Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 77 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 September 2024) RFC tag has been removed by the bot. Last comments over a week ago. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 37 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Administrator Recall

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 September 2024) Discussion has mostly stabilized, with one vote today and the previous vote two weeks ago. Feels like a pretty clear consensus but will obviously have a significant impact. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Edward_Heath#Rfc_on_lede_image

(Initiated 29 days ago on 26 September 2024) An RfC about changing the lede picture for Edward Heath. There has been no activity on the RfC in 17 days, and the consensus isn't immediately clear about the changing of the infobox picture. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	35	35
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

(Initiated 31 days ago on 25 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Category:British Asian actors

(Initiated 27 days ago on 29 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Fayenatic london. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#!(*$

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 October 2024) Cremastra (u — c) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done by asilvering. Cremastra (u — c) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Category:User-specific file copyright templates (part two)

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 October 2024) I had posted this last week, but it was (reasonably) relisted by Cremastra. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Closed as merge. Cremastra (u — c) 23:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 151 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 149 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. Restoring this here after this close was declined by AirshipJungleman29 because there were no new comments for two months indicate that participants have already assessed that there is no consensus and moved on.. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, a contested merge discussion cannot be closed by involved participants. In my experience merge discussions often linger until an editor closes them and it's not unusual for very old merge discussions/uncontested merge proposals to be closed and implemented or not as the case may be. See my discussion with AJ29. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

(Initiated 74 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 49 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Czech_Republic#Moratorium

(Initiated 9 days ago on 17 October 2024) Follow-up to recent closed RM (one of many over the years). Discussion has died down. A close on the moratorium-issue would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Closed. Cremastra (u — c) 14:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8727 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Raju 2024-10-26 18:34 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Template:R from nickname 2024-10-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:User male 2024-10-26 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Native name list 2024-10-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3239 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Iran–Israel proxy conflict 2024-10-26 03:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Israeli retaliation leak 2024-10-26 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Secretary-General of Hezbollah 2024-10-26 03:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Yaduvanshi 2024-10-26 03:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Dylan Mulvaney 2024-10-26 03:10 indefinite edit,move per RFPP; increasing to ECP Daniel Case Jainism 2024-10-26 00:32 2025-10-26 00:32 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IPA ToBeFree October 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran 2024-10-26 00:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Lady Gaga 2024-10-25 20:53 indefinite edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter October 2000 protests in Israel 2024-10-25 19:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase 2024-10-25 09:59 2024-11-08 09:59 edit,move Highly visible page Dekimasu Chalukya dynasty 2024-10-25 02:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bagul 2024-10-25 02:10 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Marathi people 2024-10-25 02:03 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Sarwan Ali Palijo 2024-10-24 23:38 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruptive repeated recreation of article about a non-notable actor Cullen328 Naim Qassem 2024-10-24 22:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case October 7 2024-10-24 21:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Rathore dynasty 2024-10-24 21:11 2025-10-24 21:11 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:Infobox television station/styles.css 2024-10-24 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hezbollah tunnels 2024-10-24 15:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish User:Magnolia677 2024-10-24 13:28 indefinite edit,move persistent sockpuppetry, resetting protection Acroterion Muhajbib 2024-10-24 04:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Kamala Harris 2024-10-24 04:06 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sean Combs 2024-10-24 03:56 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Template:Wikibreak 2024-10-23 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2552 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II IFly Pro 2024-10-23 15:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist Koeri 2024-10-23 14:45 2026-10-23 14:45 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Perennial problem Yamaguchi先生 Ethnic groups in Pakistan 2024-10-23 04:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan North Gaza Governorate 2024-10-23 01:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mark Karpelès 2024-10-22 21:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CRYPTO El C Rawan Osman 2024-10-22 21:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Lohia 2024-10-22 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Shore Capital Partners 2024-10-22 20:32 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: persistent WP:COI issues, approved draft required Ponyo

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC on potential username changes

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Mass protection of templates

Due to a recent wave of severe template vandalism (permalink), I've ran a query to find all unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that had over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter. I can make MusikBot report unprotected templates that meet this criteria, but there is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions which reports templates that aren't template-protected. We should probably regularly keep an eye on that. You can use Twinkle's P-Batch module to mass-protect, first pasting the page titles on any page (such as your sandbox). Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this MusikAnimal! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

+1. Thank you MusikAnimal. Alex Shih^Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding my thanks too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work, MusikAnimal. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MusikBot's dad! —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing your script aparently ignored is pages protected using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - anything with a "noedit" flag is protected even if it exists; ajnything with a "autoconfirmed" flag is semi-protected, while anything without is template-protected. So semi-protecting Template:Taxonomy/Eupitheciini, for example , was unnecessary. Please also keep in mind that anything transcluded in a cascade-protectred page is fully protected; human judgement is necessary to determine if this transclusion is permanent (in which case no protection is needed) or temporary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. I did not know about some of those features! The title blacklist has precedence (you'll see its warning instead of the page protection warning), correct? If so, is there really harm in the redundancy? Should those items get removed from the title blacklist, or if the cascade-protection of a parent page is lifted, the templates will still have 1,000+ transclusions and hence should probably not be completely open. I might argue that having them protected just-in-case is worthwhile, but anyway I can probably get Twinkle to check for cascade-protection, and looks like there's an API endpoint to see if it's on the title blacklist. I appreciate the feedback (and unexpected praise!), this was simply an effort to plug up these vulnerable loopholes of the project that allow for massive disruption. Any page can be unprotected without consulting me :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those protections. Even if currently redundant, multiple layers of security are desirable. It appears WP:High-risk templates is the only guidance for when something higher than semiprotection should be used. I suppose we will wait for further attacks before contemplating further protection but semi is a very easy hurdle. There is no need to unprotect templates merely to attain anyone can edit purity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

While you're protecting articles a lot of pages relating to Australian Education or Mangoes have been targeted by users from lots of different locations (probably some school craze, I'm still in secondary school and a lot of people nearly worship them). These might need cascade protection and a system to suggest edits, at least until the craze dies out. TomBarker23 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User editing a close about themselves

Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

1. Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
2. What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)

Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?

Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing [of] a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Wikipedia editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Wikipedia project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Wikipedia to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure Review

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

---

• Endorse close. GR's close was simply a warning for Xenophrenic not to repeat the actions which have gotten him a block log full of edit-warring blocks. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Closing statements should not have ex cathedra opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Close - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do not, however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "think you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse close - a warning to stop edit warring is better than a block, and it's apparent that either were a possible outcome. Although the "when you think you're right" bit may have been better directed at a different editor, a warning that such activity might lead to sanctions is not a personal attack by a wide margin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly an appropriate close with no personal attack and no opinions. It was an accurate summary of the discussion and policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Sanction Discussion

• Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Wikipedia project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy interpretation

1. WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
2. WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Wikipedia", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?

• YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG^talk 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mojoworker, please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Softlavender:I have to ask again – seriously? The essay section WP:Competence_is_required#Social is all about working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. It's an interesting coincidence that you, I, and Xenophrenic all began editing within months of one another in 2007. An editor doesn't last more than 10 years here, as the three of us have, without editing collaboratively. I don't recall interacting with you at any articles in the past, but I've run into Xenophrenic a handful of times over those 10+ years, and I've always found him civil and seen him provide policy based rationales when his edits have been challenged. It appears he may have edit warred at times, which certainly isn't a good thing, but you wanting a block, which, as Black Kite points out is generally indefinite, seems far too draconian and ill conceived. If you honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent, and thus should be removed from the community, then I really don't know what to say to you. You characterize his behavior as "gameplaying" and "BS". I take a different and more charitable view. Really, how would you feel if your unblock request had been handled the same way? I know how I'd feel and I'm willing to grant him some slack, in part because of that. This place has gotten to be filled with so many venomous editors that I sometimes wonder why I still continue to participate here. And, as an aside, I'd wager that a good portion of the editors !voting here haven't even looked into the issue any further than what's here on AN, yet feel compelled to add their own 2¢ worth of bile. Sad indeed. As GreenMeansGo says, we should close this godawful thing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You're totally misreprenting the section you're linking to, which was a general side note to a specific complaint about me not responding when pinged. The issue was quite simply not "mishandling" of the unblock request, though. Swarm ♠ 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm:I'm not singling you out here – no admin handled the unblock request – it appears the only admin who even looked at it was Houn (and as much as the community doesn't want to address it, there aren't enough of you admins around these days – this is just a symptom). Newyorkbrad said: "I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance." I don't think I'm misrepresenting his point at all – I certainly think that rises to the level of being mishandled, and I'd sincerely hope everyone here agrees with that. As I said before, if that had happened to me, I'd be righteously indignant. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole sorry thing has certainly pushed patrolling CAT:RFU up my priority list and changed how I approach requests there. I don't think I looked specifically at Xenophrenic's request while it was open (I don't recall doing so) but I can imagine that if I had, I'd have seen an open ANI discussion regarding it and simply thought, "Too Hard." I guess some requests languish, not because no-one gets to them but because no-one wants to make a decision and I'm trying to get better at making decisions on requests rather than avoiding them. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
  In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it ([86], [87], among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ([104] [105] [106] (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
  The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ([118]).
  I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, holy cow, where to start? I asked you simply to add some evidence diffs to a warning you issued to substantiate your specious claim that I was justifying edit-warring because "I was right" about content -- no, worse, because I "think I am right" about content. What's that saying about "be careful what you ask for?" You've now posted a very intimidating 100+ diffs, so many diffs, in fact, that I would wager most people seeing them would simply blindly assume that whatever point(s) you are making must be well-substantiated just by virtue of the shear volume of blue links you've strung together. I wish to show that is not at all the case here. I do see where you have indeed managed to dig up just a couple legitimately problematic diffs, and while they don't establish your "persistent" or "ongoing problem" thesis, they do indicate I'm not a flawless editor, and they will get a response, too.

• "stop edit warring and editing against consensus"

Here you have collected a whopping 85 diffs, which all show me removing a problematic category (now deleted by community consensus) from 40+ articles, first because they were added wholly without reliable sources in violation of WP:CATVER. Then after the category was spammed back into the same 40+ articles, again without any reliable sourcing and under the pretext they "were under discussion" - I removed them again through a manual rollback after generously waiting until the discussion ended, as they were still in violation of our verification policy. So how do you justify calling these examples of edit warring against consensus? Grabbing some of your diffs at random, this 6th diff is edit warring how? Against what consensus, exactly, to keep that unsourced category in that article? How about this 68th diff, where I actually removed the cat three times over the span of a year, again because it totally lacked the required verification. What consensus was edit-warred against?

• "seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content"

Here you provide just 2 diffs, presumably the strongest you could find, and you claim there are "many, many more". Neither one shows me trying to justify edit-warring on the grounds I was "right" about the content. To the contrary, those diffs show me justifying my edits to Admin Fram and BrownHairedGirl as purely technical removals per WP:CAT, which requires: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I could not make a determination of whether the content was "right" or "wrong" because the required reliable sources upon which such a thing could be determined were completely absent from the article. Since you claim there are "many, many more" examples, could we dig into those please, and locate just one to support your claim?

• "sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations"

Here you provide 16 diffs of me replacing personal attacks accusing me of being a racist, block deleting, and canvassing, with the {{rpa}} template, as instructed by WP:RPA policy when the claims are completely devoid of substantiation. All of your examples are from the same now-banned editor, and same discussion, which was heavily discussed at AN/I. The result was the editor apologized for the "racism" personal attacks, the "canvassing" personal attacks were also indeed unsubstantiated. I believe our policy pages are the best indicator of what our "community expectations" are; do you agree? If not, the community would re-word them. We might disagree about severity of personal attacks, but I don't think there has been any disagreement that aspersions without evidence qualify. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you, me, and the community, are "in step" with regard to agreeing that your "warning" about my behavior should be substantiated with evidence --- you and I disagree, however, as to whether that evidence already exists somewhere in that discussion. Do I have that right?

• "what is a personal attack ... note the ridiculous double standard here"

Here you provide only 1 diff, this one. I assume you are talking about what appears to be me tagging a couple editor's signatures with the "canvassed" template, after I complained about another editor accusing me of canvassing? That looks like a double standard, I agree -- UNTIL you realize that I was just fixing my previous edits after I had inadvertently deleted those tags. They were actually added by a now-banned editor a few edits earlier here, and not by me.

• "removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!"

No, I didn't. I did, however, move an off-topic personal post between editors from a CfD Discussion to the appropriate editor's Talk page for further discussion and follow-up, as instructed by WP:TPO - (Off-topic posts).

• "editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most"

This accusation has some merit, but not as an ongoing problem, and not in any way intentional (i.e.; to make it appear that you ignored most of it). I don't intentionally edit other people's comments (with the exception of formatting for readability as explicitly allowed by WP:TPO, and removal of clearly personal attacks as explicitly allowed by WP:RPA). As you and another editor here have pointed out, when I add or expand a comment in a high-traffic discussion, with repeated edit-conflicts, and I resort to off-line editing followed by a copy&paste, I get that rare screw-up you pointed out. If you'll check, you'll see my edit to expand my comment came just minutes on the heels of your reply (and was initiated before your reply) -- it wasn't an attempt to sneak additional comments in without you knowing it. It is a rare occurrence, but one to which I definitely need a better solution.

• "he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right"

I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT. AND I WOULD NOT. That is some gall you have; did you just assume no one would check? To the contrary, here is what I actually said, quoted from your Talk page: At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. The whole reason I came to your Talk page was to try to clear up this very misunderstanding of yours, and now you have demonstrated that I have failed miserably in that endeavor. But okay, I'll bite: please quote my exact words here where you think I've argued that "the edit warring didn't matter because [I] was right".

Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to respond at any length here; I think we've both had our say & there is ample here for people to judge for themselves. What matters at this point is not Xenophrenic and I slugging it out but the community coming to some consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

T'dog, I've been relying on the directions found at one of our core policy pages, aptly titled What Is A Personal Attack. To my knowledge, that is the broader community's view on how to identify a personal attack, is it not? Broadest, in fact. I realize that often when personal attacks are removed, somebody (or a group of somebodies) isn't going to like it - it's a bit confrontational. I've seen a few folks here rally around and declare "that's not a personal attack!", including you, but that seems to directly contradict our policy page. If you are saying I have it wrong, and the consensus among a limited group of objecting editors here actually represents the broader community view and supersedes our policy page, then you are correct that I have some learnin' to do. Do you think our NPA policy needs a rewrite or clarification to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future? I've asked for clarification of the policy in the thread just below this one, but an Admin rush-closed it before the question about identifying personal attacks was addressed.

