here, It also doesn't help that they've socked in order to evade a topic ban ...... In short as noted above this editor is a timesink and I think we can all agree we all have better things to do than to waste our time monitoring/mentoring this editor 24/7 .... Restrictions/TBANs could work .... but he'll mess it up or he'll create another issue ...., Had this been a year or even 3 years I perhaps could've supported but it's only been 6 months ..... You don't become a reformed person in 6 months so personally the whole "I have no desire to resurrect any old disputes about the legitimacy of the block or criticize the editing history of any admins or other Wikipedians" doesn't wash with me sorry. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Absolutely not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of time has already been wasted handling this case and the result of an unblock would likely be another timesink. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose--Nah.., per Davey and SN54129.Was a time-sink and I'm certain that he will be one.We've better things to spend our time upon.... ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(Tag: 2017 wikitext editor)
I hope this is the right place to ask this. Why do the edit tags still say 2017 wikitext editor? Should we not create a 2018 tag?Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * that tag is about which version of the editor was used, not when the edit was made. — xaosflux  Talk 15:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

'spamblacklistlog' user right and grant
Hi again, fellow administrators! I ran into an interesting discovery when going through some guidelines pages and reviewing user rights and grants just now. When viewing Edit filter helper, the documentation states that the 'spamblacklistlog' right (the ability for the user to view the spam blacklist log) is included with the Edit Filter Helper user right. This is correct, and I have no objection to this what-so-ever. However, when viewing the list of grants and the list of group rights, I found that the 'spamblacklistlog' right is also currently granted to the 'Users' group, meaning that all user accounts (anyone logged-in and not viewing as an anonymous user) have the ability to see the spam blacklist log. I of course tested it and confirmed this to be true. In fact, when attempting to view the spam blacklist log as an anonymous user, the error states that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Edit filter helpers" and lists both user groups explicitly. This naturally brings up some questions and concerns:


 * 1) Why is the 'spamblacklistlog' right granted to both the 'Users' group and the "Edit Filter Helpers" user right? This makes including the right with the Edit Filter Helper user rights redundant and completely unnecessary if all user accounts are supposed to be able to access and view this log... I don't understand why this would be done on purpose (if that's the case).
 * 2) What is the actual, intended, and/or community discussed and agreed-upon level of access that users and accounts should have regarding access to this log? Did something accidentally or unintentionally change? Did a developmental overlook or oversight occur that allowed this change to occur (if that's what happened)?

One of two possible causes or conclusions come to my mind (at the time of this writing at least). Either:


 * 1) The 'spamblacklistlog' was granted to the 'Users' group purposely and we just didn't remove the redundant grant from the "Edit filter helpers" user right (AKA we didn't fully clean up after ourselves when we implemented this change), or
 * 2) The 'spamblacklistlog' user right is not supposed to be granted to the 'Users' group and an overlook or unintentional change caused this to happen.

What happened? What am I seeing here? Why is the user right granted in this way? Am I missing something? I'm concerned that the issue is the later of the two possible conclusions I drew and that we're allowing a wider range of users access to this log than what was decided and what should be given... Any input or comments would be extremely helpful. As always, I appreciate all of your time and I thank you in advance for helping to resolve the issue or redundancy here :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oooh, buckets o' beans... and most interesting reading it is ;) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See this discussion. Guess it's a case of not cleaning up redundant grants. Κσυπ Cyp  08:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cyp - Thanks a relief to see. I'd rather see that this is a simple case of redundancy than to see that we accidentally granted permissions to users that shouldn't have them. It would be a good idea (for good programming practices) to have that redundant right removed from the EFH user right (since you obviously must be a user to be given the EFH right). I'll see if it's more appropriate to comment on the existing phab ticket or to create a new one. Thanks for the response and for the information :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * T64781, resolved last Feb, made it available to (pretty) everyone. That was weird to me as well since I recall the time when I needed to be sysop to see sbl log in 2015. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently the develops decided that it was fine for everyone... — xaosflux  Talk 15:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats on e-mail
I have been contacted by a user who has received a legal threat via Wikipedia e-mail. As far as I can tell, no threat has been made on-wiki. Does No legal threats apply to Wikipedia e-mail? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not: It is still clearly intended to have a chilling effect (even if to a restricted audience), and the fact that someone has found a "secret" method to do so should surely not go rewarded by their receiving different (read: no) treatment to what they would have received had they done similar on-Wiki. Imho, of course. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes this murky is the sentence "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia." The question I need resolved is does "posted on Wikipedia" include Wikipedia e-mail? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would tell the editor receiving the threat to post to the talk page of the editor making the threat telling them not to email again and any future emails would be forwarded to Arbcom. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy applies only to threats made on Wikipedia. SarahSV (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the policy is not clear, outside that a legal threat anywhere visible on WP is clearly actionable, but it says nothing either way towards external tools enabled by WP/WMF servers. I would think it should qualify, since not qualifying could open the door for harassment and other problems. (Hypothetical: editor A includes negative material on a company that is well-sourced and otherwise meets content policy, that company sends A several WP emails threatening them to remove the content or be sued). Since the use of email (though not the contents) should be something that can be traced, it should be something that we can handle and deal with. --M asem (t) 17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree too, to me e-mail legal threats is probably closer to off-wiki harassment. I would follow 's advice. Alex Shih (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading that, I do agree too, it's easier to quality NLT through WP email as off-wiki harassment, but I think we should make that clear the NLT policy, to make it explicit. --M asem (t) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, while emailing somene a legal threat is essentially the same thing as posting one on their talk page, we need to see it or it would be afar to easy to do a joe job and get somebody blocked. If it can’t be verified that it came from their WP account’s email, there’s no way to verify the authenticity of it.
 * I would suggest that in a case like this that the email in question be forwarded to the functionaries, as we deal with this sort of thing sometimes. What would e needed would be the full email wih all headers, not just a copy/paste of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unban request by Light show
Link to topic ban

Per some recent topic ban issues, I would appreciate a review to my being un-banned. Most, or all, of my recent bio edits have been to revert vandalism or obvious--IMO--BLP violations. --Light show (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to support this unconditionally, but I'd be interested in a proposal to make the TBAN less onerous. What types of edits to BLP articles do you plan on making? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, looking back since a year ago, they include major and minor edits, of all types. The comments on Chaplin's talk page, which caused such an uproar and got me topic banned, were actually to topics and RfCs, edits which one would normally assume would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested, there's a short discussion about this on my talk page in which I expressed my stance on this issue. Alex Shih (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that this should be kept in mind before making a decision. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Having 300 words about an accusation, creating an entire section for it, and basing it on yet another single British article, should help explain the obvious undue problem. --Light show (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that violating one's topic ban and then coming to this page to appeal it is not the brightest idea ever. Also, given that Light show is still complaining about some heinous bias against American actor biographies which they need to fix (which was one of the main issues leading to the topic ban in the first place), I would decline this. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic towards some of the material that Light show removed as being material that should be carefully discussed under BLP policy (just because someone was accused of sexual misconduct does not make it an encyclopedic addition), but I think it should be clear these are not BLP violations that would be excepted from 3RR, 1RR or any topic ban, given they are sourced and these are public figures. Breaking topic ban to address those is not a wise move, and I don't think we should consider lifting the ban yet. --M asem (t) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier on my talk page about Schwarzenegger, his sexual allegation section also relies almost entirely on British news sources, and a questionable site such as The Smoking Gun. Maybe I'm just guilty of taking core BLP policies too seriously: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States.... For any American notable, I would require highly reliable U.S. sources, and never allow their bios to include implications or innuendos related to criminality using only some other country's website. IMO, when newbies, IPs and SPAs, can drive by and flood a bio with criminal accusations from a British website, WP has allowed itself to be easily corruptible.--Light show (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your comment that so long as negative commentary about "public figures" are sourced, they're OK, is incomplete. The standard is much higher:  If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. It's therefore reasonable to think that defaming an American public figure with a single non-American source, would be a violation. So that even a topic banned editor dealing with it both on the talk page and with subsequent edits, should be thanked, not again bludgeoned.--Light show (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that they should be left out, but I do not read that part of BLP as "must remove", as to meet the WP:3RR exemptions from edit warring or where one may violate their topic ban. (If these were completely unsourced allegations, you'd have been in the right, but they weren't). --M asem (t) 02:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's implied in exceptions to bans, that my explaining in the edit summaries why I removed the material, along with detailed talk notices on editors' pages, that this should not summarily be dealt with as a violation of a topic ban. The opposite should be a reasonable conclusion. And at worst, a gray area, but obviously not a clear violation. --Light show (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BANEX specifically says "obvious". The phrasing of the part of BLP that speaks of accusations does not suggest that a sourced allegation should be considered "obvious". Unsourced - yes, you'd be in the right, but not sourced ones even if they don't meet the suggestion of having multiple sources. --M asem (t) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In my neck of the woods, that's called a "technicality." But you consider it a good enough pretext to keep a 10-year editor banned. --Light show (talk)
 * BANEX is all about  technicalities, and without those technicalities, you wouldn't be allowed to make any edits to biographies. Further, you say "10-year editor" as if you previously had a spotless record, when, in actuality, you're under three  other topic bans (one against uploading images, one against any edits related to Stanley Kubrick, and the same about Peter Sellers) dating back to 2014, and you managed to slide by in the Chaplin controversy for four months before you were finally sanctioned. So please don't hold yourself up as a model editor tied down by the Lilliputians of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Could someone please post the original discussion in which the sanction was applied? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, see the top of this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggested compromise: I've been banned three times from articles, from Peter Sellers, Stanley Kubrick, and then from all bios, as a direct result of my comments on Chaplin's RfC. However, as I'm sure most of you know, all three of those bans were initiated by the same tag team, and came as AN's reasonable resolution for my complaints about their teamwork. Which is why I felt a another pillar should be considered.
 * Forgetting the pillar idea, but seeing that I self-imposed an IBAN on the team, I really don't foresee many more future disputes. And I generally post a talk page explanation before potentially controversial edits. For one group of problems, I first posted a discussion on Gopal's talk page an entire month before I made any changes.
 * While discussions may get a bit charged, they are kept reasonable and on topic, with rare edit wars. I've worked on many bios, and besides a few oddball talk page debates with others, ie. Zsa Zsa Gabor or Sharon Tate, they still get resolved. As a totally neutral party, I think lifting the ban and keeping the IBAN in place is a reasonable solution. --Light show (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments My hope is that administrators do not consider this for even a moment, not yet anyway. Light show's copyvios at Commons (where they are indeffed) as well as their "problems" here in Wikipedia are/were very long term.  A lot of patience was extended to Light show over and over, and the topic ban was a long time coming.  Just as the indef at Commons was a long time coming.  Light show has promised before to never do what they did in the way of copyvios - a violation that is incredibly egregious, by the way - but continued doing it anyway.  And in a sneaky manner, as well.  What I'm writing here doesn't even scratch the surface of how Light show thumbed their nose at policy and editors, seemingly believing they were immune to sanctions.  I'm sorry, but for someone who continued to blatantly violate policy even after shorter blocks and being indeffed elsewhere within the project, I can't see how this is the time to lift the sanction.  And, from their comments above, it doesn't seem they have learned a damned thing.  Remember, the consensus for the topic ban proposed by  was unanimous.  The !votes came from editors with long, painful histories with this user.  Too soon in my opinion, way too soon.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for finally referring to me as a "they," instead of a "she," which you enjoyed doing at the commons. But I'm a bit surprised you brought up the commons indeff, implying it was neutral, since you initiated it. Although I did compliment you on your skills, where even as a newbie, you managed to get two editors banned at the same time during a single discussion, which you accomplished immediately after you offered a "friendly attempt to work things out collegially, peacefully, and productively." --Light show (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose too soon per your topic ban violation, purposefully disregarding people's counterpoints to your flawed assertions, and everything Winkelvi said. You haven't earned it, Light show. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional support I'll support limiting the restriction to be on BLPs of actors and other people in the film industry, widely construed. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's apparently a very long history here, I've only looked back to 2014 but people's animosity seems to be based partially on incidents before that. I see an editor with severe WP:OWN problems on actor's biographies, and a bizarre obsession with "American"/British" related comments.  Keeping the basic TBAN in place, but limiting its scope somewhat, seems fair.  I don't see their recent edits at James Woods etc. as a valid BANEX, but it's also not so egregious that I'm going to oppose their request as a result.  Perhaps the ability to post new concerns at WP:BLPN should be allowed under the TBAN, so the editor feels they have an opportunity to address what they feel are serious BLP concerns productively. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing me, of having "a bizarre obsession with "American"/"British" related comments," is quite the opposite of what my edits and subsequent discussions imply. And in any case, digressing onto personalities and implying agendas is against guidelines. But as for the nationality-related edits, I challenge anyone to find any nationality-related edits or comments I've ever made which are either against guidelines, unreasonable, or based on my personal opinion.


 * Some recent examples from talk pages might help: Simply asking whether Chaplin's bio was ignoring reliable sources, got me banned from editing all bios; Asking why it is necessary to begin Marilyn Monroe's legacy by comparing her to Mickey Mouse and having two cartoon images of her in that section; Noting that a British-American director like Hitchcock, who was an American citizen, BTW, must only be called "British"; Or noting that a British-born American actor, who was noted only as an American actor, has that fact deleted immediately after I was banned. If there is any bizarre obsession, it's not mine. I'm only focused on following guideline. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I challenge anyone to find any nationality-related edits or comments I've ever made which are either against guidelines, unreasonable, or based on my personal opinion.". Certainly. You changed at least three biographies to show completely false American nationalities.   .  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've struck my conditional support based on this discussion. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The guidelines regarding context in opening paragraphs prove otherwise for all three. Ignoring those guidelines was, IMO, most egregious for someone like Chaplin. --Light show (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Providing context" does not mean "adding completely false material". None of those people ever held American citizenship, even jointly.  The fact they came to fame in the USA was, and is, already contextualised in the lead paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose -at least for the moment, as I'm not seeing a viable argument for lifting the TBAN. What I see is essentially "time served", which, to my mind, is not sufficient. I could change my opinion if LS presents a viable argument.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I have indeed changed my mind, based on the appellant's attitude and argumentation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - violating the topic ban, then asking for the ban to be lifted is not the way to go about it. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the "violating the ban" rationale is being used by most opposers, allow me to again note that I was assuming an exception based on guidelines about editing "obvious violations." I did not simply edit the apparent violation, but instead opened a talk page for the editor who added sections to five different American bios for sexual misbehavior allegations. I even waited a month with no response before I edited the violations. How else to edit such clear violations? Come here first?


 * In any case, just taking Dustin Hoffman's article as an example, which has 232 watchers, including some of the same editors here who "oppose" lifting the ban, the article is very well watched. Yet none of them, including admins, disputed my removing the section, to this day. At absolute worst, the excuse that simply because I supposedly "violated the ban," should be overlooked and ignored, if not appreciated, instead of dittoed as a pretext to oppose. If someone wants to add what I should have done first, that's fine. Do so. I'll know for the future. --Light show (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BANEX allows "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is 'obvious', that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree." On Dustin Hoffman, you removed two long paragraphs sourced by 17 different citations. The section had been in the article for 2 1/2 months, it had been subjected to editing, and the article overall subsequently had 39 edits made by 27 editors -- but only you saw the section as an "obvious" violation of BLP requiring removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What could be more obvious than devoting 300 words to his entire Personal life section, but adding nearly 700 words to a Sexual misconduct accusation section? And placing them both as primary sections, equal in importance to his entire Career? Not only is that an obvious violation of undue and relevance, but its content would have received accolades from the Marquis de Sade, had he read it. My comments to Gopal point out more obvious violations. However, if no other editors/admins besides Masem sees a problem, what can I say? --Light show (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You could say that it was not "obvious" as meant by BANEX, and apologize for the edit, and the other edits of that sort you made. You could stop trying to justify it and your other edits to biographies.  You could withdraw your appeal, and come back to appeal again in another six months after not having made any edits to biographies of any sort, since your judgment as to what is "obvious" is suspect.  You could say that instead of making edits that seem to you to be "obvious" violations, you will, instead, inform another editor of the problem and allow them to make the judgement, or, better yet, report the problem as you see it on the article talk page and let a consensus of editors decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus can also turn out to be a sham. For example, Olivia de Havilland is described as a British-American actress, even after a lengthy RfC and a unanimous consensus decided that she should be described as an "American actress." --Light show (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At least until some drive-by IP decided today to expunge anything related to her being an American actress. So in the template of Chaplin's bio, a reader has to go through 5,000 words of text to find any mention that she was only and always an American actress, thereby thumbing their nose at both the consensus and the MOS.--Light show (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Consensus can certainly be "wrong", depending on your point of view, but it's what we've got, and it can be challenged with new evidence or new arguments after a reasonable time has passed. In the meantime, though, we follow it or we get blocked for editing against it, something you'd do well to learn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So we "let consensus decide," until someone who thinks it's wrong ignores it? I challenge anyone, once again, to find a single article edit where I have gone against consensus. I'm obviously not including talk pages. Good luck! What you'll discover is that even on a talk page, if someone doesn't like a person's comment, they can get them banned. All of my bans were from comments made only on talk pages. --Light show (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Has not acknowledged the problematic editing that brought about the ban - except to blame others. The posts here are illustrative of why said ban was enacted in the first place. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Someone can only be considered for unban once they actually spend some time abiding by said ban. Light Show clearly has no respect for the ban and has never followed it. --AdamF in MO (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still at it, per User:MarnetteD. See Administrators%27_noticeboard, below. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I am not convinced by the editor's understanding of exceptions, as noted by several others above. This appeal should be closed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The topic ban was implemented on 15 August 2017. Lightshow pushed the point on his own talk page, probably unaware that the scope of the restriction against him included these sorts of comments, but he was given a very clear outline of his restrictions by . Despite that, he made a further infringing comment and was blocked for it; his subsequent unblock request showed no grasp of the reason for the block, and the appeal was rejected. Since 19 February this year Light show has breached the restriction against him on several occasions and on several articles:
 * Talk page message re Philip Glass, a biography
 * Talk page message re five biographies
 * edits and talk page comments about Dustin Hoffman, a biography
 * edits about Marlon Brando, a biography
 * edits and talk page comments about James Woods, a biography
 * edits and talk page comments about Brett Ratner, a biography
 * edits and talk page comments about Jeremy Piven, a biography
 * edits and page comments about Bryan Singer, a biography