• Oppose - Oppose Softlavender's proposal as it is based on the ludicrously bad-faith assumption that there is extreme "gameplaying" and no competence. Further, I've seen nothing but hyperbole from her, zero productive suggestions, and this & this - which I'm sure will spark the appropriate admonishment (ha). GoldenRing at least made an attempt to justify his call for sanctions, but he did so by dredging up a bunch of diffs from January to demonstrate edit-warring, personal attack removal and Talk page formatting. Perhaps he doesn't realize that I was already grilled and poked on all of that at the drama boards, and the majority of his EW diffs were already cited as part of a block rationale by Fram. I'm sure all the same diffs will be dredged up and mischaracterized yet again a few months from now, and squeezed to see if yet another sanction will pop out. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Mojoworker, you nailed it (yeah, even the "irritating" part). Very much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, after that latest wall-of-text above. If Xenophrenic won't drop the stick, then the stick needs to be taken away until they agree to stop. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess you haven't been paying attention, Carlton. I don't have the stick. I dropped the stick 5 days ago and walked away from this discussion, and returned expecting to find it archived. Instead, I find that GoldenRing has not only picked up the stick, but is trying to beat me over the head with it. My concise 8K byte "wall of text" reply is dwarfed by GoldenRing's 16K "great wall of endless diffs". And if that obsessive action isn't disconcerting enough, he's building script tools to facilitate such behavior. Apparently, it wasn't enough when GoldenRing said "I think I have my answers" regarding this AN/I. Now he has declared his new "wider" mission to see me indefinitely blocked for all manner of alleged improper behavior backed by (__insert 100+ stale, unrelated, already-adjudicated and punished diffs here__). So I guess he has dragged me back into this mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you understand basic arithmetic? "I dropped the stick 5 days ago"? That comment came ONE DAY after your latest goddamned whinging wall-of-text. And, frankly, I find your officious "I guess you haven't been paying attention" attempt at an insult hilarious, considering that you IMMEDIATELY get my name wrong: so who, exactly, is not paying attention?
• But thank you for the confirmation that you need to stop or you should BE stopped for wasting everyone's time. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It still appears that you are not paying attention, or you are misunderstanding. This "waste of time" wasn't filed by me, it was filed by GoldenRing. He filed this mess over just two policy-compliant edits (count them, two) I made -after- first thoroughly discussing those edits and alternative solutions with him. So I added my input here, and on October 10 I walked away from this discussion (some call that "dropping the stick", but I say I never had a "stick" to drop) and expected it to close. For 5 days, until October 15th, I quietly watched as other editors chimed in. I even stayed quiet as Softlavender proposed weird sanctions for nonexistent reasons. But once GoldenRing decided he was done with his initial complaint here, and now wanted instead to start a whole different mission by digging up and re-litigating ancient history, I returned and left a brief refutation of his mostly false allegations, which he has decided not to challenge. So my math, and my attention to the details, are fine. If you address me again, I will again try to productively respond, as that is the respectful thing to do. Please keep in mind, however, if you feel you are wasting your time, that no one can force you to engage in this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This thread is predicated on a mess, and this is clearly still about that mess and not just the editing of the closing statement, as shown by the mass of diffs linked above. Xenophrenic saw a whole bunch of allegations thrown his way in the previous thread (some questionable, some exaggerated, some with some merit, some that needed more context, etc.). He was immediately blocked for those allegations, had all of his objections and unblock requests completely ignored for the duration of the block, and never received a response to his challenges to the accusations, as far as I know. This is all separate from GoldenRing, of course. I'm not trying to reopen the thread below this one; this is just to say that I can understand, in a powerless, frustrating situation, trying to at least address the insinuation in the close of the discussion in which he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. In other words, I think GR may be receiving a disproportionate amount of X's frustration because he is one of the few in a position to fix an aspect of this perceived injustice.

Xenophrenic, I think you're very unlikely to find satisfaction going down any of these paths, and will wind up simply preventing a scab from forming (or worse). I completely get feeling frustrated and/or hurt by the close (and think it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part, since though not quite a PA, it also wasn't a necessary part of the summary), but it was an acceptable close given the content. IMO the most positive outcome at this point would for all to drop it. You may have received a raw deal, but for better or worse, the community rarely expresses much of an interest in rehashing the past, unless in the context of the present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: As someone who has conflicted with Xenophrenic several times, his behavior (irrespective of the particular position he advocates for) has been very unconstructive and quite deserving of discipline. As other editors have already pointed out, he has excessively edit warred, blatantly disregarded established consensus numerous times, and exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND personality. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well (also, see this), and it is persistent behavior, nothing new.[119][120] Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to !vote in this discussion, because I think that would run counter to effective participation. However, I do not think that Xenophrenic is incompetent. I do, however, think that he falls rather instinctively into a battleground mentality, replete with instances of refusing to drop the stick, and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions contrary to his own. It is my preference that editors with these problems be corralled and corrected rather than blocked. bd2412 T 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • BD2412, CIR covers these behaviors, which are endlessly on display in these two threads, in WP:Competence_is_required#Social. Read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his actions. Call it WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:DE, whichever you like, he is clearly and deliberately wasting the community's time trying endlessly to derail or invalidate GR's thread here. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manipulating a closer's comments (which do not look like personal attacks, but just a strict warning over edit warring) is simply unacceptable behavior. This does look like more disruptive and, even disturbing, behavior on Xenophrenic's part. My goodness, it seems that there is much difficulty on the part of Xenophrenic to accept any consensus or any decision by anyone that does not align with his view on any matter. The fact that other admins like User:BD2412 and User:Swarm recently raised an ANI over his conduct for similar reasons of disruptive and tendentious editing which included a block over the same type of "I am right and everyone else has to see it my way no matter what" battleground mentality [121], means that the behavior has not been self-corrected since the last block and ANI. The constant, and sometimes long, commenting by Xenophrenic still look like filibustering and are not really helpful since everyone knows his position - there is little reason to repeat or to constantly defend oneself since if the evidence is strong people will naturally agree with the defense on their own. (Not sure why Xenophrenic has self-voted "oppose" above when it is obvious that he opposes a block considering the long response to GoldenRing above - who started this ANI). When it comes to discussions, other people's opinions are what we are seeking - views from others in the community. We already know the views of the accusers and the accused (both have already exchanged comments) so let the jury discuss the matter as they see fit. Things like endlessly arguing over closures over categories, constant edit warring over article content, and even now manipulating closer comments on ANI's does look like a lack of self control when dealing with dissenting comments by editors.

All decisions on wikipedia are all imperfect since everyone is a volunteer but to contest every decision that one disagrees with with disruptive editing has consequences. Refusing to drop the stick so often is simply not good and in the end people will make their votes and decisions as they see fit - as imperfect as that is. If one thinks one is right, it does not mean that everyone else will see it that way (sometimes some will never be convinced no matter what), but one has to be able to drop the stick and move on without fighting so much. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple reason that whilst some of "Support" comments above are good faith, a number are still from editors who are on the opposite side of an editing issue with Xenophrenic and this is another attempt to have them removed. I am not a big fan of removing people in this way. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: There's no "removal" involved; the proposal states "Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks." The proposal is to stop Xenophrenic from deliberately wasting the community's time. His last block was for 2 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • As we all know, though, CIR blocks are generally indefinite (anything else would be ridiculous, after all - practically no-one who is incompetent enough to receive one suddenly gains a clue after a couple of weeks). And that's my other issue here - Xenophrenic isn't incompetent. They may be a number of other things, but not that. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I am curious about this. Why is the possibility that some of the people supporting the proposal are doing so in bad faith a good reason to oppose it? That says nothing about the merits of the case (and the problems and ludicrous bad faiththe problems and ludicrous bad faith continue). GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I had some dealings with this area when I closed that shitfest of a CfD a while back, and whilst doing that I read quite a bit of the background round these disputes. I'm not disputing that some of Xenophrenic's editing is not optimal, but there were/are a hell of lot of others in the same boat at the same time. There is no CIR issue here, but there surely is a lot of hypocrisy from the editors who are trying to dispose of him (and incidentally, I don't include you in that category, if you were wondering). Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per the bludgeoning behaviors we're seeing at ANI and the apparent lack of good faith associated with this user's behavior. Part of CIR is the simple notion of not being more trouble to the community than you're worth, and these ANI timesinks are symptoms of this user being either unable or unwilling to understand that. This is certainly the inevitable result of Xenophrenic's recent behavior. If it doesn't happen now, it's going to soon if they don't change quickly. Swarm ♠ 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose CIR block. I don't necessarily oppose a block for some preventative reason if there's a valid one, but not for CIR - this is not a competence issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously - I wasn't following this anymore until I was pinged, and I wish I had never commented so I could close it myself. But for the love of God, someone please put this god forsaken waste of time out of it's misery. GMG^talk 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose further sanctions, support close. Xenophrenic jumped the shark and did a bunch of silly things. However, a two-week block for the edit warring was served so diffs showing old edit warring are no longer relevant. Xenophrenic should have seen that their approaches to the two admins were not going anywhere and should have accepted that it's not always possible to have one's views heard when there has been a great deal of background noise. The underlying problem is the abuse of Wikipedia to spread the word about atheism being evil. Xenophrenic will need to develop much more patience while dealing with that. For the record, the ANI archive behind all this shows a request for a topic ban that was unsuccessful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do. At this point (here and numerous cases in the archives) they are just wasting everyone's time. They show all the behavior of someone who is unable to accept they are wrong and that other people do not agree with them. This is also why they edit war repeatedly. So they can either be given a final warning to drop the stick or as someone points out above, it can be taken away from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er I feel that diff doesn't show what you think it shows. :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, no, quite. Looks like the script could do with more testing. Correct diff here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as framed I share Black Kite's sentiments. Xenophrenic should, and must, drop this, but that's an attitude they should adjust, certainly not a competence issue. Johnuniq talks a lot of sense, just above, as does BSZ. -- Begoon 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being an attitude issue and become a competence issue? Take a look in the archives for here and ANI. I severely doubt this is a case of 'they have an attitude problem which can be changed'. There is zero evidence from their editing history they either want to, or are actually even able to. Which puts it squarely in the competence area. If an editor is unable to change, or even acknowledge they have to and are going to attempt to change, we are just prolonging the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it, I guess I mostly agree with whoever said "Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do.". I don't feel like we're too far apart here. I'd just rather CIR wasn't invoked in this way (hence my "as framed"). WP:DISRUPT works just fine if they don't drop it - it's then a deliberate thing, not incompetence. -- Begoon 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. He has a history of being a bad faith editor and a history of edit warring. He has been blocked 10 times at Wikipedia. He has been incorrigible for an extended period. His edits often do not make sense and a CIR block is warranted.Knox490 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

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

---

IMvHO, it would be useful if The Rambling Man was granted the template editor privilege to allow him to fix errors that appear on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Granting such a privilege would mean that the associated templates would need to be dropped from protection at admin level to protection at template editor level. Doing so would mean that other template editors could also assist in the maintenance of the Main Page.