 * There is nothing in his topic ban that allows these edits or comments. I remain unconvinced that Lightshow actually understands why the topic ban was put in place, or what those restrictions actually mean in practical terms. – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add the context. The reason why I left such a clearly worded explanation is that I wanted Light show to continue to contribute and not fall into the trap some editors who are topic banned do - and edit around or unintentionally due to not understanding what a topic ban is and no one taking the time to explain it to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose if you expect a topic ban to be lifted then it helps if you've actually abided by that ban in the first place and explain why the issues which caused the ban to be imposed won't happen again.  Hut 8.5  08:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Inaccessible user talk page?
I attempted to add a 'welcome' template to this user talk page, but instead received a "permission error" notice advising I post a notice about this issue to this board. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The title is blacklisted because of the fullwidth characters in the person's username. An admin can override it though. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure we should be allowing such a username. Perhaps WP:RFCN would be appropriate or ask them to change it? --Majora (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started the talkpage, so anyone should be able to edit it now. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, the page can be edited now, which was the reason I posted here. I have since posted a notice of this report there. As for his username, it's now been brought up on an admin noticeboard, so if one of you guys think it should be addressed, that's up to you. I have no intent in going after a username unless it's some vulgar or other gross violation of username policy. This just appears to be more of a technical issue, so I won't be filing anything about it, anywhere. Thanks for the fix. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've asked the editor to change their username. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that username definitely needs to change. Depending on one's browser, Operating System, etc - they'll have an extremely hard time accessing this account's user space or navigating links to such pages.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ｔｏｍ has made almost 3,500 edits since first registering at the Old Church Slavonic WP more than six years ago; his activity's been concentrated at the German Wikipedia, where he's made more than 90% of his edits, and at Commons, where almost half of the remainder have been made. Doing anything because of the username, whether uw-ublock or less, would be out of place.  Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * THX + --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This user is primarily focused on the German Wikipedia. As an admin and global renamer, I will not force this user to consider a rename simply because they occasionally pop in on this Wikipedia.  With that being said a username block IMO, is absolutely inappropriate.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 00:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am minded to agree - this username IMO does not show any risk of confusion, we all know what a space is. Wikimedia is a global movement, not everything revolves around enwiki's preferences. Actually, I think that we might want to consider narrowing down the titleblacklist and add some userspace exemptions, this isn't the first time we have had this issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, Jo-Jo Eumerus; any page ought to be created if it's in the userspace or usertalkspace of an existing username and if the only title-blacklist violation is within the username itself. As long as it's written properly, the exception shouldn't permit anything bad to go through unless it's in the userspace of someone who needs a username block.  Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, see the history of User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 6 through User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 10 and the twelfth section of Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242, from late 2012. In short, some years after the 7&6=thirteen account was created, someone modified the global title blacklist to prevent the creation of pages with some components of the username, so unless something's been tweaked since late 2012, 7&6=thirteen can't create pages in his own userspace/usertalkspace.  Another reason that we ought to make userspace exemptions.  Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * THX & good idea for ~ 600+ active users --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a rather deceptive comment, in that for the majority of those users, the space is between a "first name" and a "second name", not within a single name, as yours is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry there are no spaces between the single characters in |Ｔ|ｏ|ｍ| (check in source code). --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fullwidth characters appear to have spaces when they're actually less-width letters; the "o" is narrower than the "m", so part of making it a fullwidth version of a normal character is giving it extra whitespace. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Brace yourself fools!

 * Rules for Fools

Starting a section for any FOOLS related work needed to be handled by admins. — xaosflux  Talk 00:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's early, but some eyes will be warranted at Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 1 as I imagine quite a few will run afoul of WP:FOOLR. In particular sorting into a section and ensuring no mainspace templates. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 00:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note/proposal that we go ahead and say we are going to G6 any of the not funny AfDs (i.e. no/low comments) come April 2 like we did last year. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's common practice (well, as common as something that happens once a year and started last year can be) as described on the WP:FOOLR page. ansh 666 01:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it me, or is the number of joke RfAs getting out of hand. Alright, I did Requests for adminship/SineBot but I did announce I was going to do that last year, plus I will userfy it when I think everybody's had enough. There is a real RfA on the list due to finish soon. The most recent one added by doesn't appear to have the correct formatting (I think CyberBot relies on the "Voice your opinion on the candidate (x/y/z)" text appearing to be able to parse the basic tallies - can  confirm?) and has lead to the RfA watchlist notice being trashed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also become part of an on-going dispute (and I'm sure not the only example): Do we really need this? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 15:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Close down Wikipedia
Hey guys, over the 17 years, the Wikipedia community has worked to build an online encyclopedia that is free to the public. I propose we close down Wikipedia, date to be disclosed at some point, and declare it a completed project. After which we will all use the remaining WMF budget to throw all of the established editors of all languages an awesome party for a job well done.

Thoughts? <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#774422;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Cyberpower678 <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442277;">| prattle _ 01:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Support as proposer. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#774422;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Cyberpower678 <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442277;">| prattle _ 01:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Discriminates against all future airliner crashes, mass shootings, and celebrity scandals. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - As a Canadian, I went through the closings of Zellers, Target, Woolco, Towers, the Met, Sears, Kmart, Radio Shack, Mr Dressup, the Friendly Giant, etc etc. I don't want to go through the closing of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Make read only per April fools day being annoying. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Main Page usually has more nonsense on it on a daily basis than present. — Moe   Epsilon  02:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete and salt to reduce server load and maintenance requirements. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) OMG is it that day already? - Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose that we postpone April Fools Day until 2 April. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Better to move it to the Greek calends. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support sic transit gloria wikipediae.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Redirect to Citizendium. Time to admit that Larry Sanger was right. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Maybe I'll finally put a dent in my video game backlog. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Where will all the new articles on the weekly exploits of The Great Pumpkin go? Surely, that job does not belong to anyone else.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Not ready yet: obviously, we first have to dumb down every article so it all can be replaced by an infobox, after which we can transfer all data to WikiData and replace it with Infobox/WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Many articles still lack warning templates. Our work is not done yet. Jehochman Talk 07:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as long as I get an invite to the party Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Too much of a time suck. Without Wikipedia, I could be doing something useful, such as organizing my sock drawer, or finding a cure for cancer.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Either closing or freezing-in-place works, and then publish it as a book. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes. Someone go file a new task on Phabricator. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 15:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Go for it there are your three words. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support If Wikipedia wasn't there, maybe i could have a very small chance to get a REAL life. Not a very active user (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. How else are teenagers going to vandalize articles about pizza and create articles about jukmifgguggh now? Explain that please. epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Support a full project reboot Delete all of our articles and all of our pages and start over with a blank slate. I think Wikipedia really could use a factory reset and not recreate dumb pages. Like WP:ANI. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Support as redundant to Encyclopædia Britannica. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Moot because of the upcoming [ Citation Needed ] deletion of the entire Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong no consensus. Linguist un Eins uno 17:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 18) Partial support We have so many wonderful articles on Simpson's episodes, cricket players and pre-WWI warships that I can scarcely imagine what else needs to be written. Still, I think its a bit selfish to be spending all of Wikipedia's money on ourselves when there is so much need in the world. I propose that instead of hosting a party, we build something beneficial to all of humanity such as a miniature Death Star. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 19) Support at the advice of the Cabal and the ADW. Conservapedia is obviously a far superior wiki. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor ON WHEELS! April Fools 2018 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose for your last ten transactions, please press Uno. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  18:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 21) Full protection, indefinitely. Or an indefinite block. Or a definite one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Massive fucking time-sink. My building project is running a year late, all because of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 23) Even if shut down is not supported, propose redirect of WP:NPOV to Conservapedia.  EdChem (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose per WP:RECENT. 17 years was yesterday. Let's discuss this again in 170 years or, even better, 1700 years. We should know by then if the project has any traction or future possibilities.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Prolific spammer


I'm surprised that nobody caught this until now, but of 's nearly 800 edits from 2009 to present, the vast majority of them (from his 11th edit to his latest edit) have been spamming blog articles from "http://www.bruceduffie.com". In my opinion these all need to be removed and the user prevented from further spamming. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're all in elinks, and if they're all determined to be non-RS, then I can throw up a bot run to remove 'em all. Otherwise, there are 618 uses of the URL, so it's not a huge amount to go through manually. Also, as a minor note, it doesn't look like the user has ever been questioned about their editing habits. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support either of those if others agree; plus the user needs to be officially topic-banned from adding anything from that site or pertaining to Bruce Duffie. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think an immediate TBAN is a bit excessive, given that no one has ever asked them to stop. That would be like taking away someone's driving license the first time they got caught speeding. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, blocking him would be that; preventing him from using Wikipedia almost solely to promote himself (I assume he is Bruce Duffie or a close associate) is what we normally do with spammers. We could allow him to post requested edits on article talk if he really believes something is pertinent. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Practically all of the links added by Douglasburton are to transcripts of radio interviews with the guest. They appear on a professional site, NOT a blog.  The interviews aired on WNIB, a commercial classical music station in Chicago.  Since most of the links are on the pages which pertain directly to the guest, they should be helpful to anyone who desires first-person information about that guest.  In cases where the guest is still alive when the interview was posted, all responses from them have been completely positive.  If there is any specific reason that these should not be included in the Wikipedia article, I would be interested in knowing why.  Thank you.  Douglasburton  —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they all aired on WNIB, who owns the copyright? --Izno (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I'm pretty sure that the full text of a radio interview first aired in 1981 is a fairly straightforward copyright violation, and therefore should not be linked to period, regardless of any potential educational value. Similarly with the other link, although worse. There's definitely some content in there that's fair game, but there's also plenty of images and even full-text newspaper articles published after 1923, which, unless we know the author died prior to 1948, are clear no-gos regardless of the source of the interview. That's well outside fair use territory, and if this is a pattern on even most of the links, we're probably in situation where we have no other option but to remove them wholesale unless each one can be individually vetted.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I took a look at a couple of them and I'd say the links themselves are actually good unlike most "interview" links that get put on biographies. So I don't think there is an issue with the links themselves. They do definitely add a lot more than our articles. There is a question of whether Douglasburton is spamming or not, but I think they're worthwhile. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I was going to suggest that Softlavender actually look at some of the interviews, rather than just the list of links.  The www.brucedufie.com website is like a book, and each interview is a chapter.  So, one has to always go the same book to start, but that is not spam.  Spam is a wide solicitation, and nothing like that is intended.  I hope this helps.  Douglasburton  —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The interviews were done by Bruce Duffie for WNIB, and he owns the copyright for all of them. The owners and management of WNIB knew this and approved it at the time.  Douglasburton  —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Um... no unfortunately. It's actually much more complicated than that. There's actually three copyrights involved, one for the recording, one for the broadcast, and one for the transcript as a literary work.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Bruce Duffie made the original recording and owns the copyright to it.  WNIB aired the interview, and since many transcripts were made and published during the time, WNIB agreed that such use was permitted.  The transcript as a literary work was done by Bruce Duffie, so any copyright is also under his control.  Is this not correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasburton (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question, how do you know what Bruce Duffie's agreement with the station was? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I leave the copyright questions to others, it's complex as you say and I don't begin to understand it. I think the links provide encyclopaedic value, but whether they're legal or not I'm clueless. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The assumption made by Softlavender (that Douglasburton is Bruce Duffie or a close associate) is correct. Douglasburton  —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is it? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been around for nearly 10 years on Wikipedia. Would you please start signing your posts. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging to sanity check me, since I've spent the last 30 minutes trying to sort this out in my own head. I... feel that it would be highly unusual for a transcript (previously published in print in 1985) of a radio broadcast of a sound recording to... exist in a way where one person would own the exclusive rights down that whole chain.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Each medium will have its own copyrights. When I was doing sound engineering for an orchestra, the composer/family/publisher owned the copyright of the score (so we had to pay a license to play it), but I owned the copyright to the recording itself (because I was the one doing... the recording). If I were actually working for them the orchestra would own the copyright. So I can see how the radio station could own the copyright to the audio but Duffie could hold the copyright to the transcription. Whether that holds across the book/internet translation is beyond me, but I haven't looked deep enough into that connection to see it. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And to get to GMG's concern, I think it would be possible for Person A to record an interview, allow station B to broadcast it, and then go on to publish a transcription of said interviews. Now, if Station B had been the first ones to do so, it might be different, but it sounds like the chain all starts from A. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is understandable that such a rare occurrence would confuse you, but this is what was done... Bruce Duffie gathered interviews on his own time and at his own expense.  The radio station allowed him to air portions of them.  Since they did not assign them as work-product, they had no hold on them.  When Duffie transcribed them and had them published in non-profit journals, the agreement was that he retained all rights.  Now that they are being posted on his website, he still retains any and all rights.  As to photos, he has been careful NOT to use any which belong to commercial newspapers, etc., and when quoting from published sources (a rare thing for these interviews), he cites and credits them.  If there are any mistakes with that, he has asked to be informed, and changes or corrections will be made.  This has happened less than five times, and each correction was approved by the complainant.  In most cases (wherever possible), the link is sent to the guest and/or the agent, and always is met with gratitude and compliments.  Many of the guests' websites have added the link, and a couple have even re-posted the material in its entirety.  The material has been used in obituaries in the New York Times, and other major papers and magazines.  The interviews have been cited in many books, dissertations, and theses - as shown in Google searches.  This is said only to show that the work is appreciated, and finding it via Wikipedia is important.  Duffie is not making any monetary profit from this, so spamming is not an issue.  Again, my thanks to everyone, and I hope this clears up the controversy.  Douglasburton 15:35, 26 March 2018  (UTC)


 * Comment: When an editor admits that they are Bruce Duffie, and spends most of their wiki time promoting himself by adding his blog posts to ELs (his other edits have been few and extremely minor), that is the very definition of WP:SPAM. It is also by definition WP:NOTHERE. Can we please remove all of the blog posts and restrict the editor from posting them? If the editor really is here to build an encyclopedia, he is obviously free to do that by contributing without posting links to Bruce Duffie's blog. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply: I truly do not understand what the problem is. If I was giving these interviews to the Encyclopedia Britannica, then all the links would start with their URL.  I am simply self-publishing these interviews, and so they all appear on my professional website.  This is NOT a blog.  It is a place where these professional interviews are posted.  I am not interested in any specific promotion of Bruce Duffie.  My aim is to promote the artists.  This is confirmed by people who actually read the interviews, including a couple of those who have added comments on this page.  Your complaint began when I added a link to the Richard Wagner page, and you removed the link to my article.  I understand that, and will not attempt to replace that link.  It goes to an article, not an interview - one of the few articles I have written.  The article, as you stated, was not specific enough for inclusion on the Wagner page.  I agree, and am sorry to have made that mistake.  But the interviews with musicians are directly on point.  They are one-on-one conversations with the specific person of the Wikipedia entry.  How can that not be appropriate, no matter where it's found on the internet?  I hope this makes it clear that NO self-promotion is intended.  I have the rights to these interviews, and am posting them to share them with anyone who cares to look at them.  My claim of no self-promotion is backed up by the fact that on a couple of occasions, people have asked me to put up a Wikipedia page for Bruce Duffie, and it has been declined.  He does not want that.  His only interest is giving the artists' ideas wider circulation.  Allowing the interviews a place on their Wikipedia pages does just that.  I am truly sorry this has caused you any discomfort, and hope you now understand the reasons these links should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.  Douglasburton  10:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE. You have added your own name, your own interviews , and your own website to External Links on Wikipedia articles more than 600 times . This violates WP:SPAM and WP:COI. In fact, that's virtually all you've been doing on Wikipedia, and it seems in fact the only reason you joined Wikipedia. This violates WP:NOTHERE. If you cannot see those points, I'm afraid you do not understand Wikipedia's purpose, principles, and policies. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: If someone else had added these links to the various pages, would that change things? Is it just that I am adding my own material?  Douglasburton  9:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If anybody had added articles from the same personal website to Wikipedia external links 600+ times, and that was virtually all they did on Wikipedia, then it would be a case of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE. If someone adds their own name to Wikipedia 600+ times, and links to articles on their own personal website 600+ times, then it's a case of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI. Either way, it's blatant mass promotionalism and needs to be removed. The most leeway allowed after this spree of wiki-spamming should be the ability to make edit requests (with clear WP:COI declared) on article talkpages, where experienced uninvolved editors can decide whether they belong in the article. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Because each interview is individual, and relates directly and completely to the person of the Wikipedia page, why would an uninvolved person have any objection?  The only problem seems to be that they all reside on a single website.  As I mentioned, it's like chapters in a book.  I cannot change the name of the website, but I can stop adding the name a second time.  The link would just be <<Interview with (guest) on (date)>> rather than <<Interview with (guest) by Bruce Duffie on (date)>>  Does that help at all?  I would even be happy to go back and delete that second use of the name...  As you see, I am trying very hard to work with you in order to keep the material available.  As noted earlier, virtually all outside (uninvolved) viewers have praised the interviews.  It is NOT for me at all.  Douglasburton  10:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be listening. You've been spamming Wikipedia for more than 8 years (as clearly your primary purpose for even being on this site), and that spam needs to be removed, and you need to stop this behavior. Trying to rationalize and keep your spam online is not really appropriate here until the spam is removed, in my opinion. If your editing had otherwise proved that you were here to build an encyclopedia, you might have had a case, but since virtually your only activity here has been posting your own links, that doesn't really hold water, and in my opinion your repeated pleas to keep the spam online are cluttering up this administrator's discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I really think one could ease up a little on hammering an apparent good-faith contributor here. Leaving aside the copyright issues (which look as if they could be sorted out) for the moment, is there actually any contention that the interviews do NOT constitute useful encyclopedic sources? From sampling a few, I would say that this is useful and professionally presented material, to which the identity of the interviewer is completely incidental. It's not as if the thousands of links to Roger Ebert's movie reviews are treated as promotional for Ebert, after all.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Before you remove any of the links, let's try your idea.  Select any 10 (ten) of the interviews.  Go to their talk pages and ask if the link is appropriate to the article.  Do you think that is a fair way to evaluate the situation?  Douglasburton  11:09, 27 March 2018
 * Oppose that proposal. Obvious and deliberate spam/self-promotion is obvious and deliberate spam/self-promotion, and has apparently been your only purpose for being on Wikipedia, and it should all be removed. If you are really concerned about Wikipedia rather than promoting yourself and your website, then I suggest substantively editing Wikipedia, cited by reliable independent sources unconnected to yourself. Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I became involved with Wikipedia because I thought I could contribute something worthwhile. I am sorry that the only things I can contribute are my interviews, and a few incidental updates and corrections.  If I had more to give, I would do so.  I am only able to give what I can, and apparently you feel this is inadequate.  I don't want to just add things to add things.  That would be ego-building, and I'm NOT about that.  I do wonder, however, why you think my list is different from Ebert (as mentioned by Elmidae)?  He makes a good point, and it seems to be spot-on with this discussion.  Douglasburton  11:40 27 March 2018
 * , just as a note, Softlavender is just one participant in this discussion; their views are not the sum total of this conversation. I thank you for being civil and respectful during these conversations, but just because one editor is against your actions doesn't necessarily mean that we all are. I haven't looked into this case, but reading through this thread it sounds like there are a couple of people who somewhat support what you've done. Either way it looks like someone will be unhappy about the outcome of this discussion, but that is unfortunately the way of life some times. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * U|Primefac, thank you so very much for helping me understand what is going on. I have stated my thoughts and reasons, and hope they are sufficient.  Douglasburton  12:05, 27 March 2018  (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think we should be a little more circumspect before immediately jumping to conclusion that an editor is a spammer or copyright violator. These edits appear to have been made in good faith and the collected interviews are a valuable resource for the various subjects. I'd leave it to subject area experts to determine whether the external links add value on a case-by-case basis. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen this link before and checked it out. I chose not to pursue as I don't see this as spam..no ads, no products, no sales. In my opinion, this is okay and I don't see any real promotion or problem. This is an archive of interviews.
 * I think these links add value. As long as the COI is declared for the links, I don't see an issue. The interviews are actually quite valuable in my opinion, and to lose them over this would be a net negative to the project. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that these links are not spam, which is a term pertaining to monetary profit. There is no advertising or other financial advantage in question here. While I can see how the argument that they are self-promotional might hold a bit of water, the offer to remove the name of the interviewer from the External Links listings seems more than fair. These, from what I have read so far, in my view, are good interviews that add encyclopedic value to the articles they are added to. Deleting the links is, as Canterbury Tail notes, a net negative. Sanctions to Douglasburton? Give ‘um a barnstar. And frankly, this never should have been brought here, especially under the inflammatory title, confrontational rhetoric and urgent requests for an immediate TBAN. How about some common sense? Jusdafax (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the last few respondents for your support and kindness, and understanding of my aims. I will modify new links to omit the second mention of my name, and I will also go back and remove that mention in old links... though that will take awhile!  BTW, what is <<COI>>?  Am I doing it correctly?  Let me know so I don't make any further blunders.  Douglasburton (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , COI is short for conflict of interest, a guideline which you should be sure to read. I don't think anyone would mind you removing your name as suggested but you may want to wait a little bit before adding new links. We are consensus-driven and this hasn't necessarily been decided yet. I see that you have added a couple more but you may want to wait until this thread has concluded.