This is an issue which, I feel, should be discussed rather than an admin boldly going ahead and doing it. I've asked TRM whether he would like the privilege, and he says he would. For all his faults, he is not a vandal and I feel it would be safe to grant him the privilege. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

TRM informed of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I can think of a few other editors that regularly post to WP:ERRORS that it might be worth granting the right to as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand I do not know any reason not to do this user right change. On the other hand mainpage templates are cascade protected and can only be edited by admins, not template editors, so it might not work for the proposed scope. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, but I share the same concerns as JoJo Eumerus above. While I have no doubt that TRM will use it correctly (he's a brilliant content contributor), I'm not sure the proposed scope will be accessible. (consider this a support !vote). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a technical issue, then that can be discussed at the appropriate venue once it has been agreed that the proposal has consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Xaosflux was the last person to cascade protect the main page (after an admin account was hacked and unprotected it), so he would be a suitable starting point to suggest if it's technically doable or not, and if there are any risks. I would further suggest that any changes to the Main Page's protection should get a firm consensus here and also be publicised at the Village Pump, possibly by an RfC. We don't want somebody to turn up a month later and yell "why wasn't I informed?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing. It's possible to drop things like the DYK Queues down to TE protection, but that would be it. Further, TE guidelines for granting includes no behavioral blocks in the past 6 months. I see no reason to deviate from that here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There you go! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As you say, BU Rob13, it's a guideline, not something that has been set in stone. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Everything on the main page is under cascade protection, and that won't be changing." - what policy covers that? The main page has been around far longer than TE protection. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: From a technical standpoint, we can only cascade full protection. This is unchangeable without giving all editors access to protection up to the level that they have access at (e.g. any TE could TE protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page). See WP:CASCADE and Bugzilla:8796. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ack, looks like it's technically impossible, and short of Plan B we're stuck:-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Supposing TRM was granted TE privileges, could he edit the template for tomorrow's OTD? Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is is technically possible to allow cascading full protection and cascading template editor protection, but not cascading semiprotection and cascading (anything else) protection? Also, @BU Rob13:, I think it's worse than that, the policy to me reads that any TE could FULLY protect any page by transcluding it on the TE cascading protected page. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right actually. I misread. It's completely technically infeasible to cascade TE because the cascaded protection is always full. I doubt the WMF will change that in the software. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Deja-vu - didn't we already have a discussion about TE-protecting DYK a few months back? I'm pretty sure we did. Back then, there was no support for it for various reasons. Imho, if we consider this, we should consider this outside TRM, because other prolific DYK contributors such as Cwmhiraeth would benefit as well. And I think WP:VPP should be the correct venue to discuss it. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You said 'prolific' when a more accurate word would be 'error-prone'. There is little point in giving TRM the authority to fix problems, if you also give the same to the very people who cause them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot on! But then, since when did Wikipedia ever solve its problems without creating more :) — fortunavelut luna 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we should discuss the proposed change to how we protect the relevant pages first in a general context, then the grant of TE to those that would need it. This affects more than one editor. WJBscribe (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• If we're talking about making software changes, the logical step to me is to unbundle the ability to edit and protect pages from the other admin tools, and then hand the new user right to all our OTD/DYK/ITN regulars who would not qualify for adminship. Both common sense and technical reasons suggest that reducing protection levels is not the way to go. I've no issues with giving TRM the user right, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to him at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  If we want to implement a way for non-admin regulars at the main page processes to edit the main page directly, this is the correct conversation to have. If we want to have it though, we need to fire it up as a full RFC, complete with WP:CENT posting, and the whole nine yards. This also might not be the most appropriate venue (a village pump is probably better.) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oh no. I predict a front page full of cricket items. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's hard to talk about unbundling page protection without unbundling the ability to block. Not having the latter ability would lead to editors using the former inappropriately as their only way to directly control disruption (rationale along the lines of WP:Relist bias). I'm generally supportive of unbundling, but unbundling protection alone would worry me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be totally unprecedented to create a separate protection category of "main page protection" similar to templates, to step down from full, and allow editing for a select group of non adims. GMG^talk 13:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely would be unprecedented to create a new protection level intended for a single page, but more importantly, it would be unfeasible without substantial changes in how cascading protection works. Cascading protection is always full, even if you cascade off of a semi-protected page, so everything transcluded on the main page will always be fully protected unless we get rid of cascading protection entirely (which we will not do for obvious reasons). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would not be opposed to this on the merits, but as noted above, I think this would change a WHOLE lot of ways the main page works in terms of protection of the various templates and the usual way we what is basically an admin-level provision. If it were as simple as "grant someone permission X and they could do it" i'd be fine with that. The discussion above leads me to think there are doubts that it is that simple, and if so, we should probably have a discussion as to how to implement such a policy first. If I am mistaken, that is, if it is as simple as "flip a switch and he can do it" then please correct me. --Jayron32 13:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically its not a real problem. The question is 'should we?' I have zero qualms about letting TRM fiddle around with the main page to his hearts content. I have many many qualms, a qualmcano, about letting lots of the editors involved in DYK at the finished page. Apart from the inherent conflict most of them have with chasing credit for getting their stuff on the front page, the DYK archives are absolutely full of quality-control issues. You don't let the people causing problems have control of the keys. Without some sort of decent vetting process beyond the usual nepotistic 'this admin thinks editor X deserves the right' applied to many user-rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle I think the idea of devolving, ever so slightly, some of the rights to edit the main page is a good idea. And more specifically TRM, setting aside his recent controversies, is one of the best editors we have for all things main page, especially ERRORS. Unfortunately my command of tech pretty much peaked with the advent of the electric typewrite so I am going to have to defer to our more tech savvy editors as to the practicality of the suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there is another way around this. Would it be technically possible to allow an editor to edit a specific page/template through the normal protection when said editor would normally be excluded from editing said page/template? This could also work in reverse to exclude an editor from a specific page/template when they would normally be able to edit it. Could be useful for reducing disruption by certain editors. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its called being an admin ;) (short version, that's part of the admin rights). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Only in death, you seem to have misread what I wrote. Have italicised the important bit to make it clearer. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No I got what you meant. To edit through any normal protection you either need a user-right that allows you to (template-editor etc) or be a member of a group that has those rights auto-granted for that particular protection level. Short of being an admin, those particular pages would need to be shifted away from cascade protection which would only allow admins to edit them. As the page inherits the protection from above - you would need to take it out of the protection tree or create an entirely new user-right - effectively unbundle the particular user-right from the admin set in order to allow non-admins to edit through it. Granted I don't think its inherently bad allowing certain editors to edit through various protection levels, its just in this particular series of pages there are a number of issues coming together. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've asked whether or not this would be technically possible at WP:VPT#Editing through protection. No point running a RFC until we have the answer to that one, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Alsee has come up with an interesting solution. Have subpages of the templates that TEs can edit, with an admin bot tasked with copying over to the actual templates that make up the main page. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Isn't this similar to what's being done at DYK already, if the queues were TE protected? Not sure how similar system can be implemented in ITN though since it's always changing. Alex Shih^Talk 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm all for it. I'm speaking as an editor/admin here, not as an Arb, and not having discussed this with my fellow arbs. Note: all the technicalities involved aren't so interesting to me; the principle, that TRM has been good to the front page, is what matters. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• It would take some seriously funky stuff to make this useful, but I'd note that cascading protection doesn't appear to apply to a user's own .js pages; if one's .js page is transcluded onto a cascade-protected page, one will get a warning about the page being cascade-protected, but still allow the page to be edited, even for a non-admin. To illustrate, I applied cascading protection to User:WK-test/sandbox, which transcludes User:WK-test/sandbox.js and User:WK-test/sandbox2; WK-test was able to create and edit sandbox.js, despite not being an admin account and the page being subject to the cascading protection, while sandbox2 was full-protected as usual. Probably too janky to be effective, but in theory this could be used to make user-by-user exceptions to cascading protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that TRM was recently blocked in service to an ArbCom remedy. If a experienced user cannot restrict themselves from gegging into problematic issues, how much trouble do you think they could get into willfully? I express my "No" opinion on this request per WP:TPEGRANT The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. ArbCom enforcement blocks are effectively the Red-est letter behaviorial blocks there are. If TRM can keep their nose clean from September 25 2017 + 6 months, then we can re-investigate. Otherwise I don't see the benefit to the community of fixing these errors sooner vs granting a permission to an editor who prima facie does not meet the requriements. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are utterly missing the point of this thread.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on the general principle posted at WP:VPP#RFC: Proposal to allow Template Editors the ability to indirectly edit the Main Page and listed on CENT. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of জঙ্গলবাসী