 * Got it. I'll continue to remove my name, but will not add anything further until I am told it's OK.  Thanks.  Douglasburton (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

May I ask you, while you are at it, to also review our external links guideline. Although I agree that there is often important information in (good) interviews, we do have criteria that the added link should actually add information over what is already contained in the article, and the other external links, to avoid that we create a linkfarm of related material. Moreover, the guideline also contains the strong suggestion to use the material into the article and use the interview as a reference (which I think will be possible in many cases where the link is currently an external link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * u|Dirk Beetstra, thanks for this pointer. Before an interview is posted on my site, I edit the transcript.  In doing so, I consult other sources, including the Wikipedia article.  In no case would I post something which is merely duplicate material.  The conversations ran from at least 40 minutes to sometimes as much as 90 minutes, so there is much more material than could ever be in a Wikipedia article.  I say this not to boast, but to assure you that there will be more material than is on Wikipedia.  Take a look at any of them, and you'll see the depth and variety of the conversation.  Douglasburton (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * HELP! I've been making corrections to the pages to eliminate the name (about 50 done so far, and doing a few every day).  However, someone else (user HI) undid my correction to the page on composer Philip Glass, and stated "previous wording was fine".  So, should I undo his undo, or just leave this one alone?  I could explain to him that the Wikipedia Administrators have asked me to make the change.  But let me know how you wish me to handle this one.  Thanks for your guidance.  Douglasburton (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would leave it. If another editor wants to keep the name in there, then that's fine. I think it's probably just important you don't actively put it there yourself. Should someone else put it there, then so be it, it's not a big deal. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I will continue to remove the name from other pages, but will leave Philip Glass alone (with the name re-inserted by the other editor).  Douglasburton (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: As I continue to remove my name from various pages, I noticed on one page that two small fixes need to be done.  May I do those?  I don't want to be accused of adding anything yet.....  Thanks for your advice.  Douglasburton (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do. Since the attempt to sanction you has clearly run its course, I request we close this report with no action, except perhaps a trout for the filer, who I would think more kindly of were they to finalize this with an brief apology to all concerned. And thanks for sharing your lovely interviews. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much. I appreciate your kind words, and am glad to be able to simply continue with my work on behalf of my musical guests.  Douglasburton (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Should these edits be redacted?
A few minutes ago, an IP has added edits on Willy relating to a banned user, Willy on Wheels while also discovering a dreadful edit summary. (See here and here) I've reverted them back to the last good version, but also wondering if these edits should be removed from public view? Minima ©  ( talk ) 10:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:REVDEL explains how to make such a request. Iffy★Chat -- 11:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to REVDEL these. By the way, Willy's main account is not User:Willy on Wheels but User:WoW; see Special:Contributions/WoW~enwiki and its impressive second edit.  Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. I RD3'd the poop emoji edit summary, but nothing else is terribly disruptive. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave the IP a timeout to rethink their life. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedi0
While browsing the User talk:Jimbo Wales page I clicked on a link that sent me to a proxy website https://en.wikipedi0.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regenerative_medicine&diff=611563111&oldid=611559645 which was almost identical to Wikipedia and showed some Bitcoin thing or other. Is that some kind of cryptocurrency mining thing or what? I've edited the link there, not sure if that was the right thing to do (the link was added by, probably by accident) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From my iPhone, No idea what that was about but thanks for editing the link. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo, I am on a computer now, at clinic. That is a very weird thing, and I appreciate that you corrected the link.  It makes me uncomfortable that, when clicking on the link, I get a message that says "you are centrally logged in", but I am not logged in.  Worried if that means something nefarious is happening.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like a simple mirror. The banner at the bottom says "Buy a coffee for the developer of this wikipedia proxy site", with a bitcoin address for donations. After a quick look, I see nothing "nefarious" in there. Isa (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I figured out now how I inadvertently got to that link, via google search, and I should have been paying more attention. I was juggling too many things at once, and just did not notice the faulty URL.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Community comment requested – ArbCom discretionary sanctions procedure modification
The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures:


 * In the section Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, insert below the existing text: The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
 * In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Important notes, in the second bullet point: While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Admin protected Atom (book) : requesting redirect
Atom (book) is currently a redlink protected from creation. It looks like it was the subject of some controversy in 2015, but I humbly request it be created as a redirect to Atom (disambiguation), as there are at least two book articles on Wikipedia named Atom (Atom (Krauss book) and Atom (Asimov book)). Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ GB fan 11:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick
Can an admin take a look at Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick? I believe the article should simply be deleted on NOTNEWS and A7 grounds but at the very least, the names of minors supposedly implicated should be rev-deleted (I've temporarily removed them). Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've stripped it down and tagged it A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done the revdel. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I put it up for AFD while was tagging for A7.  I'm not 100% certain that A7 applies in light of the 48 hours reference, the CNN reference, and the "No Bullying" campaign reference.  Putting a AFD ensures that if the A7 doesn't apply, we do call the question of feasability. Hasteur (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the A7 tag. AfD is a better and more definitive venue and will ensure against recreation. I have removed the "no bullying" reference as not a Reliable Source; that still leaves significant coverage from two mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Same creator and no better. No refs, reads like copyvio of a news report Death of Zachary Bearheels speedy it as ? Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact this user is quickly creating unreferenced bios too . Perhaps they shoild stop creating new pages and focus on making each creation not speedy deletable or PROD worthy. New user of 5 days. Would have been slowed down by WP:ACREQ. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's an appropriate criteria, but I nominated the page Legacypac referenced G10, primarily to blank the mass BLP violation. Wonder when the Friday they refer to is? John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All their creations are under some deletion process now. They contested several with blank or poor English meaningless reasons. This helps prove the WP:ACREQ point. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Marconoplay
Needs a WP:CIV block. Creating and recreating crappy pages and from his talkpage comments evidently clueless or unable to understand English. See User talk:Marconoplay and Special:Contributions/Marconoplay. Brought to my attention by recreation and speedy tag removal on a page I NPR'd. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections
I've noted earlier an endless number of BLPs that have what can be considered egregious violations of guidelines, if not U.S. laws regarding defamation, ie. they must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, per BLP. I won't bother listing the dozen or so I've noticed so far, but will if requested. I happened to come across another one just now, Casey Affleck, which has 1,000 words in his Personal life section, of which 700 are devoted to a single accusation and civil lawsuit. It even includes details from the lawsuit itself, with a link to the case pdf file. Which could imply that during the pending civil case, where money is demanded, WP gets to be used as a scandal sheet, affect careers and reputations, and likely cost the target of the material serious financial damage. It also implies criminality.

The editors who contributed to that allegation section included about 10 different people, some newbies and some old hands. But the editors who recently worked on the article generally include some very experienced old hands, yet none made any changes and left it in.

For one of the sexual allegation editors I've come across, who did not work on the Affleck article, but many others, I posted some suggestions over a month ago, but they never replied and discontinued their editing WP soon after my message. And I'm not sure what this means, but a large percentage of cites used on the many sexual allegation sections rely on British newspapers, although the article is usually about an American actor. In the case of Marlon Brando, the 300 words about an allegation all came from a single British newspaper. Is that an issue?

So what guidelines, if any, are relevant for what seems a long list of obvious violations? In case someone suggests posting a problem BLP article here for review, since I'm banned from the bio pages, that hasn't had any effect as yet as noted in my earlier unban request. In fact it had the exact opposite effect, as the few changes I made to fix those violations got reverted. --Light show (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You could stop trying to find end-runs around your topic ban, and maybe spend some time figuring out why it was imposed. --Calton | Talk 07:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Calton. since your TBan applies specifically to any edits relating to biographies of any kind, how is asking a long question here about biographies not related to biographies?! Put it another way: how is it not a violation?  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 08:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. Enough's enough. I propose Light show is blocked for violating their topic ban. I propose that block is indefinite, but may be appealed after no sooner than six months. Once the block expires or is lifted, the topic ban would remain in effect. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I could support this, but I'd prefer to first try amending the ban so that it is not subject to the usual exceptions in BANEX - that is, a blanket ban from all edits related to biographies without any exceptions. A quick skim shows Light Show does have some useful-looking edits in the time since the ban was put in place, they just need to stay away from biographies.   would you consider this as a first step?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would. Let me amend my wording and we'll give this another shot. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The exact wording of the topic ban is logged here. "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." The ban isn't, as Light show claims here, "from the bio pages" but instead, from any edits related to biographies of any kind. I believe this discussion is a violation, as are the numerous violations listed in the section above, "Unban request by Light show", as are edits like this. GoldenRing suggests we amend the wording of the topic ban, and so therefore I suggest the following. Light show's topic ban is changed to read as follows: "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed, and about the WP:BLP policy itself or its application on Wikipedia. This is a blanket ban without any exceptions normally permitted." This would replace the existing topic ban on biographies, and would be indefinite in duration. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Light Show clearly doesn't get the scope of the exceptions and continues to claim them where they don't apply.  The alternatives are escalating blocks for each violation or a straight indef as initially suggested above - I'd like to give this a go first.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, support block special wide TBANs with no exceptions don’t work and are simply delaying the inevitable. They are a bad practice to get in the mode of making, lead to more drama, and more wasted community time. If we need something this restrictive the person really has no businesss editing to begin with. I support Yamla’s original proposal: it is both more fair to them and will waste less of our time in the long run. Also note, I would prefer no action at all to this TBAN for the reasons I just stated. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree about the block - looking through Light Show's history, while the existing TBAN was in place, they worked fine on other non-BLP topics. The TBAN would not deny them the ability to work elsewhere though obviously, if the topic starts touching on BLP, they should be aware to extract themselves from dealing with anything related to that; being able to do that would show good faith effort to abide by this proposed TBAN. Failure to do so, then a block is a logical final step. --M asem (t) 13:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is that specially-crafted sanctions don't work, and only create more work for enforcement. Even if they are acting in good faith, the fact that we have to craft a special remedy to allow them to edit shows they've reached the point where they have become disruptive to the point of blocking. If others don't agree with that, then I'd just prefer to let them off with a final warning than craft a new sanction that is likely to fail. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with TonyBallioni, and I'm honestly about an inch away from just imposing a flat indef here. This very discussion, the non-appeal-related comments at Light show's appeal, and the edits to the articles that weren't to remove blatant vandalism or BLP violations were all already violations of the existing topic ban. If Light show does not intend to abide by the topic ban to begin with, making it even tighter will make no difference. So, let me ask, then, &mdash;now that you know what you did violates your topic ban, do you intend to stop doing it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When I was topic banned from Sellers, although I was a primary editor, and was complimented by the only other primary editor for improving the article, the ban was due to simply talk page discussions with the three new editors. There were no accusations about uncivility, edit wars, PAs, ABF, socketry, NPOV, or any bio issue, on my part. But I was banned solely because I complained about some new editors' revisions. After the ban took place, I never made any edits or even commented on the talk page. I obviously fully abided by the ban.
 * The same sequence of events took place for Stanley Kubrick's bio, where the other primary editor thanked me a number of times during the time we worked on improving it. Some casual visitors even took to time to comment about the improvements. But here again, after the same editors joined on re-editing much of the article, there were some differences of opinions, naturally, but they all took place on the talk pages. And only after I again complained about the same three editors, was I banned. After the ban, I never edited the bio or commented on its talk page.
 * So those are my two previous topic bans, and in reply to your question about whether I "intend to stop doing it," on bios generally, I think my actions should imply and answer.
 * As for the new issue about banning me from any WP editing, I think it's coincidental that my actual edits and other related improvements are never an issue with the ban proposals, including this one. They only arise as a result of my posting discussions about articles or editors, a fact I mentioned here a while back, which no one disputed.
 * But it honestly never occurred to me that coming to AN and asking a straightforward and highly pertinent question such as a Request for guidelines on sexual allegation sections, would result in not getting even an attempt by anyone to answer, but would again lead to a new ban proposal. I hope I've answered your question. If anyone has any others, feel free to ask.--Light show (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You do understand that your removal of sourced content from generally good RSes on mainspace BLPs under a claim they were "obvious" BLP violations (and thus not subject to your existing TBAN) is what is at issue here from the prior discussion? It's not how you used talk pages after the fact, but that you don't seem to recognize the concern that these are not considered "obvious" violations and thus you violated that prior TBAN by doing those actions. --M asem  (t) 18:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain at the top of this post, it was "obvious" to me. The word itself means "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent." When I first asked the editor on their talk page, it was because their edits were clearly single purpose, and with the multiple guideline references shown to them, were understood to be violations. Hence, obvious, at least to me. That editor never responded. In any case, what's "obvious" is usually a matter of opinion. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate Yamla's attempt to craft a topic ban with no loopholes, I believe that Light show has shown quite convincingly that they're incapable of following any broad topic ban where biographies are concerned, and, like TonyB, I think another ban is just delaying the inevitable. Considering the long history of problems with this editor, resulting in 4 topic bans running concurrently, I think the next step is not another TBAN, but a block, a course of action I was considering suggesting in the previous discussion, just up the page.  Unfortunately, I think that means an indef block.  If the indef block is lifted in the future, the 4 topic bans should remain in place, or that might be an opportunity to tighten up the current TBAN as a condition of unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as well. This is a clear violation. Clear. Rewording the ban ex post facto just to emphasize that this is a violation seems pointless. The phrase "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed" is about as explicit as you ever need to get. There's nothing in there that would indicate it is open ended for allowing a thread like this. Adding redundant wording as if the original wording is unclear is just a waste of time. The wording isn't unclear. I say block for a clear cut TBAN vio. S warm   ♠  20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am simply not a fan of indef blocks when it comes to long-time editors ......as its easier to follow one account vs multiple scoks. No way do i believe an indef block would stop him from editing Wikipedia. Deal with and finding alternative accounts will waste more time then just monitoring this account.--Moxy (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Clear cut violation. Last time they were blocked for one week; this time I have blocked for one month. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is fair and proportionate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help mass messaging Signpost
Would an admin please contact me on my userpage so we can send a mass message for the current issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've made you a massmessage sender, this should solve the problem? Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping . Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you ☆ Bri (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my MediaWiki account block from 2012.
On the MediaWiki site, I was blocked indefinitely in 2012 for sockpuppetry and cross-wiki policy violation. Jasper Deng has not yet replied to my message on his talk page. I think I need to be unblocked because I know better now and I can use the Wikimedia sites in a way that follows the policies unlike my 2012 self. Read more on his talk page. Newman2 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, not MediaWiki. I think you need to deal with this over there, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But I can't edit anything else there aside from my talk page. Newman2 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's nothing that we at the English Wikipedia can do. This is matter for MediaWiki to handle, and your talk page is where you would need to post such a request to become unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request: Nfitz
remained indefinitely blocked pursuant to this community consensus roughly 5 months ago. They are now requesting an unblock, which I will copy here for community review. See also Nfitz's talk page for relevant discussion, some of which I've copied in the collapse box below. S warm  ♠  17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Original request:

Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I didn't really look at the calendar or the guidelines/policies much. Focusing on them too much is where I've gone wrong before, so I've tried to be a bit more holistic about it since; that being said, looking now at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK I see no reference to 6 months, or time periods in general.
 * Various time-frames were bandied about in the subsequent AN endorsement here, but no particular time-frame appeared to have clear consensus nor was clearly endorsed as far as I understood. As someone in the AN discussion pointed out, indefinite could be next week, or next year, or longer. The block occurred on October 14, 2017 ... about 24 weeks ago; I guess that's not six 30/31 day months ... do the extra 14 days make much difference User:Fenix down? Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of talk page use other than my contribution to the AN discussion, and the log of articles I was intending to edit.
 * Not really too sure what to say about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last August I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me, and on August 16 I made a fundamental AFG failure about the motives of another editor here, mistaking ignorance for prejudice. That lead to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated; my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea; between that, and the various medications being used to treat it, my judgement was impaired. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to my wife's comments about snoring, several years ago. I'm a bit young really, for this to be a problem, and was relatively fit, not overweight, and in good health - which checks almost none of the warning sign boxes for this. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the onset may have coincided with my first child a decade ago - so that the normal sleep deprivation of that life change, masked other things. Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track.
 * I've done some work on other projects in my absence; not as much as I'd hoped. Though less in the last couple of months - I was hit hard by H2N3 flu, which I'm still suffering the after-effects of after 2 months, and work has been crazy. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention current projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet). Trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. Try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create Samuel Benjamin Marlowe, check 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, and add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line. I hope to update Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!) and other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As I have commented on Nfitz's talk page already, I will be brief here. In principle I support lifting this block; I don't think Nfitz has fully understood the reason why everyone around him was incredibly frustrated, so I have outlined some potential remedies here. My perspective is that Nfitz has the tendency of being unable to neither see the point nor get to the point, and then goes on to be obnoxiously verbose without knowing when to disengage. However, I sincerely believe he is willing to address these concerns, which is the spirit of any standard offer in my opinion. Is this block still preventative? Perhaps, if we are just too tired to deal with another potential time sink. But if there is ever a positive chance to reintegrate a long time editor back to the community, personally I would opt to take a leap of good faith. Alex Shih (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nfitz has been unblocked to allow participation in this discussion. Please reinstate block if this appeal is declined. S warm   ♠  17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ynhockey
Admin User:Ynhockey (who, by all accounts is WP:INVOLVED wrt WP:ARBPIA) earlier today moved 2018 Land Day massacre to 2018 Land Day incidents.