Can somebody please create this category? Could the creation of such categories be automated? Rathfelder (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder, an older account was found, the cat is now at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bishal_Khan. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The bengali username was real good!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly User talk:Devsharma Bajpai showed up on my radar this morning after an odd posting at the village pump. I don't speak hindi, related? Apparantly his usertalk is poetry.. I don't generally believe in coincidences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regretably, I fail to spot any coincidence.I have sufficient knowledge of both Bangla and Hindi and there apperars to be neither any account-name-similarity or contribution-similarity.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, perhaps you can find out what Devsharma wants then :D I will drop it in your lap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death:(edit conflict)Anyways, Bajpai looks to be the usual sub-continental editor, eagerly wilful to use WP in self-promotion.His t/p post would read:--Devasharma Bajpai from Seetapur, Uttar Pradesh, is the brightest doyen of Hindi literature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• This has not solved my problem, which is existence of the red category attached to User:Nidhi Tumar which I am not allowed to create. Why can the template not create the category? Rathfelder (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Our software just doesn't work that way; only human edits (and edits by bots, which MediaWiki can't distinguish from edits by humans) are able to create anything. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Procedural unblock" template

I declined Draft:Template:Unblock procedural recently, mostly because we already have {{unblock}} and {{unblock reviewed}} (and {{Unblock request declined}} was deleted at TFD) and because I didn't see much of a reason to have another unblock template. However, just because I wouldn't use it doesn't mean others wouldn't. Bringing this up here since it's (clearly) an admin issue.

So I guess the question is - do we need a template that gives a "procedural close" of an unblock (i.e. a very specific instance of declining an unblock) as opposed to just declining using the standard decline template? Primefac (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a big user of procedural closes. I often do so when a user is complaining about an IP block but does not include their IP address. I typically word it something like, "Procedural decline only. You did not include your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS." Note that WhatIsMyIP uses ads, so may not be the best choice. For the record, I have no idea who runs that service and am completely unrelated with them. Note also, I add the user's talk page to my watch list; people sometimes follow up just with their IP address rather than a new unblock request. So, anyway, yeah, I'd use a template like what I just outlined. How useful it'd be to others, I'm unsure. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest http://myip.dnsomatic.com/? Absolutely no ads there. —Wasell^(T) 19:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I, too, like the idea of a procedural template. When someone makes multiple unblock requests and those requests get declined, it's routinely taken as a solid indication that we need to cut off talkpage access, or at least it's seen as a good indication that future requests should be taken with a grain of salt. For this reason, when running across an unblock request that's malformed, I generally don't decline it — I nowiki it (and give an explanation of course), lest a later admin think that it's an outright rejection. There's a big difference between This request doesn't deserve an unblock and There's a good reason why I shouldn't unblock you, but it's unrelated to the merits of your request (especially when there's a technical problem preventing unblock, e.g. Yamla's situation where we need to know an IP address that the user didn't provide the, or when user simply forgot to specify an unblock rationale); the former is a rejection based on the user and the latter a decline based on the situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, see the BlackAmerican discussion several sections below this one. Right now, this user's talk page has five unblock templates — three that were rejected and two that were declined on procedural grounds, basically because the user's gotten a checkuser block that mustn't be overturned merely by an admin coming along. When your request is declined because Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request, it would be nice if there were a template different from the one used to reject your request because You have been using this account to evade blocks on other accounts. The fact that you have got away with it for months does not make it acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I like the idea of a procedural close template too - I usually nowiki them too, and that's not entirely satisfactory. Maybe one with a "What you should do next" section? In many cases it should be obvious what to do next (like "procedural close because there's a new unblock request"), but with things like the BlackAmerican one, some guidance is needed - and, of course, what might seem obvious can be surprisingly not obvious at all to newcomers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Village Pub

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

---

There's a warning that article talk pages are not to be forums. But discussion of life in general can generate ideas that can be edited to Wikipedia.

Therefore, unless it is illegal, I have started Wikipedia:Village Pub and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_Pub

If you think this is not permitted, do not get mad. Just let me know. Happy Editing! AGrandeFan (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM? Also, perhaps with a glance towards WP:BIAS, it doesn't look much like a pub on the Falls Road, you know :p :D — fortunavelut luna 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case, isn't the old social working element of WP a perennial proposal? Or sumfin like that anyway... — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

1 in 3 new pubs close before a year is out... Primefac (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of keeping it, per WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM, but if it's going to be kept, it needs a different name, as it's too similar to WP:Village pump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good point; I don't know what to think about the idea of having such a page, but yes it ought to get a different name. Maybe go with the Wikinews idea and call it WP:Water cooler. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• No - We already have the ref desk that we can't get rid of. The last thing we need is another enclave of exception to WP:NOTFORUM. Best case scenario is it gets popular enough to have behavioral problems the community can't address because you've already violated one of the fundamental tenants of the project. GMG^talk 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry but WP:Village pump already covers all that is needed, including an idea lab. The problem with starting a chat forum is that it would encourage people to focus on chatting, and those people will assume that the procedures that apply at other webforums also apply to pages on Wikipedia, with a likely increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. There is also WP:RD where too much chat occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While we're here, can we also discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink. Or, in the spirit of these things, can we discuss holding a RfC to discuss getting rid of the RD as being a time- / resource-sink...? Vis á vis, the Augean stables... — fortunavelut luna 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Start an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and advertise it on WP:Centralized discussions, and away we go! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• No: as duplicate and unnecessary (as much as I'd like a drink). WP:Water cooler would be a better title indeed if it was ever going to be kept although the initials would be synonymous with water closet (!) Alex Shih^Talk 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm sure WP:WC would love to take a break and have a pint; I'm sure we could usurp the redirect Primefac (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  The thoughts of referring newcomers with the lines of "Have you checked our WP:WC? It's a great place to relieve yourself from the stress of editing Wikipedia." ... I've proposed the pub for MfD. Alex Shih^Talk 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  "What the hell kind of pub is this? The beer is watery and smells funny." --Calton | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, we have IRC, if you want to chat to wikipedians without being strictly on topic then bumble over to #wikipedia-en on freenode. (disclaimer: important stuff is disscused there sometimes). Dysklyver 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: That just links back here atm — fortunavelut luna 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

O sorry you need to see Wikipedia:IRC and look for the channel #wikipedia-en. Dysklyver 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Or use #wikipedia-en ^connect. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why not?  Volunteer Marek  23:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• No - We have entirely too much social media grade activity as it is. We are a collaborative project, which means some side discussions are expected and tolerated. Having a place to do nothing but that, is not a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Is there a practical benefit for this? Real world for business corporations do sometimes have company celebrations and company holidays or company parties and the like; perhaps there is some (morale? socialization?) benefit of having occasional chat fora as opposed to solely business oriented fora such as ANI or the Village Pumps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible decade-old hoaxes