Before he did that, he, AFAIK, used his admin powers (at 20:46, 31 March 2018) to delete  2018 Land Day incidents (with edit line:  (G6: Deleted to make way for move)) and (at 20:52, 31 March 2018) to delete  Talk:2018 Land Day incidents, again with the edit line (G6: Deleted to make way for move).

I have asked him to undo the move, as he is very much WP:INVOLVED, (See User_talk:Ynhockey), but he seem unwilling to do so.

Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain repeatedly to you that there does not appear to have been any use of admin powers and that this is what happens when a page is moved over an unedited redirect. I've demonstrated that you have deleted redirects in the same way when making moves, but unfortunately this appears to have fallen on (probably deliberately) deaf ears.
 * Ynhockey's move was a revert of a controversial move, so I see no need for him to revert. Number   5  7  22:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Ynhockey used the admin delete button in order to move an article page. Non admins cannot undo his move, only admins can do that. (You have to delete 2018 Land Day massacre before you can undo his move.)
 * And if the article name was so controversial, then certainly there could have been admins who were not WP:INVOLVED who could have move it? (Btw, the article started its life under the name of  2018 Land Day massacre) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained repeatedly that Ynhockey didn't hit the delete button and provided you with evidence that you yourself have deleted pages in the same way, so I don't know why you're insisting that he did. Why are you ignoring the evidence from your log that you have deleted pages to allow moves? Number   5  7  23:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You did no such thing. deleted redirect .....by overwriting is not the same as deleted page. Again, I believe Ynhockey used admin powers to delete an article (and thereby giving himself an advantage in an edit war). I am looking forward to hearing what other admins have to say about the matter. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The conversation is there for everyone to see. The page history at 2018 Land Day incidents quite clearly shows only a single deleted edit, which was an unedited redirect which would not have required deletion to move over. Number   5  7  23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Iamkaran1994
This user has left a lot of sensitive information (about himself) on the page. I tried to warn him, but I am not sure how it should be handled considering it's not a violation, per se. Coderzombie (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, he's verging on WP:NOTCV, but as far as its sensitivity is concerned, he's an adult (presumably) so is expected to know what he's doing. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the page, and may I suggest that his information is fine (and thank you for telling us your banking history and what kind of phone you use) but that the information about other people, which goes into quite a bit of detail, be removed posthaste and not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed
An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction.  See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
 * 2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
 * 3) Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
 * 5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
 * 6) For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson
Hello, Another 6 months has passed and I am due another appeal to my community ban. I have had an idea that might be acceptable to arbcom and the Wikipedia community that could partially un-ban me and allow me to contribute my knowledge and artistic talents in a meaningful and non-harmful way. Why not try “sandboxing” me?

I thought to appeal my ban to the extent that I can only edit my sandbox and no live pages. I would only to be able to write or create images and maps in my sandbox for other Wikipedians and future generations to use as they see fit. This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet.

The first thing I would like to get on with, given permission is a map of the Levantine Corridor to improve your page on that.

Pending enough other suitable contributions and nothing disagreeable comes from this, I thought it might make a suitable way or rehabilitation?

I look forward to hearing what you think?

Thank you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unblock request copied here by SQL (talk • contribs) 6:07, March 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * You're "due" another appeal of your ban? It doesn't work that way, the fact that someone can appeal every six months doesn't mean we have to reconsider the ban every six months. The major issues with this editor seem to include treating fringe theories as mainstream and adding original research, characterising that as "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is not encouraging. I don't think it's a good idea to make people waste time trying to rehabilitate this editor. Link to the last unban request.  Hut 8.5  10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Paul Bedson is relevant for folks who are missing the context. I'm not seeing that anything has changed in this editor's ability to see why they got banned. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The ban was instituted for good reasons and I see no reason to lift it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Editing only outside article space seems a good idea, but "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet." means that nothing that would be created there would be usable anyway. I would decline this request. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Last year's appeal is here. I see nothing in this new appeal that changes my mind. I hope Paul will acknowledge that he is still promoting this work by Christian O'Brien and this "Levantine corridor" fringe hypothesis. It appears that he is still trying to find a way to promote his ideas and I don't think this would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. As for the map, we can't stop him from creating one elsewhere for us to use but I would much prefer one reliably published. Decline. Doug Weller  talk 12:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He is still using Wikipedia to promote his ideas, linking to this old version of his userpage. This seems entirely inappropriate and it should probably go to [[WP:MfD]. Doug Weller  talk 13:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock: rationale is at best illogical [He's not blocked on commons, so if he wants to contribute maps and images, he can still do so via his account there.] and at worst, indicative he doesn't understand why he was blocked. [He wants to contribute his knowledge about "a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn't caught up with yet", but Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.] DrKay (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'd say no. "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is classic WP:OR and shows that Paul still does not understand the problem. Knowledge that academia hasn't caught up with yet is of no relevance to Wikipedia (other than as neutral coverage of fringe ideas per se as fringe ideas, providing there is evidence of the notability of the ideas), and Wikipedia sandboxes are not appropriate places to engage in such original/fringe/alternative research. The place for that is, for example, peer-reviewed academic publications, and when academia has "caught up" with it (or rejected it, or whatever) then such material might be relevant to Wikipedia with due weight. Until then, this is simply the wrong platform for it, in any space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Boing!, DrKay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

April fools day related question
Would it be standard practice for an admin to block an editor on a first offense for nominating a category for deletion as an April fools joke (assuming no other exacerbating circumstances)?- MrX 🖋 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't. If the community sees joke CfDs as a big no-no, then I would issue a stern warning.  I know the community has serious issues with joke AfDs, not sure about CfDs. Cp678  (T•C•G•E) 20:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In these circumstances, it would be much more appropriate for the editor to block the administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone unblock as per time served ?  has blocked them for an April Fools joke - Not everyone agrees with April Fools (understandable) however blocking them is way OTT, So can someone unblock and maybe we should get some sort of RFC running on what is and isn't an appropriate WP space for April Fools (AFD is providing you instantly remove the AFD from the article and that you place said AFD at bottom of the AFD log). – Davey 2010 Talk 21:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would have either. This is apparently related to the heading above, as well as User_talk:BrownHairedGirl, and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_1. the blocked editor is . SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that BHG has unblocked with the message "Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served". SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at this RfC, the only supporters of an automatic sanction are now blocked or retired. The category-namespace page I nominated for deletion hasn't been viewed by anyone for over two months. Is vandalising the category disruptive, and notifying the original author not disruptive? w umbolo   ^^^  21:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) per TP request L3X1  ◊distænt write◊
 * BTW I may or may not have nominated Category Living people for deletion, but i sent it to AFD instead of CFD so as to limit the disruption. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is thoroughly out of line. We don't block blatant vandals (the ones who replace articles with gibberish) for a first offense, and April Fools jokes are not vandalism.  If anyone gets sanctions in this situation, it needs to be the blocking administrator.  Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought at first that this was a joke here. Sorry! If someone was really blocked, this was very much a bad block. The block should be reversed, and frankly, the blocked editor is due an apology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's not just me.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's heavy handed, but by fuck April Fools Day gets more & more tedious and less & less funny with every passing year. The general consensus has always been to allow pissing around in the 'contributor' namespaces and to keep the 'reader' namespaces clear of these (far from) 'jolly japes'. If people are going to do something which disrupts the project, even in good faith or in jest, then a block is always going to be a possibility, though other measures, such as a good old fashioned bollocking should be tried first. Blocks though, lest we forget, are not punishment and don't have to take into account of motive, they're intended to be protective measures deployed to prevent damage and disruption to the project, if someone is disrupting and damaging the project, even if it's in good faith, a block cannot be ruled out. All that said, if the disruption has halted and no further issues are anticipated, the block can be removed. Nick (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you got the "not punishment" part right. Going straight to a block here is not justified by a perception of tedium. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is really unfunny, tedious shit that lacks any sort of originality or creativity is virtually indistinguishable from common drive-by vandalism or low level disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK then, per WP:BLOCK: The blocking administrator should evaluate the originality and cleverness of the edit; edits that lack these qualities justify a block without warning. Got it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Block review
Per the above, the community really should comment on the block. I consider it a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In thinking about comments from other editors, something that occurs to me is that there are two issues here. One is community norms about April 1 humor (take a look at the Main Page, by the way), and the other is community norms about blocking. In my opinion, whatever one's position on the former, the latter still means that blocks are generally meant to be preventative, not punitive. And administrators should never be in the business of using blocks to declare what is or is not funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - As I said above not everyone agrees with April Fools (and that's fine) but blocking over it is not on, If you disagree with an editors actions then warn them ... and if they carry on without either stopping or modifying their actions then block them, Bad block all round. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bad block, obviously per my previous comments here and on the blocking admin's talk page.- MrX 🖋 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Block reduced to time served, and lifted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your attitude about this leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you'll do better next time.- MrX 🖋 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The block log summary for the unblock reads: Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served. In my opinion, the "couldn't be bothered" part is unsatisfactory. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the amount of meta discussion about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt en.wp with "jokes" which were stale years ago is unsatisfactory. YMMV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As its been lifted I won't comment, but we should clarify that the XFD tag must be removed from what ever is nominated, regardless of wiki-space. Contrary to FOOLS, I do suggest using Twinkle, de-selecting the creator notify box, hand deleting the AFD lin if appplicable, and then using rollback to rm the tag off the page. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note. Although the block has been lifted, it would still be useful for editors to comment, given the differing perceptions of where current community standards are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Was a little heavy handed? Maybe, but I empathize.  But like many other admin, I'm sick of April Fools "jokes".  I've barely been here today, and half the time has been dealing with people putting hoaxes in main space or other silly crap.  In the previous discussion on April Fools jokes, I said we shouldn't encourage them at any level and treat it like disruptive editing, and my opinion hasn't changed.  This isn't a community of 1000 people anymore, and someone has to filter through the real vandalism just to find "jokes" that quit being funny 10 years ago.  I haven't seen anything that is actually funny on 4/1 in many years, all I've seen is more cleanup and arguments over whether it is allowed or not. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * April Fools is so last century. I think we need to say clearly no April Fools at all, to save everyone the hassle. I can't imagine anyone over the age of 3 being "fooled" anymore. But I think the block was heavy-handed, and per Tryptofish, the couldn't be bothered aspect of it does not sit well. Wet trouts all round please. Aiken D 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Rules for fools would be the place to discuss or have an RFC, linked to VP of course. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to set anything up like that myself, as past experience puts me off but would certainly support something like it. However, it's clear to me that we cannot simply "Ignore All Rules" as not everyone is on the same page with it. Therefore, the simplest solution would be to not allow any pranks. (Exceptions could perhaps be made with main page efforts, as these are co-ordinated and organised.) Aiken D 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the big deal is. Just let the jokes happen without admin interference. Then, at the end of the day, just rollback enwiki to March 31. Problem solved! - MrX 🖋 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think April fools' jokes are fine, and I'd like to think I personally come up with some new non-disruptive jokes, but if it actually disrupts view-ability or misleads readers, then I draw the line. I approve of jokes even in article space, as long as the joke can be based on fact and still carries educational and factual value.  Placing a deletion tag on an article does not qualify.  With that being said, blocking immediately for someone making an AGF joke, is inappropriate.  Established editors have a right to a warning first before being blocked.  C  P  22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's fine to quickly revert such deletion-related joke attempts. The question, for me, is how quickly the admin should proceed to issuing a block. Often, just reverting and maybe warning is entirely sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, to flesh that out, this is what I think would be best practice for any deletion-related prank: (1) promptly remove the tag from whatever page was nominated for deletion, (2) close the deletion discussion with no action taken, and a closing statement saying that the joke was contrary to community standards, and (3) make a warning on the editor's talk page. If the editor continues to do that stuff after the warning, then block, but only then. If that had happened in this case, nobody would even be discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. Someone put an AfD tag on Donald Trump, and I just warned them and left a note pointing them to WP:FOOLS. No need to block someone over a category. ansh 666 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion WP:SKCRIT has to be used, nothing more nothing less. Don't let your feelings influence the warning you give out, maybe something like uw-fools1 (a variant of uw-vandalism1) would be appropriate in order to standardize (but not normalize) these. w umbolo   ^^^  23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well as input is requested I'll give it a go: 4/1 is my favorite day on Wikipedia. I've done it twice so far, and find the deletion rationales amusing and some of the RFA talk hilarious. I will even go so far as to say it isn't disruptive. Why? Because as soon as I am done cooking and cleaning up after supper, I will show up with my little AFDclose tools and make sure everything is closed and tagged for the history books, just like I did last year. Admins don't have to do anything. The only fallout really that I see is that the 4/1 AFD Log is 15%useless, but that disruptive is limited with the click of the button "hide closed debates". FOOLS needs to be written to emphasize that 4/1 is a behind-the-scenes event, even though some IPs have shown up with amusing !votes, and I share the listing with some of my close friends and family members whom A. find this thing funny, and B. I trust to not vandalise wikipedia. <S>TWINKLE should be encourage</S> because most editors are too lazy probably to hand make AFD pages, they should be reminded to insta-rollback the tagging, and deselect Notify the creator (though many fo the pages I have seen are so old they were created by IPs or long departed members. Leaving AFDs open for less than a day (really should be 47 hours because of global time zones, but if Wikipedia is only going to celebrate UTC that's OK w/ me) doesn't detract from the project enough to justify any early closures. As for joke edits like rotating pages' TOC by 59487 degrees, I don't find that funny, if the community wants to write off page related edits as vandalism, than Soviet. TLDR If ordinary readers never find out, Ignore All Bulls thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  23:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is confusion as to what I mean by "page related edits", see Dennis's comment above. AFD MFD RFA RFB don't coutn, so therefore are valid. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TWINKLE should be encourage - fuck no. Keep this stuff out of mainspace history - it doesn't matter if it's immediately reverted or not. Speaking of which - I see you've been doing that. If I'd noticed earlier, I would have blocked you if you continued after a warning. Consider that a warning for next year. ansh 666 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I got distracted and didn't finish a sentence, sorry. Just make sure you follow WP:FOOLS and you'll be fine. ansh 666 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more things, because I am doing my best to see both sides, as for tools.wmflabs AFD logs being messed with by all the 4/1 joke voting, that doesn't matter because we don't let bots electe admins. And to further ensure a lack of disruption, Imma IAR and start closing joke AFDs 18 minutes early. I leave the RFAs and anything in the userspace for others, and the no/low G6ing for admins. Vote for the deletion of gravity while you still can. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I should be glad I was working/sleeping and did not think of Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels 3 until it was too late. I do think a brief word of chastisement and a revert would have been a better way in the above instant than a block.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * deletions are always a grave matter.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Brownhairedgirl's WP:IDHT is shocking. Unblock summary "so I'll reduce it to time served" is also misleading because the user didn't had to "serve" any block for what he did at the moment. Someone needs to reblock Wumbolo for 1 second and the block summary should be: "Brownhairedgirl's block was totally ridiculous". Raymond3023 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Our annual day to fight over nonsense (because we never do that enough) has come and gone again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Tedious and unfunny April Fool "jokes" really should be a thing. Does anyone really think that nominating something for deletion is actually still funny (if it ever was) even after years and years of the same tedious dross? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The April Fools (WP:BOLLOCKS applies) stuff should be confined to user space only; per WP:UP, it's traditionally the (only) place where editors are given greater laxity in both edits and attitude. Clearly, as BHG's block goes to show, they can't expect the same laxity in WP workspaces. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I kind of tried at the last RfC but it didn't pass :( ansh 666 17:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried a bit of coordination but it wasn't responded to. A note about not rehashing Earth, Wikipedia, and anything which would redirect to Sol 7. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Bad block. The joke nomination did in fact affect article space. However, editors who deliberately vandalize articles are supposed to be given a number of warnings for vandalism before they are actually blocked. Blocking someone for a single accidental edit to article-space is completely unwarranted. The fact that this occurred on April Fool’s Day is irrelevant; our community has firmly rejected the proposal that editors be immediately sanctioned for vandalizing articles on April Fools Day. The admin was aware of our standards, but still decided to block the user due to her dislike of April Fools Jokes. I get that April Fools jokes are controversial on Wikipedia, but this is not an excuse to unilaterally ignore policy and past community consensus. If the admin wants to end April Fools jokes, she should get consensus to change the rules instead of enforcing what she believes the rules ought to be. (Not an admin, but responding since community input was asked for). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Bad Block some of the jokes were pretty funny and give us a chance to see how silly we are the rest of the year. A block stains the editors record forever - the blocking Admin gets no stain for making a bad block. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments after initial closing
About the closing statement: Copyvios? Categories, maybe. In any case, if this is going to be closed, let's be clear that the consensus was that it was a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As always, if someone objects to my close, and wishes to castigate BHG further, please feel free to re-open. I simply thought things had gone on long enough. But, really, what earthly good would a formal consensus of "bad block" do for Wikipedia? For crying out loud, it was only a block, and it only lasted for less than two hours, there was no capital crime here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can only reiterate my original statment, which is that silliness like this happens every year, so this remains entirely accurate. Should this go on longer I'll feel compelled to post it again, so... just let this die. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of keeping this alive even longer, I'll say that I removed your first facepalm image because (1) it was way larger than necessary, to the point of being intrusive in my view, and (2) more importantly, it was anonymous. Image comments are still comments, andnever mind that they appear to violate the spirit of WP:SHOUT, giving undue emphasis to one editor's viewpointin my strong opinion, they should be "owned" (signed) for the same reason as any other comment. Had it been smaller and signed, I probably would have left it alone. I understand that the practice is common, but stuff can change. I also understand that you're an admin, although I didn't know that until after the removal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about me, just now I was only trying to add a humorous touch to the end of this depressingly predictable sequence of events (something of this sort happens every year). Didn't realize the size, I thought I'd shrunk it to 250 instead of 350. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to close the discussion at this point. However, a proper closing statement should summarize the consensus, as opposed to offering a personal opinion that is contrary to the consensus, as happened here. The consensus needs to be clear. There is no such thing as "only a block". It's one thing to lose patience with yearly April 1 jokes. But misuse of administrator tools is no trivial matter, 365 days a year. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
Category:Categories is a real mess, and needs to be cleaned up today. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I can say categorically that this is a big problem. Look at all the subcategories: Category:Submarines, Category:Submarine sandwich restaurants, and on and on. It's like herding cats! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Close at ANI; subsequent admin behavior
I filed at ANI which was closed by with a note No need for administrative action. and with edit note Close nothing needed here.

I found that close surprising, as two admins another admin had noted that there was substance to my OP, and asked Paul about the close at their TP - the whole thread is here: User_talk:Paul_August. After Paul replied I asked him to reopen it or refine his close, and noted that the behavior is continuing. and Paul asked me for diffs: What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please.

Given that the ANI was about Colin's overwhelming focus, forumshopping, and vituperation on one issue and one person really, a simple glance at Colin's contribs at that time would show anyone trying to understand what is going on that this was still happening, and I tried to explain that. I also noted that I would not seek a close review, as Colin has toned down the worst of the behavior. As far as I was concerned the conversation was over.

At that point SandyGeorgia showed up and helpfully posted Colin's 11 recent contribs (these)

To my surprise, as you can see in the thread, in Paul's next message they continued to ask that I provide diffs; and continued, and in their last note to me, they have threatened action because I have not provided specific diffs. So I am kicking this here.

I suppose reasonable people can differ as to whether action should have been taken at the ANI, but I do not see how a neutral, competent admin can not see that someone can see a continuation of the behavior discussed in the ANI via a glance at Colin's contribs, on their own, or via the link that SandyGeorgia placed directly in the thread (and one can add CANVASSING behavior to what was already discussed at ANI, based on those diffs).

But especially as I had said I was not challenging the close and was willing to let this lie, I find Paul August's behavior to be some kind of drama-stoking badness.

I was not looking for more drama, but since an admin turned a question about their close into something absurd, I am giving this to you all. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (correct, Kosh is not an admin Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC))


 * Look, you were accusing editors of continuing bad behavior following the close. Something that, if it were true, as the closing admin, I would not look upon favorably, and I might need to take some action. So I asked you for diffs of any edits, after the close, which you found problematic. I asked politely three times, the last time adding “I'd really appreciate it”. Your response to this was “Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close”.


 * Providing diffs was apparently something you were unwilling or unable to do. In my view making unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against your fellow editors, to an admin acting in their official capacity, is a serious matter. I tried to tell you that on my talk page, I see nothing “absurd” in that.


 * I’m still willing to look at any evidence you're willing to provide of continuing bad behavior. But in lieu of that I really do think you owe the editors you accused an apology.


 * Paul August &#9742; 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is some sort of misunderstanding going on here? (If I'm to blame for that then I apologize) but here is what I'm seeing:
 * My close of that ANI discussion occurred at 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Your comment on my talk page about "continuing" inappropriate behavior following my close, occurred at 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I see only one edit in Colin's edit history between the time of the close and and your comment: (this one) in which Colin asks:
 * "SarahSV: "do ou [sic] think those "millions" are just page hits for the medical pages touching the preview image of each video, or actually people clicking to watch the video?"


 * I don't see how this constitutes "continuing" inappropriate behavior. Do you? Am I missing something? Can you please explain?


 * Paul August &#9742; 12:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Paul August though I did not participate at the ANI, I have witnessed the disruptive nature of Colin, this being added today it is very detrimental and lacks respect for the project and makes me not want to edit here anymore...

Amazon MediPrime

We have formed an exciting agreement with Amazon to provide a golden synergy of a traditional HTML-based web encyclopaedia, streaming video services, and virtual assistant technology. Jeff Bezos, keen to follow the example of Bill Gates' medical philanthropy, has identified Wikipedia's heath topics as a "great fit" for collaboration and future donations.
 * Streaming video. Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lawrence and Benedict Cumberbatch present Amazon MediPrime. A new series of factual programs covering everything from Asperger's to AIDS and Vaginas to Verrucas.*
 * Discount e-books. The  template will be replaced with  . Readers following links to medical textbooks and journals shall be offered a discount on kindle e-book purchases.
 * Amazon vouchers. Editors who make significant contributions to medical articles shall earn Amazon vouchers at the following rates:
 * Did you know? -- £1
 * Expand a stub -- £5
 * Good Article -- £100 + 0.2% of book sales via
 * Featured Article** -- £1000 + 1% of book sales via
 * Editors simply link their wiki account with their Amazon account. Amazon will automatically track the edits made and credit your account with vouchers. ***


 * Alexa integration. Alexa's audio input now can be augmented with a number of medical diagnostic tests that are being launched. Look for the "Works with Amazon Alexa" logo at your local pharmacy. Blood, urine and stool samples can be analysed and uploaded, with the diagnosis automatically linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article. An integrated camera enables direct upload of lead images to articles.****
 * * Only available to Prime members. Non-members will be offered one month free trial.
 * ** "Featured Article" will be re-branded as the "Bezos Award".
 * *** Editors participating in the voucher scheme must agree to receive mail from carefully selected partners, targeted on those subjects you edit.
 * **** Alexa has always had an integrated camera; we just didn't tell you about it until now.

Starting 1 April 2018, we shall begin rolling out videos to targeted high priority articles. Please try to be co-operative and remember that Morgan Freeman played God and knows how to do the eternal damnation thing. Should, hypothetically, there be any errors in the videos, complaints and suggestions for improvement should be made via the wiki representative rather than on article talk. Reverting will not be tolerated. Thank-you. -- Colin°Talk 08:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

>>>would appreciate any action/help you can offer w/ this individual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like an April Fools' Day joke to me. Paul August &#9742; 14:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * of course, thank you for looking...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * could you please work on better formatting your posts? Most folks here can read a diff. Please read this one. (Jytdog, might you provide that diff yet?  I am keen to know what behaviors you would like me to change, but can't do it unless you tell me what "behaviors are continuing".)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks    Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The posting is not a light hearted joke, but rather a transposition of all the rage of the original posting at talk-jimbo into satire; there is nothing even a little subtle here. And SandyGeorgia, your behavior around this "april fools" posting is par for the course.  All surface-civil, golly-gee-who-me, and deflection/distraction.
 * I don't know if you are aware but there was an arbcom case a couple of years ago arising from people turning this meant-to-be-a-day-for-silliness into another field in a battleground, behaving badly in all kinds of ways. (See especially the 2nd principle on the relevant case page) I have no intention of going anywhere near Arbcom with this; i am trying to communicate that april fool's day is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
 * It was unwise of Colin to post that and it is unwise for you to continue running interference for him. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're aware, but AGF Is A Thing, and there have been multiple arb findings about casting aspersions without diffs. I have asked you dozens of times over the past weeks to please stop doing that. Do you have a diff of the "continuing behavior" you alleged to Paul August?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More deflection/distraction. I will not be replying to you further to avoid what happened at ANI as was noted by Paul here) Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Let’s grant that Colin (and others) edits have been somewhat overheated. What exactly do you want to happen here? Paul August &#9742; 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Paul, no vague aspersions please. Specific and diffs. Does no admin find this and this concerning? Which part of WP:V did the admin Doc James not break? This behaviour occurred many times before the discussion, and is likely to continue with other edits. So, I stand behind what I've said. Perhaps, given a diff, there may be a comment to retract. But at the moment I do not recall any and willing to repeat. -- Colin°Talk 15:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is blameless. Paul August &#9742; 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's kinda true in life. "overheated" suggest more "unnecesarily inflamatory" than "righteous anger". We've had bullying of peers, edit warring, explicit statement that consensus only applies to other people, a flagrant disregard of WP:V when inserting and when restoring content against consensus, repeated lies about the content of the vidoes being a summary of the article text, a worship of editors with an MD, the creation of articles (as-videos) that cannot be edited by just anyone, the promotion of a small private firm on several hundred major articles, COI editing, proxy editing on behalf of a private firm, etc, etc. Possibly most importantly for WP:MED, we've had some dangerous health advice about breastfeeding that was complained about, removed, and then edit warred to be retained. And that, you know, really should be making WP:MED wonder at itself. Plenty to be angry about, with justification. At least a few of those issues have been resolved in the space of four days, which is quite remarkable and possibly something of a record for anything on WP. Anyone who thinks that was not going to involve a battle of some kind is either deluding themselves, is ignorant of the deep-seated problems at WP:MED, or is clearly wasted on WP and should go solve some world peace issues, or Brexit, or something. I'm going to unwatch this AN page now, as nobody has raised specifc issues that seem to require my or any admin attention at this time. -- Colin°Talk 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Paul, you asked about here.
 * If by that you mean this thread:
 * What I want here is for our interaction at your Talk page to be looked at by independent admins.
 * That no admin has posted here shows, I think, the pettiness of this, and I will continue to disregard your what-are-now-pretty-much-demands that I strike or apologize.
 * With respect to you, all I have been trying to do since my third post at your talk page is disengage from you.
 * In my view your judgement on this whole matter has been poor, including your post above dismissing Colin's post as a mere april fool's day joke.
 * If by "here" you mean the original Colin (sub SandyGeorgia) matter:
 * I do not expect action on that here.
 * My OP attempted to call the community's attention to Colin's disruptive behavior that has been assisted by SandyGeorgia, with respect to the videos, which appears to be driven by an underlying long-term dispute with Doc James that has become very personalized by Colin and SandyGeorgia. I suggested a temporary TBAN on the videos and just raised the issue of the longer-term personalized conflict; another editor suggested an IBAN with respect to that.
 * As I noted in that third post, if Colin continues to continue, I will be opening another thread about that.
 * If other admins choose to reopen the original matter here, that is for them to decide. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in obtaining an apology for the allegation you made on Paul August's talk page, but I suggest you provide diffs from here forward. I do have an interest in having this behavior stop.  Again, you have an entire post above, alleging behaviors, with no diffs.  And you have still refused an admin's request to provide a diff for the original allegation you made on his page.  You have brought this to yet another noticeboard, yet refuse to do the one thing that could help wrap this up collegially (provide a diff so one can know what needs to be remedied), and it is beginning to appear that the result will be to damage reputations.  Please start using diffs, as I have asked you over and over throughout these discussions.  Also, when you have a concern, please take it directly to the person you are concerned about.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The response was a little terse, but that discussion was going nowhere fast, and given the bickering I doubt that any admin was going to touch it with the proverbial bargepole (I suspect I will regret involving myself in a little while). If you want something done, why not take up Paul August on his offer to listen to a well reasoned critique rather than equally terse responses about how it's all very obvious?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