I came across this after another editor (Slashme) did so. Neither he nor I can find what he is talking about (I've searched the pages at Category:15th-century Russian people, but none seem to contain the hoax). Is there a way of searching contributions in general (i.e. not by a specific user), or some other way of finding these supposed hoaxes? Thought this should be posted here as the person has said he'll be adding more such hoaxes in the near future. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The other possibility, of course, is that the post itself is the hoax, since some of us would probably bend over backwards trying to figure out exactly what was posted by this guy. If it's a wasted effort, then their opening statement ("my hobby is fucking with Wikipedia") would be fruitful. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but if there's even the slightest chance it's real, it should probably be investigated. Hoaxes are not to be taken lightly. The post looks credible. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

He wants to fuck with Wikipedia? Can we get him a job on the board, keep it in-house...? :p — fortunavelut luna 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also considered the possibility that it's a meta-hoax, and the details are clearly not trustworthy, but it's definitely credible enough to warrant investigation. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There were no cardinals until the 18th century in Russia (Cardinals is a notion from the Roman Catholic Church). If someone can run a search on Russian personalia before 1700 which contain the word "cardinal" I can take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Aleksei Shein contains the words "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" - and also has this "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica" - wondering if this is it? AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit adding this was the only one ever made by an IP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @AusLondonder:, I removed the cardinal, he was clearly not in his place. Shein is actually an important figure in Russian history, and it is a pity that the article is based on the 1911 source. I will see whether I can find smth better.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Exact same edit made by similar IP also in 2009; this time to a 16th century German religious figure. This sad little fucker calls this a hobby apparently. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The "cardinal" is mentioned in this self-published book available on Amazon, apparently what that guy means about it being in a book. AusLondonder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I did some googling to see what turned up and after a lot of sleuthing found quite a few hits. This is in addition to the one in the Shein article.

• Removed by User:Andreas Philopater and was present from the time of its insertion in 2009 by 209.203.104.177, until today.
• Also removed by Andreas Philopater today. Inserted in 2009 by 63.173.58.164.
• Inserted by 64.129.196.204 and removed by DivermanAU in September this year.
• Found this one by 204.212.10.124 in 2009, but picked up in 2014 by Parvulus scholasticus
• And this one by 24.63.31.232 in 2008 and removed this April by 2a02:8084:20:b900:fdb0:a516:7555:fafe
• This edit by 24.127.231.98 in 2008, removed in 2015 by Concord.
• Added in 2012 by Iamthecheese44 and removedby 86.69.180.220 in 2015. In this case, I think it was because Iamthecheese44 read it in the Countess Ina Marie article, who was spouse to Prince Oskar, and thus matched the info up.

Just doing a Google search of "under Cardinal Brandr Beekman-Ellner" and "Wikipedia" shows that this hoax has extended to a number of other sites that use Wikipedia's articles. Also, they were using {{1911}} not {{1885}}, which was to throw us off the trail. --Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Carrite: There are apparently "6 fresh edits". Perhaps there's something to be said to closing off Wikipedia to IPs. It would still be the encyclopedia anyone can edit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  They could have registered a throwaway account instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we need not only to ban IP editing but to implement some sort of significant hurdle for registration, such as solving a captcha and providing a confirmed email address. Instead for some reason WP romanticizes being The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Vandalize.™ Carrite (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just tried to check the recent changes for the 6 fresh edits, but it only shows the last 500 edits, so we'll be lucky to see anything from more than about 10 minutes ago there. Is there any other way to find them? Adam9007 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just spotted a mention of him on Polish Wikipedia. Is this the same? (add: another one on Italian Wikipedia) Adam9007 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using PetScan to try to find these 6 edits, but have no idea where to begin looking. Adam9007 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Would an edit filter perhaps be useful to stop any new insertions? ansh666 21:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really impressed! Great work. --Slashme (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a few mentions in other languages, which I've cleaned up or asked editors there to help with. --Slashme (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock appeal from User:SummerFunMan

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

---

Posted from the appelant's talkpage:

"Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three (3) years. So let's say that if I had waited for the originally prescribed 6 months, and you, the reviewer of this request, were to have said that you felt like you could only trust me if I had paid the price with even more time for some interesting reason, like say... 2 more years, and then even another reviewer said something like, "Nahh, he still isn't sincere enough; let's have him wait another half a year," then I've waited both of those periods out already too. So I've done my time and then already done it again and then some, and then even some more, and really am doing my very best to be very sincere with you now, I promise.

Now, as you may have already seen that the blockage information here states, I was blocked for sockpuppetry instead of being patient enough with the prescribed discussion process back then as I will be now, and this is my master account.

I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay?

One thing you may remember the standard-offer guide saying is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now.

When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style.

But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on, with the kindest wording that I can think of to try to help other editors stay willing to keep discussing with me until the concern is resolved, just like I'm doing my best to do so right now.

I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now by following the expected boldness/reversion/discussion cycle--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project."

Please see the page history at User talk:P004ME2 for additional context. When I ran a CU for that appeal, I found no other activity beyond these two accounts. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose See here: [122]. The user had been socking as recently as the rejected appeals above on the P004ME2 account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: What is that diff supposed to show? A blocked editor editing their user talk page from an already blocked account isn't a reason to oppose, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's honestly stupid vandalism, and adds to the fact the user isn't here to work constructively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per RickinBaltimore. Patient Zero^talk 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per BU Rob13. — fortunavelut luna 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• There's a link to the SummerFunMan sockpuppet investigation on User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" - is this the same user? Peter James (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm always one for giving people another chance, so if there's been no recent socking (and I don't see any sign that there has - the unblock attempt at the long-blocked sock P004ME2 really doesn't count), then I say let him back and try again. We have little to lose and potentially a lot to gain if he becomes a productive contributor - and as they say, blocks are cheap, so I don't see much risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - 100% guaranteed to be a timesink. Stupid graffiti on user talk page while blocked. Requests unblock of User talk:P004ME2 because they prefer that name. Reams of wikilawyering on sock's talk page. Whether this should be a block that lasts another couple of years while they mature some more, or this should be an infinite block because they are never going to mature, I don't understand the expected benefit (any expected benefit) that would outweigh the obvious cost now. Suggest declining request, removing talk page access, and allow an OTRS request to restore talk page access in 2 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if User:Master of Puppets, User:Yunshui, and User:JamesBWatson would like to estimate the amount of time they've spent dealing with this person the last 3 weeks? "Outweigh the obvious costs" is not a rhetorical device; there are real, concrete costs associated with dealing with people like this, and those costs increase dramatically when they're unblocked and allowed to goof around sitewide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would tentatively oppose this standing offer based purely on the request reason. I've done my time (not a valid rationale), I would like to learn why they (multiple accounts) are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay? (shows inability to distinguish illegitimate use of multiple accounts), I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on (Really? WP:GAME?). I don't think the user still understand the reason why they were blocked, and the subsequent response by the user on their talk page just further consolidates the point. Alex Shih^Talk 18:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I am not overwhelmed with confidence that this will end well based on their own statement, but it has been three years and everyone deserves a second chance. Blocks are cheap, and many eyes will be on them, ensuring a fast block if needed. Given the two options, unblocking is more likely to produce a positive outcome, but just barely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• SNOWpose - the appellant, as they have been dubbed, has continued the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. I also have the exact same concerns as Alex Shih regarding their appeal. I want to believe its sincere, but, I just don't think it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Current Socking

• It's been confirmed via CheckUser evidence that SummerFunMan has been editing while logged out in recent months. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have confirmed this result also, and add it's been across several months. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not sure how I missed that when looking at the P004ME2 appeal, but I've just taken another look and the likelihood of a relationship with the User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" IP sockfarm is pretty evident. On that basis, I'm going to close this discussion and convert the block to a CU block instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Protected redirect issue