Can a Mobile phone vandal be dealt with?
Is it possible to range block an unregistered Mobile phone editor? The same individual continues to vandalize the articles Rashtrapati Bhavan, Indian order of precedence, List of Presidents of India, List of Prime Ministers of India & List of current heads of state and government articles. If it's not possible, then what about permanent semi-protection? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like protected everything for now.  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SQL - These articles were protected the other day, but I've see these thrown into the same protection request twice since I closed the original one. This makes it request number three... I'm really curious as to why these articles being constantly put in requests, and after I've already taken care of the original one.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT requested
Admin User:SoWhy is a known opponent of any expansion however slight of CSD criteria, and regularly argues the narrowest possible reading of existing CSDs. With that background, today SoWhy declined to speedy delete an obvious hoax Draft:Alice_Coe and than defended that decision on the talk page twice. This is such a blatent disregard for policy and mishandling of CSD and BLP on a 14 year old child I believe it warrants a wider discussion. Can an admin provide the relevent material (perhaps redacted) so we can have a proper discussion of SoWhy's actions? Frankly if G3 is not applicable on that draft it is not applicable to any page and should be repealed. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether it's a hoax or a genuine BLP, this draft, which has finally been deleted and not before time, was clearly a candidate for the most rapid deletion possible under any criterion that fits. Indeed, if I had come across it I would probably have IAR'd, using any reasonably close CSD criterion, and unilaterally deleted it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yes but IAR is hardly in SoWhy’s style. I don’t see how ADMINACCT applies here. There is no lack of accountability as Legacypac has not even gone to his talk page to ask him to explain his actions, which should surely be the first step. SoWhy has already explained that he thought it was not a blatant hoax. Admins are allowed to make mistakes. If there is evidence of “repeated and serious poor judgement” on his part then let’s see it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I attempted to discuss and pinged SoWhy at both the Draft talk (deleted) and the MfD that someone else filed (closed). There is a clear long term patten at WP:CSD talk of obstruction around CSD and criticism of alleged improper CSD tagging and acceptance by others. I'm happy to accept the odd mistake but they defended refusing to delete a page that is so bad the deleting Admin refuses to restore it. That is not a "mistake" that is malpractice with the tools. No reasonable person could mistake this page as true. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that SoWhy often declines CSDs on somewhat spurious grounds (see User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive_7), but this is generally within admin discretion. From what Kudpung says, this particular example sounds like going a bit too far to follow the 'letter of the law' without considering the spirit. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note, but if you want to see SoWhy's rationales for rejecting speedy deletions, they actually keep a list: User:SoWhy/List_of_declined_speedies. WHY they keep a list, I can't imagine. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that per the top of that page the list seems to be automated as part of a script. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  03:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of those declined speedies seem to be redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it's automated or hand-crafted from artisanal electrons seems irrelevant. What's relevant is why they're keeping it. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure what the motivation would be for keeping such a list, unless, possibly that if the list has too many redlinks it shows that your criteria is not in tune with that of other admins, and if it's mostly blue it indicates that your criteria is good? If that's the case, then I'd expect to see some kind of summary of red v. blue - but in any case, as I said, it looks pretty significantly red to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're looking for spots where none exist. Many editors, including me maintain a decline log. SoWhy mainly uses that to highlight the CSD knowledgability of RFA canditates and he does a good job. ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a reasonable explanation. Now what about all these floaters in my eyes, can you get rid of those spots? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This was not my CSD but I do a lot of CSDs - I've had to archive my CSD log 10 times now because it got too long for Twinkle to load. Based on the frequency of declines I get from SoWhy (frequent) vs other Admins (very infrequent) there is a distinct pattern. I can spot an Admin operating outside the norms very easily. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Can someone temporarily restore this for review? Seems little silly having a lot of people express their opinions on something they can't see.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I took a look at it and that would be a horrible idea. If you take it at face value, it's a BLP about a minor with...highly questionable content, at best. ansh 666 02:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , in the interest of "ADMINACCT" I've restored the talk page, which is likely what set this whole thing off. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to pile on, but the main reason I (mostly) stopped working NPP is because of SoWhy's CSD declines that fall outside of the norms. He should be topic banned from any action related to CSD. If my recollection is correct, he is also a frequent PROD decliner and has expressed some strong views about AfD nominations.- MrX 🖋 02:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone suppressed the deleted revisions? I had a chance to see the page before that, and I agree with the speedy, but I didn't see anything at all in that page that would warrant suppression. Can someone share with me what part of the policy this was suppressed under? Right now I'm not seeing it. And I don't think I can see the log to see who did it. Help me out here Newyorkbrad? Was SoWhy really so far off that he kept a page that meets the suppression policy? And now only oversighters can review that action? <i style="color:darkgreen">Prodego</i> talk 02:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Draft_talk:Alice_Coe but what that does not show is how completely absurd the claims made are. I've got a bridge to sell to anyone that thought anything on the page was credible. Legacypac (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I emailed the oversight list requesting review of the situation as it contained the date of birth of a potentially real minor and was on a high profile Wikipedia noticeboard. That is what I've done ever since receiving this note from an oversighter last year. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is what SoWhy really believes then they should recuse themselves from handling G3s. Plus, as soon as you have to research it, it logically cannot be a "blatant" or "obvious" hoax. No. I know zilch about professional rugby but if some new editor creates a bio about a world record-holding rugby player and another editor, who works in the area, tags it as a hoax, I'll do some quick googling to cover my rear and then speedy the article. Very few hoaxes are obvious to everyone (is the average farmhand in Arkansas going to know that the Muon exception to the speed of light constant is a hoax? Doubt it). Use common sense and listen to what editors are telling you. Do a bit of research if you have to, but don't say that disqualifies a G3 deletion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, there's a good example of this situation detailed here. If you don't follow Jackson's or McCartney's careers then this (viewable by admins only) is not a "blatant hoax" but I hope any admin would listen to what the editor was saying, check for themselves, and speedy the garbage. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I wasn't going to mention this here, but as a lot of people are saying SoWhy's CSDing is too far outside the norm, and as A7 makes up the bulk of his CSDing... Given this and my own experience, I have reluctantly concluded that his essay WP:CCSI should probably be userfied. Any input on that discussion is appreciated. Adam9007 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked SoWhy if they plan on responding here. Also, is it possible for someone to put together a presentation of data to show that SoWhy's CSD work is outside the norm?  I think that would be helpful.  Maybe compare it to some random admins, or some admins known to work CSDs often? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - As one of the editors who vociferously opposed SoWhy's handling and/or decline of the issue, IMO, he is one of the finest admins in patrolling CSDs and does a good-enough job.  ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That being said, I will re-request SoWhy to lessen his rigidity, in the interpretation of CSD rules, a tad and use common sense, a bit more. ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only a lot of red but look at the Nominator names at User:SoWhy/List_of_declined_speedies. I see a lot of User:DGG and a few User:Kudpung, and a number of other Admins and very experienced editors. I'd think twice before declining a speedy tag placed by some of these editors - at least open a discussion or something. Does DGG really make so many bad CSDs? Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * His declines are almost always rational enough. ~ Winged Blades Godric  04:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The amount of red is somewhat misleading though, as he is a stickler for declining a CSD when there is even the remotest chance of merging or redirection to an even tangentially related topic (not necessarily a bad thing). This occurred for the example I gave above as well as the only other decline he did for me; Soumyabrata Gupta, which he insisted should be instead redirected to the newspaper where the subject worked (this doesn't make much sense to me as a 'plausible search term', but I didn't feel like arguing). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * beat me to  a similar comment  a few seconds ago. The list? Vanity  perhaps, but  probably  the kind  of thoroughness he is used to, but  not  wanting  to  be accused of PA by  saying  that. With  my  vast  experience of his homeland, I  believe his rejection  of CSDs, especially  of so  many  highly  experienced admins, is a cultural aspect -  we can't  chide him  for that, but  but it's possibly  not  strictly  appropriate for  Wikipedia where we do  tend to  see slightly more shades of grey. That  said, if I  were an Oversighter, i  would have probably  oversighted the article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SoWhy is on one extreme of the CSD-spectrum for admins, but that's fine, we have others like on the other (courtesy ping, since I'm mentioning him), and it balances out: one of the advantages of having a spectrum and having people on different sides is that they do help to push those of us who are more in the middle to think differently and their views help to make a better practice as whole, even if I may not agree with one or two decisions.While SoWhy and I disagree on what the CSD criteria should be, he makes a lot of tough calls and while I do have a different opinion than he does sometimes, they are normally within discretion (and he has gotten more flexible since his RfB). I also have a suspicion that he makes a lot of the declines that other admins have looked over and not deleted but also not removed: that means he unfairly takes a lot of flack for making the calls that no one else wants to make.I do think that this decline was a mistake and not a difference of opinion, but we all make those, and it got dealt with quickly. I don't think we need any sanctions, and I would oppose them. I'd echo Godric in encouraging him to be a bit more flexible, especially when it involves a potential minor. I'm not really sure how this thread should be closed, but I'd suggest something like "A mistake was made, SoWhy is aware of it. Let's move on." TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite ready to move on just yet. Too often Admins get a free pass for bad behaviour. Someone suggested a topic ban on deletion process and we should at least discuss that a little. Look through his comments here Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion especially toward the bottom where he make a pronouncement about MfD working well and when I point out he has 3 MfD posts in 5 years he makes a representation that his experience was in the old days - but that was 18 more pages in the last 50,000 edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LPac, IMHO, there's not even the slightest scope of a T-ban and I will personally oppose it to the extremal extent.And, there's no bad-behavior, since admins are not immune to errors.At any case, Tony has said it far better than me.And, i will echo that he takes a lot of flak, for declining articles, that no admin is sure to delete/decline.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Tony, I'd be very much opposed to any such topic ban, despite his strong views he still does good work there. A slap with a wet trout is all that should be needed here. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that  's pattern is  more professionally and culturally related, and as I  said above, we can't  chide him  for  that. His actions have been the subject of disapproval  on  several  occasions, but  I  doubt  that  it actually  needs sanctioning -  he's certainly  not  a bad admin. If he's reading  this thread, perhaps he will  take time to  reflect that  this is the English  Wikipedia, based generally on a possibly more flexible Anglo-American approach (in  some  aspects). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This does seem to be a tempest in a teapot now that the page is gone, talk of sanctions seems silly. If SoWhy or other editors feel that no CSD criteria applied here, perhaps we should add one to allow speedy deletions of drafts about people under the age of 21 if the draft would meet A7 as an article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That suggestion has merit.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this so common that it needs its own category? If obviously an issue like this one was it will get deleted anyway, and if it isn't, then it will go through the normal process just fine. An arbitrary age limit doesn't make much sense to me. CSD criteria are complicated enough without additional obscure criteria being added. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not common, but common sense dictates what should be done with  it. It  will  be even less common  when AC-TRIAL  finally  becomes AC-PERMANENT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't see the article but by the sound of it, I would have speedied it. That said, it should be remembered that CSD gives admins discretion to delete a page without discussion; it does not require us to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but there is a difference between not deleting it (which every admin is free to do), and declining the speedy (which is an active admin action and should not be done on cases which are by all accounts bad enough to even get oversighted). The first is withing discretion, the second is an error. Fram (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy
Since the thread was opened at 01.58 CEST (my timezone, as is clear from both my userpage and my talk page), I did not see it before coming to work and nearly fainting from the amount of notifications. That said, I understand the problem in this case. I simply blanked on WP:CHILD and made a mistake. I just judged the page for A7 eligibility (no, since it's a draft) and G3 (no, since the information was likely partly correct) and, for whatever reason, forgot the fact that there was a good reason to delete it. For that I apologize, both to the people who chided me correctly for this mistake and the community at large.Since this discussion has raised other things, let me address them as well: I hope this was all of the questions / concerns raised. As always, feel free to contact me at any time if you have more questions. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 07:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep a log of speedy deletion requests I declined for two reasons: To have something to refer to when judging RFA candidates and to see what happens to such pages. I think this is allowed by current policy.
 * On a side note, not that it matters, but this log also allows me to see that I only declined four speedy requests by Legacypac who above claims "Based on the frequency of declines I get from SoWhy (frequent) vs other Admins (very infrequent) there is a distinct pattern.". And two of those declines were for an A7 of a magazine (a notable one at that) and a notable competition (Miss Universe Laos)
 * Considering that this log reaches back 9 years and a decline does not preclude deletion for other reasons, it's logical that there are more red than blue links. On the other hand, if my approach were really as out of sync with policy as Legacypac and few others allege, shouldn't all links be red?
 * Yes, those declines include taggings by admins and if sorted by those names, one will note that there is quite a number of blue links because even admins make mistakes (see above).
 * If anyone is interested, I have collected pages I brought to Main Page via DYK at User:SoWhy/DYKs which includes eight pages tagged for speedy deletion before I declined and rescued them, such as Eleanor Nathan or the inventor of the postal card, John P. Charlton. This is one of the reasons I try to err on the side of caution: Because you never know whether the subject might not be the next Ed Sheeran or the next Twitter and every mistake risks driving away good faith contributors.
 * I almost never patrol CAT:PROD or decline PROD requests and when I do, I do so because I believe the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion. On the other hand, I routinely PROD/AFD articles which I declined a speedy on (see also AFDStats tool)
 * As of today, I declined 1303 speedy requests and speedy deleted 10,481 pages, which means only ~10% of my speedy related decisions are declines. And often those declines are, as noted above, routed in taggers ignoring WP:ATD (which is a policy that does apply to CSD) and tagging for deletion what should be merged or redirected.
 * --Despite so many sysops and other long-standing-users asserting that your declining the G3 was in error (See Neil's post, for a detailed analysis), I see that you still hold your actions as entirely appropriate. (I'm not going into the issue of oversight-ability et al)  Anyways, do you believe that it would be beneficial, if you manage to use common sense a bit more, as voiced by at least three participants?  ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, NeilN's example of Thriller One Night Only was a hoax that not one but two admins fell for before he deleted it as G3. But again, I have admitted that I made a mistake and I will endeavour to avoid such mistakes in future. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * SoWhy said "I just judged the page for A7 eligibility (no, since it's a draft) and G3 (no, since the information was likely partly correct) " is very worrying. If they thought anything on that page had a shread of credibility they have no business processing a G3. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't like SoWy's wishy-washy response to my query about whether he still holds that it was a correct G3 decline but anyways, (as I said earlier), his declines are almost-always correct and I guess we're done with the thread at large. ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There were a number of mundane details that were likely correct mixed with other, incorrect, details (like saying "John Doe lives in California. He is king of the moon" contains a true fact and a wrong fact). So strictly speaking G3 did not apply because not all content met the requirements but should probably have been used anyways. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My standard is if one main point on a draft is a hoax the page goes G3. I can't trust anything the drafter wrote at that point. By SoWhy's standard no page is G3 because every page with words likely contains some possibly correct statements. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. What I wrote above was what I thought at the time, not what I should have thought. As I said, it was a mistake, although I would probably have cited WP:CHILD as a deletion reason instead of G3. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of user talk page while blocked
I think it's a commonly held understanding (I cannot find the exact policy quote for some reason; hopefully someone can help me out) that generally speaking, when a user is blocked, their user talk page should only be used for submitting unblock requests. However, there are also instances where the user decides to not appeal the block, but during the duration of their block, they may sometimes have some minor discussions that aren't strictly related to unblock request, and in some cases suggesting uncontroversial edit requests. WP:PROXYING is potentially ambiguous about this practice: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits (bolded for emphasis). I would like to invite some insights and clarifications over this subject. This is related to User talk:Joseph2302. Alex Shih (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see Yamla has revoked TP on account of proxying; I wondered when that would happen. The thing is, that in this particular case—not withstanding one's interpretation of the policy—Joseph2302 is making such edit requests because I think I'm correct in saying—they have never been told they should not. See, for example, the last block, for two weeks in January:, six edit requests—one even answered by yours truly (but see my comment in which I ~predict this situation!)—and misuse of talk was never raised by an admin (or, explicitly, anyone). As to the broader interpretation of WP:PROXY, I've read that as saying that one can make the requested edits but (perhaps a bit like a sock's edits?) one takes personal responsibilty for them...not that that is anything like what the policy actually says, as the last portion you quote is actually rather hard to parse (any idea what "independent reason" an editor might have for wishing to make an edit, blocked or not? Or non-independent for that matter!). —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They have been explicitly told now, via 21060. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered revoking TPA myself after the first request, but it had already been answered. If this was not a vested contributor the revoking of TPA would not be in question, but would be seen as normal. Yamla acted correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's slightly more nuanced than that; and I hope I'm misinterpreting you when you seem to be saying that you would have revoked talk-page access rather than immediately explain why their request would not could not and should not be fulfilled. There's more: in this particular case, not only has an editor not been told to refrain from a certain behaviour, but they arguably have custom and practice actually telling them otherwise. Although I agree that J2302's block history makes his a bloody shitty hill for me to fall on :)   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WTF, we haven't got an article on that?!? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In almost any other instance, I believe that TP would probably have been revoked, and the proxying editor might receive a reminder about proxying. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably the history makes it more likely that he should have had TPA revoked because we had reason to believe he would still be doing it as he kept doing it previously. Like SQL says, in almost any other case, that would have been what happened. So, no, you aren't misinterpreting me. I would have revoked TPA and explained why just as Yamla did. He wasn't appealing his block, he was trying to edit around it. If he wants to appeal his block himself, he is now free to do it through UTRS where it will be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I suspected I was not. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point on past experience is also fair though, I'd agree with Jbh below that I wouldn't have lengthened the block personally, but given that in the past he had made so many requests, it seems limiting them while providing an available appeal alternative through UTRS would be fair: it allows for access to appeal while also preventing what would be the equivalent of 12 edit requests if he went at the same rate as the last two week block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is extremely inconsistently enforced and seems to be based on what admin has eyes on the talk page and how many "friends" the blocked editor has. Edit requests not related to the block might get talk page access revoked for one editor while another editor will get the same type of requests fulfilled (sometimes by an admin). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also a fair point. I think we are pretty consistent on this with editors who are not established: you get to use your talk page to appeal a block, not ask the reviewing admin to make changes, and doing so would normally get TPA revoked for an editor with less experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually there's no consistency anywhere. I've seen blocked IPs (that I haven't blocked) carry on productive conversations with other editors about content. No one is complaining so I leave them alone. My rule of thumb is that if you're not continuing to push for the edits that got you blocked, and you're not engaging in any other disruption, and no other editor is complaining then I'm basically going to ignore what you're doing. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it was appropriate to revoke TP access or not, resetting the block under these circumstances was both an overreaction and grossly unfair. The user not only received no warning that their behavior was inappropriate but one of their requests was just performed by an admin  and they evidently made the same type of requests during their last block.  would you please set the block back to the original expiration time. Thank you.  Jbh  Talk  18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reset to the original block time (assuming "1 month" is a "calendar month" and I can do math correctly; if not, please anyone else modify the block). I obviously think it's a form of block evasion to attempt to edit by proxy, but I see there's at least some ambiguity here. I think it should be unambiguously prohibited and should result in TPA revocation. I think allowing such proxy edits tends to encourage outright sockpuppetry; that is, setting up accounts to get around the block, but where edits are suggested rather than made directly. Or the same via IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jbh  Talk  19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify my position (Why?—Why not!) I do actually agree with Yamla's stance on this, academically—a blocked user's talk page is, or should be, for discussing the block and that (kind of thing) alone. Editing by proxy does somewhat smack of not taking the block seriously, as if "OK, I'll get someone else to do it." My particular beef here was the principle of prior warnings generally combined with the recent history specifically. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right. Proxying is not something we want to encourage, but in this case it was encouraged, so we can’t really blame this user for it despite their other problematic behaviors. I think I’m going to open a discussion about the broader issue of proxying at all at WT:BAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Beckethic1944
is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of. Please indef-block on sight. Passes the WP:DUCK test for disrupting Alan Jackson articles and spraying "Alan Jackson Killed Country" everywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ETA: Does this need to be stricken? It's pretty vitriolic and hateful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. indeffed the guy and I have RD'd the diff due to the violent content bordering on threats. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The owner of that account has stalked me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Simple, Spanish, and French Wikipedias. This is not the behavior of an every day garden variety vandal. This little dipshit has been going around since at least thanksgiving with his "Alan Jackson killed country" shit. His twitter is full of hateful memes he's made, and he's trying to tweet them to bloggers and journalists. I've been able to shoot an e-mail to someone at Alan Jackson's label, but the bullshit is not stopping and I'm seriously concerned this guy's out for blood. Should the WMF step in and find out just who this nutjob is? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely email the off-wiki information to WMF's trust and safety team, who can see if there's anything they can do off-wiki about that. For the cross-wiki issues, drop a request for a GLock at Meta where the Stewards will take care of it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2008
An IP raised an issue (see User talk:89.240.143.247) - he edited this page (it's unprotected, and there nothing in the logs on being protected), then he noticed the notice on the talk page which says IPs cannot edit. Now either the page needs protecting or the notice removed. Any suggestions? <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 00:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it would seem to fall under Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles so I EC protected it. Forever and a day. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful if I listed a bunch of other similar unprotected pages? -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They aren't usually protected preemptively. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius
has been pushing the WP:FRINGE theory that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud Jesus was wrapped in (the mainstream scientific view is that it dates no older that the Middle Ages.) Despite several editors attempting to engage with him he continues to push his fringe POV on Talk:Shroud of Turin. This is becoming a bit of a time sink for everyone involved.

I propose a six month topic ban on the topic of the Shroud of Turin with the standard encouragement to demonstrate a willingness and ability to edit productively in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Pernimius comments: I have not been "pushing a theory" but trying to maintain article neutrality and acceptance of other evidence pointing in other directions. Not at all FRINGE. The vast amount of available material questioning the adequacy of some scientific results and proposing other understandings makes this charge by Macon not accurate or fair at all. I move that this proposal be dismissed. Pernimius (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That talk page appears overrun with supporters of said theory, although Pernimius appears the most active of them. There's a real failure to grapple with source reliability. I'd support such a ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have never proposed that the article declare authenticity but only that it give due attention to the vast amount of material that points towards authenticity. It is not sufficient or accurate to shout "Fringe!" when there are so many scientists and reasonable scholars proposing this particular direction and interpretation. There are books, international conferences, websites, talks, scientific papers that all say that there is more to be considered than a single moment of C14 testing on a dirtied oily fringe piece of the cloth. I listed many pointers toward authenticity, e.g., the Jerusalem-area travertine aragonite found on the shroud. It is not acceptable merely to spout a blanket denial and disregard so much work done by so many scholars and scientists. Macon has a POV and he is sticking to it. I welcome a review of my interventions on the page, though I am disappointed with Macon's tactics here. I would be happy with a truly NPOV article. Pernimius (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutrality does not mean giving equal validity. Failure to understand and abide by WP:FRINGE has consequences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * April Fools Day/Easter joke ban (could have waited until Monday)? The page itself contains pros and cons for many theories and explanations, it seems a good balanced read and maybe needs a few more cites in both directions. As the accused has said, books and conferences and other forms of belief-communication have been in play for many years, and to ban an editor for advocating theories, even if evidence is scattered or not accepted by mainstream science, seems a bit much. But Pernimius should also pull it back a little, and pick the fights with a chance of winning or they are just knocking over tables in a temple. In other words, maybe let the offender stay although everyone could let up on the fighting and turn the other cheek (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is that this is an encyclopedia, and per WP:WEIGHT neutrality requires that the Shroud of Turin article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. For an explanation of what a reliable source is, see WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Am a bit concerned that fringe is trying to grab up the semi-religious pages now (see the epic discussion on Faith healing). That's after it's given a good going over to the vegan and vegetarian pages and the many doctors who work in those fields (see Gary Null for example, and others). The shroud of Turin has many sources on all sides of the question, as it should be for this type of page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless much better evidence is brought that this user is being disruptive. The idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challanged until recently. I'm not at all sure it is authentic, but C14 dating is hardly percise Radiocarbon_dating Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that the shroud is not from the first century has already been established. Nothing in the page you linked to suggest an error large enough to move a date from the middle ages to the first century. See Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Your claim that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" is factually incorrect. For example, John Calvin questioned the authenticity of the shroud in 1543. If you want something more recent, how about 1978? See Walter McCrone. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't rely on McCrone. He is an outlier, believing the painting theory and he is utterly debunked here: https://shroudstory.com/2011/02/06/thoughts-for-a-sunday-morning-if-i-am-right-then-i-am-right/ . Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference to McCrone was for the sole purpose of refuting the claim that that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" I simly showed by example that it was challenged in 1543 and it was challenged in 1978.
 * I see that you are still completely ignoring our content guideline AT WP:RS and at WP:BLOG by citing shroudstory.com. This is the behavior that is likely to result in you being topic banned from all shroud-related articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the article talk page does show a depressingly common pattern with articles which relate to fringe theories in which supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article. As a result that talk page is filled with general debate on the topic of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, much of which is not related to specific changes suggested to the article and where supporters of the historicity of the Shroud are citing some extremely dubious sources (Pernimius has cited, , , , - all clearly unreliable for scientific information). This pattern produces a toxic environment, tends to drive away editors who don't subscribe to the fringe theory, produces a battleground mentality in any who don't leave and we get lousy articles as a result. Pernimius isn't the only one causing the problem but s/he is one of the major offenders and I think that the suggested sanction would help.  Hut 8.5  19:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very astute observation ("supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article") For example, Pernimius just responded to my above comment about 1988 on the article talk page instead of responding here. I have seen some proponents of fringe theories who ended up being very helpful by forcing the editors working on a page to make sure that every claim is supported by a reliable source. Pernimius, on the other hand, is a sea lion. Very disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I chimed in already, I'll continue a bit. I agree that, from what I've read, Pernimius should cool down a bit, let other editors enjoy their Wikipedia experience. Nothing wrong in that. I'm now interesting in reading more of the talk page collection and have read two of the sources linked above and found at least the first raises questions, so it sounds like some very productive discussions were occurring, lots of information and debate among Wikipedians on such a good subject. This is the stuff that talk page discussions were made for. But everyone should be comfortable and happy to be posting on the talk page. I don't read this page, so I don't really have an entire mental structure of what has occurred, and maybe Pernimius needs to post more in this discussion. Maybe some questions from each "side"? Then again, it is still Easter here, which probably gives the shroud page an uptick in views, and it is a good read. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, classic True Believer WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- I'm with Guy on this. Discussion of what the believers believe is fine, but it should not be equal to the verifiable facts about the Shroud. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pernimius says: if you read my part in the discussion, I'll believe you will see reason and not fanaticism in what I have said. The all-too-easy dismissal of data other than the C14 report of 1988 makes for a boring and shallow and deeply misleading article. No need to re-litigate the points on this page. I believe I have said most of what I wanted to say. Others keep coming up with foolish articles of their own faith, like "It is a painting." No...not at all. Sorry. You can't have your own facts, just opinions. Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, a compendium of verifiable factual information. For the most part "boring" is good, because straight-forward presentation of facts is often boring.  Things get to be not boring when you create drama for the sake of drama, or when you draw false equivalence between two viewpoints simply because there are two viewpoints, and one has a longer history than the other, although it is not well-supported by verifiable facts.  As I said, no article on the Shroud would be complete without covering the beliefs that have been held about it for a long, long time, but that is not the same as giving those beliefs equal time (and equal value) with modern verifiable scientifically-evaluated facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's not a fringe theory at all, and per the learning channel (and by extension various academics studying the Shroud of Turin)  they actually can't decide what the actual date is. <span style="background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> К  Ф Ƽ Ħ   13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm, "documentaries" on The Learning Channel (and other similar channels) are most emphatically not reliable sources. They routinely pander to the presumed prejudices of their audience, revel in false equivalence, and overemphasize contrary viewpoints in order to create drama. In short they are intended to be entertainment, and are not serious explorations of the subjects covered. The scientific data on the Shroud of Turin does not support that it was Christ's burial cloth, nor that it is a "transfer" from the countenance of a dead person, as opposed to having being painted. That hasn't changed, despite anything The Learning Channel may have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a conclusion, Beyond My Ken. Other people, bona fide researchers, scholars, and scientists have reasoned argumentation for another conclusion. This is what the interesting controversy is about. For an easy example: the discovery of dirt that matches the precise chemical proportions found in the travertine aragonite of Jerusalem is a pointer toward authenticity. It is ignorant and non-scientific to ignore that pointer. It is not proof. That is not the claim. But it is not religious zealotry either, even if this claim is presented on a believer's website. It is not honest simply to say that "Well I won't believe anything from such a website even it copies scientific reports." You seem to be missing a basic distinction here. I encourage you to read the whole back-and-forth on the Talk page. It is not religious dogmatism vs. scientific truth. There are scientists on both sides. Both sides can be challenged or supported on grounds other than belief. Pernimius (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no personal opinions about the Shroud of Turn, since I'm not an expert in the many specialties required to examine and evaluate it. All I have is an acceptance that, on Wikipedia, the collective opinions of mainstream scientists are always given precedence over the opinions of WP:FRINGE scientists and religious believers. Your arguments are not going to change that, because you can quote individuals, but you cannot provide proof that the collective opinion of relevant scientists supports your preferred theory, because it doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation is still more complex than you realize. One might even fully accept the validity of the C14 tests and yet rationally believe that that is not enough. The geologists who study the travertine aragonite are just as mainstream as the C14 scientists are. It is a question of larger interpretation whether you want to say the C14 study of a FRINGE piece of cloth is all ye know and all ye need to know. No other scientists need apply. Not scientific. Not even sensible. A C14 expert is a C14 expert-- not a Shroud expert. The Shroud is bigger than that. Regular mainstream scientific journals have carried articles by both sides. It is not a closed case--even if the C14 reading of one fringe piece of cloth IS considered such.
 * I'd be amazed if one could be banned for writing the reasonable interventions I have made on the Talk page. Notice that I have not been interfering with the text of the article. I thought robust engagement on Talk pages was acceptable. Pernimius (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned below, please do not discuss aspects of the content dispute, that's not what this noticeboard is about, it's about behavioral problems, which is what you should address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am mistaken, but if the behavioral issue is "pushing fringe theories" then content is relevant, it seems. Is it a fringe theory that the shroud is medieval? (Some experts disagree.) Is it that the C14 test is unassailable? (Some experts disagree with the reading because of the sample, some because of the contamination of the cloth, some for other reasons.) Is it fringe to say the image is not a painting? (The fringe position, espoused by my adversary, is rather the claim that it is painting.) Why should it be a behavioral problem to raise what other non-fringe experts have said? Let me say that I can live with the determination of the board here. I would hope that (1) there would be a certain quorum of editors voting on such decisions and (2) that maybe Wikipedia would write a section on "disproportionate outrage" (leading to what I would say are unnecessary proceedings). I'm sorry I have inadvertently become such a loss of good time to all of you. Pernimius (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that the view that the shroud was the burial shroud of Jesus as opposed to a medieval forgery is a WP:FRINGE view is not in question here, and in fact AN and ANI do not issue rulings on content disputes. The ONLY thing relevant is YOUR BEHAVIOR. The fact that you continue to argue that you are right in the content dispute after being repeated asked to stop doing that is a classic case of WP:IDHT, and by persisting you are simply digging a deeper hole. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * support classic SPA/RGW trajectory. And btw  is mighty sock-like.  Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. Account created on 31 March specifically to startr the "Keeping the Door of Inquiry Open" thread on Talk:Shroud of Turin just a few hours later. I've tagged them as an SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose are we really discussing topic banning an account with 83 edits? Just block him if he's actually being disruptive enough to merit it (and I would suggest a shorter one than 6 months...) A topic ban is way over the top here. Pernimius, I haven't looked too deeply into the edit history, but I see a lot of people I respect supporting this ban: a good suggestion when a bunch of experienced editors are telling you that you are behaving poorly is to back off. If it were up to me, I'd close this as a final warning that you need to listen to other editors, work collaboratively, and not push for the inclusion of fringe sourcing. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked: at first for fixed durations, and eventually indefinitely. Let's try to avoid any of those options. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, two things to note, I've placed the pseudo/fringe sciences DS alert on User talk:Pernimius so if this becomes an issue moving forward, a quick topic ban can occur under discretionary sanctions; additionally, I'd like to point out that there are 6 total revisions to that user talk page. Before this thread was started there was only one revision by a user other than Pernimius. Are we really at the point where we are TBANing accounts with less than 100 edits where no one has reached out to them on their own talk page to explain the situation there, rather than in what can be the heated environment of an article talk? I get the anti-fringe stuff: I'm probably more aware of how it plagues our Catholic-related articles than most and I hate it (a large part of my content work has been cleaning up polemic early-20th century sourcing from historical Catholicism articles, so I really understand the problem here), but this seems like a rush to TBAN an inexperienced account. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony: I think you know that I respect you very much, but I think you're on the wrong track here. A topic ban is a lot less onerous sanction than a block. If Pernimius is a SPA on this subject, then he won't have anything to edit about, that's true, but that's his own problem, not ours.  Assuming he's just a normal person with a strong interest in the Shroud, he'll have other interests and he'll (hopefully) be able to help improve the encyclopedia by editing articles in those interest areas. A block? Well a short block doesn't really do anything constructive, just put off the problem to another time in the near future, and a long or indef block that seems out of proportion for the number of edits he's made, not a topic ban.  (Although, of course, we indef block vandals and disruptive editors all the time after many, many fewer edits -- not that I'm saying the Pernimius is one of those, not at all.)No, I think a topic ban is proportionate to the actual locus and scale of the problem, and is the appropriate sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I'm moving to weak support based on your argument here and the fact that they still seem to be trying to turn the conduct issue here into a dispute over the content. I think short blocks are often just as effective at getting the point across, and are less onerous on new users than TBANS, but the continuation of supporting and pushing a fringe view even after my comment here and on their talk moves me to support. I still would have preferred that there had been more user talk discussions, but there's enough disruption even after someone (me) somewhat sticking up for them that I'm willing to support this now. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban of Pernimius for fringe POV pushing. The best scientific evidence indicates that this object is a medieval forgery. The 1841 classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds describes how the forgery of Christian relics was a significant industry in the medieval period. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That many relics were forged does not mean that every relic was. If the Turin Shroud were a forgery one would suspect an easy debunking would have taken place. We can't even figure out exactly how the image was made. There are no medieval parallels to this supposed "technique." Now even specialists who fully accept the C14 reading are not sure about the value of the test for conclusions regarding the entire shroud. Fringe theorists there indeed are; but they should not negate the work of serious scientists who have major doubts about the medieval source hypothesis. How a medieval forger would have made this object is a major conundrum, exaggerated claims for replicability not at all withstanding. At least three shroud experts who started as skeptics studied all the reports extensively ended up favoring the authenticity position: Barrie Schwortz, Dan Porter, and Atle Ottesen Søvik. No, these are not C14 specialists. That is good. They can look at the entire range of evidence and come to a rational conclusion. They cannot fairly be considered fringe, even if the pro-inauthenticity camp are all to eager to shout that epithet. Even Macon is only now being disabused of his "painting" theory (I hope). How would he have known the truth if he had not been opposed? Pernimius (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pernomius: Please do not continue to argue the content dispute here, that's inappropriate. This discussion is about your behavior, and your remarks should be addressed to that subject, not to the content disagreement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking of behavior, personal attacks: Our no personal attacks applies even if Pernomius uses a euphemism such as "a certain resentful person". Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, thinly-veiled or otherwise. I predict that if, as seems likely, a topic ban is imposed, the personal attacks will escalate. In general, if attacking those who disagree with you is someone's "go to" technique, the attacks often increase after restrictions on the user's behavior are applied. Of course we all hope that this won't be the case this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * DS notice posted: --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Call for close
I believe that we have heard enough. Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate the above thread, make a decision of whether to apply a topic ban, and close this? just as has happened at Talk:Shroud of Turin, it is clear that if we leave this open we will simply get more of the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we actually give people time to read and digest the Talk page concerned, there is more of a chance that Guy Macon's objections will be shown to be without merit. I invite a careful reading of the material. Take as much time as you'd like. I will be happy to respond to questions. I stand behind my argumentation and against a simplistic non-scientific denial of everything outside of Macon's POV. Pernimius (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it. It's clearly WP:FRINGE and it's time you dropped the stick. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then there's probably more people on the fringe than elsewhere. Peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals have been published on both sides of the question. Even Macon has just been overthrown in his "painting" thesis by a fellow "main-streamer," Wdford. It is not just a question of C14 testing but of all kinds of other studies. It would be nice to see what I have said that is so unacceptable....I mean particular quotes. Pernimius (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a consensus is emerging but I'd prefer to give it another 24 hours to make sure that everyone can put their two cents in. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
 * I agree. No particular reason to rush in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is now 5 April. The current count is 3 oppose !votes and 7 support !votes. All three oppose !votes appear to say or imply that Pernimius is right and that the mainstream scientific view of a medieval origin is wrong. Pernimius' personal attacks and continued insistence that policies such as WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT do not apply to him continue. I propose that an uninvolved administrator evaluate this case, make a decision as to whether to apply a topic ban, and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I second this call for a close by an uninvolved admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin delete a .js page for me...
... specifically this one. I think it was created when I changed username, the username itself isnt registered. Cannot CSD it as TW won't allow it. Ta <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 13:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rick. <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request: Nfitz
I remain indefinitely blocked pursuant to this community consensus in October 2017. I am now requesting an unblock, copied here for community review. See also my talk page for relevant discussion in late March 2018; a revised and briefer version is in the collapse box below. I've been temporarily unblocked for the sole purpose of this discussion here at AN. I'm also still subject to a community-placed Topic Ban imposed in September 2017 which is listed at WP:Editing restrictions and documented at here; while I don't feel that this topic ban is necessary any longer for the same reasons stated below, I'm not asking that it be lifted at this time. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request
Can my block please be lifted? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to understand that my behaviour was well outside of the norms acceptable here (and in some other aspects of my life as well!). While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on and return to productive and constructive editing. Thanks everyone, and I've very sorry that I was difficult to deal with last summer and fall. I've left a brief summary below of what lead to those events.

I know I've made some mistakes; often in interpreting policy; I'm willing to address this concern, and look forward to working with other editors to return to productive and constructive editing. If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I was asked about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last summer I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me regarding another edit leading to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, and note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated. (my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I've had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea, for years it would seem, but worsening notably). Needless to say, the impacts extend far outside of Wikipedia. The good news is that I'm being treated, have mostly returned to normal, am virtually drug-free (and I maybe be able to ditch the last very mild blood-pressure med I've been for a decade soon too!). Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track. And I know better how to walk away, when I don't see eye-to-eye on something.


 * I've done some work on other projects in my absence. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention, current projects include:
 * trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet)
 * trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about
 * try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create an article for 1920s Los Angeles private detective Samuel Benjamin Marlowe
 * check the 2017 Vietnamese Second Division
 * add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line
 * update the article for Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!)
 * other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support unblock giving Nfitz a chance to show that he's cleaned up his act. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Topic ban should remain in place for now, as per SN54129 below. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)
 * Extremely adamant oppose - I'm sorry, but my evaluation of Nfitz's character, as revealed in his editing, is that he is completely and utterly incapable of changing the way he interacts with other editors on Wikipedia. I don't think it's in any way malicious, but it is entirely disruptive: any discussion with him almost inevitably turns into a massive timesink, since he has no clue about when to stop and repeats himself endlessly. In my opinion, it's not something he can "clean up", because it stems from the way he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As another editor who has suffered from sleep apnea while parenting, I'm sympathetic to his request. Besides, reblocks are cheap. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sarek, as I've mentioned any number of times before, ROPE re-blocks are frequently much more difficult to obtain than they should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Nfitz is aware of where he left the rails, and assures us there will be no repetition of the events of 2017. Reblocks aren't necessarily always cheap, but in this case I really think they will be, because quite a few admins and users can surely remember this — I know it remains vivid to me. What you say about his past editing is true, BMK, but I'm happy to believe that was about circumstances and health, and not about "character" at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
 * Support but on a short rope. I'm not 100% convinced, after watching the coaching etc on their talk page these last few days, but it is worth a go and as a fellow sufferer of poor sleep patterns etc I have always sympathised with that aspect. Just try to recognise when to walk away, Nfitz. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Reading all of the talkpage stuff I honestly came to the conclusion that this editor was a timesink and should remain blocked .... however reading the above its easy to see why Nfitz lost it so to speak, Sleep deprivation can send you mad so I can sympathise there, Anyway the editor's promised to not go back to 2017 so I don't see the harm in unblocking. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support potential improvements to the project always outweigh past editor drama. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: This looks like a textbook case of WP:ROPE in both the positive and negative senses (which applies will depend on future behavior). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per ROPE. See ^^^^^. And while I am a big fan of second chances, of third and forth... not so much. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to harp on this, but have you looked at his block log? This is hardly his "second" chance, more like his sixth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do have a point. I am amending my support to Weak. And I think that assuming this is granted that it should be understood to be the last chance. If Nfitz screws this up, I can't see supporting any future unblock requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I've pushed your buttons in the past, User:Beyond My Ken; it's not completely untrue that there isn't a character aspect here. I can be argumentative at the best of times; the challenge is always to control this, and channel it appropriately - to be constructive and not destructive. It's the lack of perspective and awareness I lost last summer (and had probably degraded before that). My block log, seems worse than it is, until you dig into it. Two unrelated blocks a decade ago (the second a massive misunderstanding), then no block for 10 years until summer 2017. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear, I bear you no ill will, and, as I said above, I don't believe that you are malicious, I simply don't see how, in my experience, it's possible for you to change. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, especially considering that your request seems headed towards passing. Time will tell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, my own block log is somewhat less damning than it looks like at first blush, so knowing that, I went through yours pretty thoroughly. I think a total of 5 previous blocks for personal attacks or disruptive editing is an accurate count, although I could be off by +/- 1 digit.  But, in any case, it's not your block log that is the most important factor to me, it's having perceived the behavior that was behind the blocks that's significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support second chance. Has shown insight into past problems.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I am going to partially copy and paste my previous comment. My perspective is that back in 2017, Nfitz ran into trouble here because they were editing with the tendency of being unable to neither see the point nor get to the point, and then goes on to be obnoxiously verbose without knowing when to disengage. Many of us including myself suffer from sleep deprivation and other issues, and it is never an excuse for poor editing behaviour, but in this case it is everything to sympathise. I sincerely believe Nfitz is willing to address these concerns, which is the spirit of any standard offer in my opinion. Is this block still preventative? Perhaps, if we are just too tired to deal with another potential time sink. But if there is ever a positive chance to re-integrate a long time editor back to the community, personally I would opt to take a leap of good faith. It should be noted that Nfitz would remain topic banned from Wikipedia namespace for the time being if they were unblocked. Alex Shih (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - no problem inherently with the unblock, Nfitz has always made positive mainspace contributions. However, I would like to see the restriction to mainspace editing only stand for now with a view to removing at some point in the future. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support - can make some good edits, but definitely problematic. Supporting per ROPE and as long as editing restrictions remain in place. GiantSnowman 08:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ublock w/ Tban I see I opposed the original block criterion (although, critically, not necessarilly the block itself) at that point in time. This was due to—as others have pointed out—Nfitz's substantial and quality article contributions. It is because of these that I support their unblocking; caveat emptor, I would be uneasy with lifting the topic ban until a sufficient amount of time has passed (a period of months rather than weeks) to demonstrate that the improvements they promise above have indeed occured. Still; reiterate support the request as it stands. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 10:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP could use some attention
Please and thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User with nearly identical name
Is there any kind of limit as to how close a username can be to another? Today an account just got created named User:SkyGazer 5!2 (see SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 23:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like that user just got blocked for sock puppetry - never mind then.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 23:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're able, you might want to take a look at the edit filter log for SkyGazer 5!2. If not, I can tell you that they attempted to vandalize your userpage. I'm not sure why, though. The other socks all vandalized American political articles, which doesn't seem to be one of your areas of focus.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Alice Dacuba (User:Corinne)

 * Originaly posted on AN/I, but notices such as this are normally posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to inform the Wikipedia editing community that my sister Alice Dacuba, a Wikipedia managing editor, has passed away. I do not know her login information.