Hi
This issue is about a rude subject, it is a genuine issue which I can't send to RfD due to page protection, not an attempt to stick rude words on WP:AN.
I have noticed an issue with a redirect Shit hole. Why does it point to the totally unrelated Asshole?.
The defintion is: according to the Oxford Dictionary Shithole - noun vulgar slang. An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place. ‘this place is a shithole, I hope you know that’.
It seems to have nothing to do with its current target. Dysklyver 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I can post it at RfD on your behalf, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Shit hole in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, there are 2 good ways to handle the tagging of such redirects: Either leave a notre on the RFD discussion (and a passing admin will fix the issue), or leave a {{editprotected}} request on its talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the latter is that redirects don't often have extant talk pages at all, so you'd have to create one, and thus we get into the same blacklisting problem. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is only an issue for blacklisted titles, not those which are either directly protected, or protected via cscade protection of a transclusing page. Most often, the protection is done directly. And there's always the opion of leaving a comment in the RFD discussion - this may end up delaying the earliest possible close by 24 hours, but many are closed late anyway. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 rangeblock

I just blocked this range, based on the last two IP addresses at Super Mario Land. I cannot find a "damage calculator" for IPv6 addresses, so I'm dropping this here in case someone wants to tell me I blocked the entire SE USA or whatever. Ferret, you have run into this person too, and there's a ton more IPs (I suppose you can drop down the rabbit hole with this list). In other words, if these or others aren't included in the range I blocked and it needs to be expanded, go ahead and jump on in. I'm trying to learn this stuff. Oh, DoRD, I was trying to impress someone in the car the other day, editing from my phone, and guess what--ran into your rangeblock again. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yamaguchi, you too... Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• This was my first run in with the user, noticed because they hit multiple articles on my watchlist. Once I saw they had four warnings already and how extensive, I blocked and started cleanup. (Thanks to all the others who helped revert). For anyone who hasn't looked yet, the IP edits the leads of articles and removes the usual article title formatting, Nihongo templates, etc. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The /67 on the end is better off being /64 (although in this case it did the job). Effectively, with IPv6 a /64 address is usually one editor. You only need to worry about blocking the entire USA when you get to /32 or below ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Black Kite beat me to it. Tweak your block to a /64 instead of /67 and you'll be sure to get everything that guy can access at the moment. Stick to blocking /64s and you'll be absolutely fine with collateral. You made a rangeblock! I'm so proud of you! :-) Katie^talk 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh thank you Katie! This means a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, what Katie and Black Kite said. Non-wireless broadband is almost always parceled out as a /64. And Drmies, that serves you right for trying to edit without logging in. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The "67" came out of this rangeblock tool...it's linked on Meta...hold on...this tool. Just saying. Thank you all for your help. I was surprised to find this was a fairly prolific vandal, doing his business over a few days. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a poor workman who blames his tools :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The tool did its job correctly - it identified the smallest range containing 2 specific IPs. That a larger range should be blocked is not something the tool is designed for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI on needless blocks

This morning I was blocked "until 2020" because the CenturyLink internet provider did not inform me that they had changed my IP address and I needed to restart my receiver to get onto the new line. This scary experience, and needless effort on all sides, could be avoided if those who are involved in blocking the line realize it may be only a changed IP on the provider's part: give the guilty editor an option of restarting his/her receiving box before panicking. (Your system interpreted the old address as something you don't allow: I forget the name for it since all evidence of this affair is at my old, inaccessible IP address.) Jzsj (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, are you familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY? Basically, it sounds like you were reassigned to an address that either was subject to an autoblock (to prevent a blocked editor from editing while logged out) or that had formerly been an open proxy. If it's an open proxy, you're correct that we might want to add such a notice, but with autoblocks that would be a bad idea — we don't want you to get around the autoblock if you've already been blocked, so people who don't know how to get around it shouldn't be told. If my words remind you of any of the circumstances of the block, it would help if you mentioned it. Finally, please note that you can use {{unblock-auto}} if this situation ever happens again. This template should be linked in the block messages; if it's not currently, it's time to add it. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for going over this. No I'm not familiar with WP:AUTOBLOCK and WP:PROXY and though I have an MS in math I keep wanting to write (and see) Wikipedia for Dummies pages! As to the {{unblock-auto}} I believe this is what it told me to save on my talk page, but I was unable to save anything there. Next, my understanding from the CenturyLink technician is that I was using a discarded address which got me in trouble, since I didn't know to restart the receiver and so connect to our new IP address (I just heard that we did go down to a cheaper CenturyLink package). If I understand you correctly, you don't want to tell editors to restart their receiver since this may educate them on how to evade a block. @Nyttend: Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to tell them that if it's an autoblock, i.e. they're using an IP address recently used by another account that's been blocked. However, it would be good to include such instructions (or a link to them) in the block message used by User:ProcseeBot; if you're using an IP that was identified as a proxy, either it's no longer a proxy (so it shouldn't be blocked anymore), or changing IPs will mean that you're no longer attempting to use a proxy. By the way, you're not the only one falling victim to blocking problems — while investigating your situation, I accidentally blocked myself and couldn't reverse the block without help :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've added a link from MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext to the unblock template. ProcseeBot's block rationale uses {{Blocked proxy}}, which gives unblock instructions quite clearly but doesn't address redoing your receiver. However, I don't myself understand how this is done, so I don't want to add any instructions there. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I may be out-of-date but I believe the software used to list the blocked editor when auto-blocking, I had a good attempt at trying to explain to the Foundation that this was a serious breach of privacy, that could be avoided or at least reduced, which is why I remember it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, it still does. When I autoblocked myself just now, I was logged in as Nyttend, but the autoblock message said Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked... Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK queues empty

If anyone here would like to "do the biz". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Long-term abusive behaviour by user FrankCesco26 and recent abuse of checkuser request

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

---

User FrankCesco26 recently opened a sockpuppet investigation of a number of IPs that I used (as an unlogged editor) on another version of Wikipedia (specifically the Italian one) to notify Italian readers about the fact that he (FrankCesco26) was moving his problematic activities on Italian Wikipedia after having been blocked here on English Wikipedia. Given the fact that there was no behaviour against any of Wikipedia's rules from my part, and there was no abusive behaviour whatsoever (since I didn't create the semblance of a consensus by editing as different IPs or as different IPs and "Wddan", but I used the different IPs on different articles and never edited as logged-in "Wddan" on Italian Wikipedia), I think that FrankCesco26's report has to be intepreted as a mere provocation moved by pure retaliation, and therefore as a severe abuse of Wikipedia's regulations.

I ask therefore that FrankCesco26's abuse be appropriately punished.

This episode is just the latest (and I hope the last) one of a long chain of abusive behaviours by the reported user. The reason why I reverted his edits on Italian Wikipedia (see 1, 2, 3, 4) is that he was reproducing precisely the same edits that led to a block on English Wikipedia last June, that is to say the utter expunction of a source he didn't like from the article "Religion in Italy", and its replacement with another source of his liking, unduly mixing it with another source which is utterly incompatible and ignoring the consensus that had formed around the established version and data synthesis. His bad-faith motivations were debunked by user Ita140188 (read discussion) and he was blocked by admin MSGJ after having been reported by user Iryna Harpy, who also witnessed his bad behaviour.

Later in September, he was reported again by me for erasing sources he didn't like from a number of other articles about religion. The result was another block by admin EdJohnston. The checkuser report against me comes as a retaliation after my September report and the fact that I notified, unlogged/as an IP, his bad-faith edits on Italian Wikipedia.--Wddan (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these for I am not an administrator but I think this is something best left to WP:AN3. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit war going on this time, but mere provocative behaviour and abuse of Wikipedia tools driven by retaliation. So, this is a general case and I am not sure it fits 3RR reports' section.--Wddan (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Then WP:LTA is the place you're looking for. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have opened the case.--Wddan (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I got blocked for not having followed the 3RR, and I already paid for that.