Please let me know if the appropriate person or people have been informed.

Thank you. -Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B168:B121:58B0:111F:6933:F549 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Carol, but what would be most useful for us to know is the account name your sister edited under. Do you know it? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Carol, I'm so very sorry. was a fellow coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, and we had come to know each other off-wiki as well. Corinne's specialty was request articles, and her copyediting skill (second to none) was a factor in many Good and Featured Articles. I hadn't heard from her in a while, but RL obligations prevented me from following up. My deepest sympathy is with you and your family. Sincerely, Anne  Mini  apolis  21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Prayers and deepest condolences. Memory eternal! -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rest in peace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll raise a cup of tea to you, Corinne. Rest in peace. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested a checkuser for verification. Corinne hasn't been here since mid-February, and the last email I received from her was in mid-January. Her passing is a great loss to the encyclopedia.  Mini  apolis  22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Corinne's friends and colleagues share their thoughts and memories at User_talk:Corinne. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've copied the above thoughts to Corinne's talk page; editors may remove them from there if they wish. Best regards,  Baffle gab1978  (talk)  02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to have someone go through her sandbox to see if there were any works in progress there that can be completed. She does not appear to have any drafts outside of that space. bd2412  T 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The material in her sandbox appears to be translation notes, extended commentary about copy-edits and other meta-talk. I don't think she intended using any of it for article space. There are no other pages in her userspace except her .js pages and talk page archives. Baffle gab1978  (talk)  02:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bd2412  T 03:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Urgent edit needed to template:no
This edit request needs to be answered, because its affecting over 4,000 pages with transclusions. E to the Pi times i ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Amortias (T)(C) 23:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AIV
Can an Admin please look at the requests at WP:AIV. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Request to add CITES Appendix info to organism pages
To whom it may concern:

I was wondering if it would be feasible/appropriate to add a CITES Appendix information section the the information card/template at the top of organism pages, perhaps in the same style or spirit as the IUCN status. I am aware that not all organisms are managed by CITES, and that this information is available in some articles, but the section where editors put this information seems to vary greatly.

I feel it would be useful “at a glance” info that could be implemented for new organism pages going forward, and for current organism pages by editors who notice the CITES information is missing.

Just an idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilanteSilver (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the right venue to broach this. Repost your idea on Template talk:Speciesbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Wandered here from the request edit page re: edits that would affect multiple pages. Speciesbox is what I needed, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilanteSilver (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redoing ping properly. Graham 87 10:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary sanctions template needed
At new article: Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark. Possibly American Politics DS as well. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know how broadly people want to interpret the DS requirements, but this is not a biography (although it deals with something that happened to a recently-living person) and it only peripherally deals with politics. In any case, there has not been edit-warring or other significant problems at the article so it's unclear why DS are being requested. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Today the article did develop some edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * American politics would be the more obvious DS here, if edit warring rises to that level. Everything is tribal now, so i guess it's likely. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

File:14,5 x 114.jpg
Can one admin check case? Thx.--Sanandros (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Sanandros. File uploads are publicly logged actions, and don't require administrator access to view, even for deleted files. See here.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what they mean (although it's not clear). I think they are talking about the nomination for deletion discussion at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the best I could make of it is they wanted to verify that the PD-user-w on Commons was accurate. Maybe I'm misreading things.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've commented on that point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK thx that's it.--Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

X1 Cleanup complete
Hello everyone. I'm pleased to report that after checking over 70,000 redirects created by User:Neelix, over the course of nearly 2 and a half years, the cleanup is finally complete. Pinging some major contributors to the cleanup (Not an exclusive list, and in no particular order):, , , , , , - Thank you all. I'd like to invite the community to audit our work. The full lists of redirects may be found here and here. X1 was set up to be a temporary criterion, and will automatically expire once the problem has been resolved. It therefore will be retired after an audit is performed. I think a week is plenty of time to perform this audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, hopefully this should be the last of it. The very last few are working their way through RfD now, so giving the community a week to check things over should suffice as one last check before putting this fiasco behind us once and for all. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, as I'm not entirely familiar with the situation, are all of the Neelix redirects being deleted? Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  03:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * very unfortunately editors voted we could not nuke them all - editors who had no intention of cleaning up tens of thousands of stupid/wrong/useless/misleading redirects created by Neelix. We had to manually check them all and CSD, retarget or RfD one by one them. Granted he actually created a few useful redirects, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The benefit of keeping the few useful ones was not worth the pain of deleting the rest one by one. An important lesson for the future. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd look at the raw lists. The 70,000 redirects are approximately evenly split between keeps and deletes - A blanket approach was going to have a 5 figure number of mistakes.  Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful redirects of some value would be recreated but reviewing these was a HUGE job. Many of the keeps are useless but not worth the effort or debate to delete. Anyway we are done and any more can be RfD bound. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The intention is that all redirects that are going to be deleted have been deleted (save a small number at RfD), and all that are intended to be kept, have been kept. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to those who did the hard work! Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Should User:Anomie/Neelix list and its 7 subpages then be deleted? Also, should Template:Db-x1 be deleted with a TfD? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support the repeal of X1 now, and the consequential deletion archiving of Template:Db-x1. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep them for historical reference, but tagging them as historical would be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't waste time on an audit. If a redirect was needed badly enough, someone would recreate it. 90 percent of them were total trash. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed no need to waste even more time on this with an audit. Repeal X1 and delete the template. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is great news. This was such a big project, my thanks to everyone who helped finally get it done. Agree that if those directly involved are convinced we’re done there is not need for further ado on the subject, on which so many of us have spent too much time already. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete shortcut
Yay! Now delete the shortcut. w umbolo  ^^^  18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the shortcut to point to the correct bullet point in the obsolete criteria section. It cannot be deleted as it is used in several thousand deletion summaries. See also: Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 14. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related X2
What's the status with the Content Translation Tool cleanup? Now is as good a time as any to check in on that, seeing as we're about to repeal one of the X criteria; if that's finished too we can kill two birds with one stone. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Range block
Hi, a long-term vandal has been using multiple IPs today to evade their block. Here are the IPs that have already been blocked. The edits come from IPs starting 82.132.2. Is a range block possible here? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 82.132.128.0/17 based on the category you linked to, but that's a large range for a day's worth of activity. Can you provide more specific diffs? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The blocks are too long for dynamic IP addresses and are not effective. The blocked editor probably knows how to change their IP address so can continue to evade the block unless all IP addresses belonging to the ISP are blocked; it's more likely to affect a user who wants to correct an error in an article, and who doesn't know how to change their IP address. It looks like a small range, but represents many more people than the ranges of some ISPs. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At Administrators' noticeboard (different ISP, two IPv6 ranges) the result was that the articles mentioned there were protected. Peter James (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 10alatham definitely has used this range in past (I'll dig up some diffs when I get a minute), but they're also probably not the only sockpuppeteer on that range. I brought this up at WT:SPI last summer, but it never really went anywhere. (See archive.) Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Pkpixmedia
The Pkpixmedia user page is a clear example of promotion which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. --Marceler (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. I have deleted the promotional user page under WP:CSD and have indefinitely blocked the user. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 03:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Undated and images needing a US/URAA status confirmation.-(Courtesy notification).
Village_pump_(policy) Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why can't administrators stop the white space vandal?
Why administrators and/or Wikimedia can't stop the White space vandal, is beyond me. He's been 'bleeping' around Wikipedia for at least 2 years, now. Generally on the same articles. Well anyways, I'm done with reporting his actions here & at the vandalism board. FWIW, his latest incarnations - 191.254.171.94 & 119.103.0.171. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'd genuinely like to see suggestions on how to do it. They're a dynamic IP and I'm pretty sure we can't set up an edit filter to catch every IP that edits some white space. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rangblock the entire area. Eventually somebody will complain from that area & will help try to tract down the guilty. Either that or permanently semi-protect the articles, he frequents. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rangeblock from 119. to 191.? That's... incredibly excessive. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It'll get the local government's attention & then they'll try & track down the person. Either that or perma semi-protect the articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A-April Fools? — Moe   Epsilon  17:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think GoodDay is super cereal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not joking. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those IPs are in China and Brazil. And you'd like to block both regions to get their governments to do something about whitespace edits. That does sound like it befits the day. I don't believe these are the same user, but the main thing to do when you are having issues and requesting help is document the case in order to see the bigger picture. I don't know, maybe you've done that somewhere. And admins are often overrated. There's a whole bunch of stuff we can't actually stop. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Permanently semi-protect the articles. Eliminate the bank, if you can't stop the burglar. After awhile, people will complain about the elimination of the banks & that will encourage them to go after the burglar. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We let any idiot edit here - it's the Wiki Way. 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * I've blocked a half-dozen of them and I haven't seen any pattern. If there were one, then maybe semiprot would be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s the core of the issue here. It’s hard to fight something so incomprehensible. What possible pleasure a person could be getting from adding random white space to seemingly random articles is beyond me. And they are almost certainly using proxies or something to mask their true location, so it’s pretty unlikely that any local government is going to get involved or even care. If we could figure out who their actual ISP was that would be something else, but we can’t. Blocking all of Brazil and China because someone who is probably in North America or the UK and using proxies is not an option. Protecting the entire project is not an option. Trying to figure out what the hell is wrong ith this person’s mind won’t help. So all we can do is play whack-a-mole and hope they eventually get bored with their stupid little game. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so incomprehensible, really: look at the reaction it has engendered. A lot of vandalism is trolling that says "Look at me, I exist", much like graffiti tagging (and a significant portion of stuff on the Internets). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is the other reason why I won't be reporting on the matter, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Afrodizifunk3
At Sockpuppet investigations/Afrodizifunk3, Afrodizifunk3 was found to have made three sockpuppets. That fits WP:THREESTRIKES, right?

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the intention was 2+ SPI cases, not 2+ individual sock accounts, the point being that they socked again after being caught once - hence the "repeated" in the section title. Otherwise someone who made an honest mistake (well, relatively honest, considering) could be banned on a first offense, and that's definitely not what we want. ansh 666 19:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it's three cases or reports: "on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, that's why I haven't tagged yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Name change
Bangladesh changed the english spelling of five places. Comilla was changed to Cumilla, for example. This means that a lot of pages need their names changed. I've posted at Commons about the need to change the files there, but more needs to be done, with categories and page names. Search and replace can help some but the urls haven't yet been updated (http://comilla.gov.bd/ works but not http://cumilla.gov.bd/). iI think I'm in over my head. -- Auric   talk  20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , is it just the base URL you've listed that's changed, or is it the entire URL structure? If the former, a bot run could easily fix that. Same for the wikilinks, actually. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the urls haven't been changed. Changing the wikilinks is fine but then the pages they link to would also need to be changed, and so on.-- Auric   talk  21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Misread. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To start with, do we have consensus that the new names are the most commonly used names in English? (I yesterday bought a ticket to watch Talk:Kiev/Naming).--Ymblanter (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. The new official name is clear, but I argue that it is premature to say that the new official name has become or will become the new common name. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible trolling
I made several edits to different articles and every single one was reverted without any genuine reason by User:Chrissymad who simply put "Rollback" as the reason, even though all of my edits improved the different articles. Can someone please help me? Thank you.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted you here because I thought your changes were not an improvement. Sorry if that was unclear. I'm sure many of us are guilty of not always bothering to add an edit summary sometimes, aren't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not trolling that's certain. The policy you may want to read up on is here its edit>revert>discuss not edit>revert>revert again and then insist the other person discusses it. Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it strange that someone reverted every single edit for apparently no reason. User:Martinevans123, Donovan Philips Leitch is often known as "Donovan", do you really disagree with that? :S--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * James, any disagreement from me would not necessarily justify any change. I've left a suggestion at your Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that you posted your complaint here only 11 minutes after you posted on Chrissymad's page asking about their reverts, you're definitely jumping the gun. In addition, you are required to notify Chrissymad when you mention them here see the big notice at the top of this page. You have not done so. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And you have still not done so. This is not optional. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the editor has just been blocked for edit warring, and did not notify Chrissymad as required more than an hour after they posted here, I will notify them. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Indeed, same thing here:, , . See wp:BRD. Try not to edit war, and you'll be fine here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not an administrator, but I have been following this saga, if I may call it that. This is starting to sound a bit like an edit war, honestly. Moreover, the policy regarding mononyms can be found here and here: at MOS:NICKNAME and WP:NICKNAME. And, yes, notification of the respondent, Chrissymad, is necessary here, something that hasn't been done in the last half-hour. 22:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs)


 * - If you want to be be blocked indefinitely then by all means knock yourself out, If on the other hand you want to be a part of our community then you need to start using the talkpages more and you need to stop jumping the gun (as you've done here with this report), If you're reverted then go to the talkpage and discuss your changes, If you don't come to an agreement then you have various options to resolve that dispute (like WP:DRN, WP:30) etc etc so as I said you either have 2 choices - Be blocked or not be blocked. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake for not making my reverts clearer. I reverted your changes as they were not useful and did not improve the articles and in fact still don't. I reverted you once (per edit) and did not continue past your inquiry on my talk page, which you gave me no time to answer. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:AGF. Calling good faith edits you do not like "trolling" is bad form. I see WP:BRD has already been mentioned. Cheers--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd archivebox
Can someone decipher what is going on with the archive box display at Talk:Christiane Amanpour? Is it template vandalism or some other error?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the archiving was set up incorrectly and the bot went a bit haywire because of it. Not sure how to fix it though. ansh 666 23:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI I just opened a thread about this here Village pump (technical) in hopes of getting some help. I guess this whole thread could be moved there but I wasn't sure about the protocol for doing that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Digging a bit further: the archiving was added last month and seems to have worked properly the first time. The next day, though, the bot did a WTF and resulted in what we see now. Pinging, who runs . ansh 666 23:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely considered leaving a message at WP:VPT, but with the possibility of template vandalism I thought more eyes (and some with extra buttons) might be helpful.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall something like this a few weeks ago ... IIRC somebody had set up archiving using but the archive parameter had not been given a true value like   instead it was something like   The actual bad parameter was not on the talk page for which the problem showed up, but a different talk page entirely. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant thread is at Village pump (technical)/Archive 163. Graham 87 08:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yep, this one was added by too. ansh 666  18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Following the advice in the previous thread, I've cleared the bot's thread index page and updated the talk page template to include the required parameters, so that should fix it. ansh 666 02:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV topic ban lifted
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.


 * Passed 6 to 2 with 1 abstention by motion at 17:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Original announcement


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  17:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Removal of Permissions
I'm not nearly as active on the project as I used to be, partially due to work, real life stress, and finishing up grad school, which has impacted my ability to edit. As it stands, my wife is more active on the project than I think I'll be able to be for the foreseeable future. I don't believe in holding permissions that aren't being effectively used, and completely forgot that I still had them up until today. Would an available admin please remove Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewer from my account? Thanks, and I hope to be back to editing soon! Mistbreeze (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No real need to do this, but ✅ anyhow. Here's hoping you finish grad school successfully! Courcelles (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When you need these tools again, find this thread in the WP:AN archives, and link to it when making your requests at WP:PERM/R and WP:PERM/PCR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-requested block
Please block me. I am leaving this Wiki. I am fed up of controversy and issues with other users who make up a story that is not true and that upsets me. For example, Artix Kreiger was indeffed for socking. As this user was blocked for socking and is an admin at Test2Wiki, I requested an admin to remove this user's sysop rights at that Wiki. Artix Kreiger then said to me that I misused Test2Wiki. Firstly, this is not true and secondly this is not relevant to the discussion and was posted to upset me. I am fed up and therefore, I want to leave this Wiki so please block me. I am not here to handle lots of disputes. This user has a history of disruption on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and if this user is welcome to edit their talk page to tell stories that are not true and are not relevant to the current discussion, I will be permanently leaving this wiki. Therefore, I request a block for myself. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, because you believe the other person is in the wrong, you want to be blocked?
 * I'm... not following, but I'm not sure you're viewing this request with a clear head. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking at Test2Wiki, it looks like everyone with an account gets admin rights there.
 * There's a bit of a precedent that a block at one project does not automatically mean blocks in all other projects. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Try here maybe? Arkon (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This request makes little sense to me. Test2Wiki is located at https://test2.wikipedia.org/, for the benefit of those who aren't aware of it, and it has no relevance to the proceedings of the English Wikipedia.  For a sufficiently serious self-block request, some admins will oblige, note Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be happier if Artix Kreiger stopped making myths that aren't even true. I am requesting a block only because of this dispute. If talk page access was removed, maybe this user may stop doing this. However, it hasn't and I have faced a lot of recent disputes which is why I have to force myself to leave. I will wait for this dispute to end by going away for sometime. However, if this user continues doing this, then I will have to leave. Self-requesting a block is the last resort to a dispute. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pkbwcgs, I am a bit confused as to what you expect en.wiki admins to do regarding testwiki2, but if you still want a self-requested block, you can make a request on my talk page, and I will consider it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)