You openend that section with your IPs in order to finish your purge of the sources you didn't like[123] [124] [125] (against the consensous [126]), after my block. I opened a legit sockpuppet investigation because you used a very unfair use of socks, insulting, provoking and ridiculing me [127] [128] with two sockpuppets. You also obstinately continued the edit war in the Italian Wikipedia ([129] and [130], again against the consensous[131]). So stop, this is not a good use of sockpuppets, I think it's a valid reason to report you for the WP:NPA. Also, I never insulted or provoked you, the only things I did is to remember you to use a Neutral point of view, thing that you often forget. There is no need to remember my blocks, I already paid for that.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:LTA is for tracking longtime sockmasters; we use it to study their past socks so we can more easily detect future socks. The issues at hand here are totally unrelated to LTA, so I've nominated this page for deletion. Please restrict your discussion of this situation to "ordinary" project pages like this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Counter Proposal: Close with no action

I see here a call for "punishment" for previous history between these two users. I see a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, I see a spill over from other language wikipedia to here. Therefore I propose: Pending a significant reformulation of this request, this petition for punishment should be closed in 24 hours as no action with prejudice . Past dirsurption was sanctioned and the majority of issues appear to be "I want more punishment for my opponent". Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

Statement from User:BlackAmerican

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

---

I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page (which is extensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(M) ). I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuser to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. As can be seen by the AN, there is bad blood on the part of TGS towards me. I have been blamed for a number of things including his own sockpuppeting. [132] where extensive proof by multiple and him being lectured about it [133] . I will not engage him or others and will stay away from situations that could cause me to be reblocked. I do ask that we be banned from interaction from each other or going into articles that the other edits at. People go to jail and after time they learn their lesson. Why is time treated differently as a punishment here? Not editing on wikipedia for 6 months has taught me that it is a gift to be here and I will not take it for granted.

In conclusion, I will abide by the terms of the standard offer and be a better editor. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC))

@TheGracefulSlick, Alex Shih, Ad Orientem, Blackmane, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Od Mishehu, Mendaliv, Dlohcierekim, and Dennis Brown: Just a ping to everyone who has commented so far to make sure they know this is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

User:BlackAmerican was given a Checkuser block by User:Ponyo in January, and requested a Standard Offer unblock in July. Ponyo said "I don't support an unblock request at this time. That being said, if the community consensus is that more rope should be extended, then I won't stand in their way", but it's dragged on and the request was declined simply because no admin had addressed it.

There's a new request now at User talk:BlackAmerican#Standard Offer, and some resolution to it is needed. So, Community, do we support or oppose an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - In the strongest possible terms. If anyone needs a refresher, BlackAmerican is CrazyAces489 -- the same user who harassed me, wasted the community's time for months, and never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't). When CrazyAces created content, he never adhered to the advice of several experienced editors, deflecting it with the excuse "I create so others can contribute". I promised CA back in January I would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. Instead he avoided the issue and eventually went back to blaming others. He is a total timesink who I am convinced is just here to troll us one last time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @TheGracefulSlick: Do you have anything to say in response to CrazyAces489/BlackAmerican's accusations that you were multiply voting with socks to have articles deleted (for example, using User:ALongStay)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee no disrespect but why? Where is the relevance? I admitted to my mistake, apologized to those affected, and I hope after a year removed from the incident that I have proven I am of value to the community. That, I believe, is the major difference between me and CA, and why I am still editing today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Just for clarity for others considering this, as it does seem like an issue of contention between you. Oh, and for the record, I'm staying neutral on the unblock question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: (edit conflict) I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving rope to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the competence/clue is simply not there. The current request is pretty much identical again to the previous request, despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to rewrite the request. Alex Shih^Talk 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem is this the type of person you want to give another chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah...no per Alex Shih. Blackmane (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In light of their updated unblock request， I'd be willing to change my !vote to somewhat support. When an editor makes a SO appeal or even a regular appeal of an indefinite block the community expects a clear course of action on what they intend to do should they be allowed to return and how they intend to avoid the previous behaviour. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced but probably just enough to give a bit more rope. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on the merits or otherwise of the appeal. But can the Graceful Slick withdraw and strike their comment ("Strong oppose") above? I'm not sure it washes particularly well to !vote against someone for socking, etc, when one has done precisely the same thing for much the same reason; viz to win an argument. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 06:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be totally fair, GS has already explained a critical difference between herself and BA - namely, admitting one's own actions, taking responsibility for them, and apologizing to anyone affected. GS said that CA never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't), and that she would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak oppose (see below) per Alex Shih. An unblock under WP:SO is not something that is automatically earned based on the expiration of time. The requestor's statement of why a SO unblock should be granted, as well as any interaction with the reviewing administrator, are at least as important in considering whether to grant the SO unblock as is the passage of time. This is because it is usually the only way we have of measuring the requestor's current maturity and understanding that what he or she did to earn the block is not to be repeated. The burden is on the requestor to show that a SO unblock is merited, and I do not believe this editor has satisfied that burden. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, a procedural note: I believe if this discussion closes as anything other than unblock, the indef converts to a formal community ban per WP:CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe you are correct as per Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community", and any future unblock request would need to be referred back to the community. And that is how I would close it if there is no consensus to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated my !vote to a weak oppose following the statement by BA above. It's fairly contrite and hits a lot of the points I mentioned earlier. To be sure, I'm fairly on the fence here, but the space wasted on discussing TGS's conduct keeps me from crossing over to support. People on Wikipedia aren't required to like one another, but we're expected to keep it professional. The "counteroffer" of an interaction ban doesn't move me either; had BA demonstrated the requisite maturity and understanding of why his past actions were unacceptable, I would honestly have thought an interaction ban to be unnecessary. And, of course, the focus on the passage of time is unhelpful. We don't want to know how long it's been since you were blocked; we want to know how you've grown in that time, either as a person or in terms of editing elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it. Sorry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• 'poor idea' In reviewing the user talk pages, I see no indication now that user will not continue to edit problematically.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: To add onto what User:Mendaliv said re: BA's "current maturity and understanding [...]," in December I inquired about the relationship to the previous accts here to which their response was to delete the question (plus quite a few other notices) and respond on my dynamic-IP talk page that "My old ex-roommate, took me to a edit-a-thon in Harlem. and showed me how to edit. That is the furthest of my relation." They show promise re: creating stubs, but their writing ability isn't quite there yet; nor is their integrity. Sorry. rgrds. --64.85.216.137 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• No as the interests of Wikipedia are simply not served with this individual having access to writing. The history is such that I doubt an unblock will ever happen. Some people simply do not have the right temperament nor ability to work with others that is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Nothing on the user's talk page shows me that they are here to edit constructively. Alex Shih nails it right on the head. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - BlackAmerican unsurprisingly your latest statement brings me no assurance. I don't have any "bad blood" with you; I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. But even still, whether it is an act of defiance or ignorance, you are blaming others and putting an anomalous amount of emphasis on my behavior from over a year ago. I believe you have a fixation on me evident from the number of sockpuppets and IPs you controlled to harass me but you need to change your attitude hastily -- this SO request is your last chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• change to support after reconsidering I think an IBAN between TGS and BlackAmerican is needed. IMHO, TGS, please drop the stick.23:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim what stick? I was pinged back to this discussion. Is it not alright to clarify I have no animosity toward CA despite his harassment? Please take more time to consider the situation before making such a comment. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Dlohcierekim that you ought to drop the stick and leave this to other editors. I am concerned by your comment above, where you say, I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. . . . this SO request is your last chance. The reason I find this statement concerning is because of the focus on satisfying your demands. I presume you don't intentionally mean it this way, but it comes off as suggesting that you should be given satisfaction prior to the lifting of BA's ban. This would not be correct. It is not your standards against which we measure BA's improvement, it is the consensus of the discussants as to what is reasonable. On top of that, you're downright wrong that this specific SO request is BA's last chance; BA could absolutely request a SO in the future after this one is rejected. While BA's conduct is his own responsibility, if it looks like your conduct is inflaming his, I think it would be proper to consider a two-way IBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv they weren't demands. They were considerations for a successful unblock appeal. And I honestly thought if this SO failed, a cite ban would be the next step hence my "last chance" remark. I am not going to have my intentions wrongfully interpreted nor am I accepting any responsibility for "inflaming" his conduct. That comment is totally out of bounds; my actions never "inflamed" him to joke about my deceased brother, to create poor content, and evade his block. Do whatever you want with CrazyAces, BlackAmerican, Negroleaguehistorian, or whatever he wants to go by, I am done here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You may disagree with me, but it is for the best that you step back from this discussion. Thanks for doing so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that TGS is unfairly poisoning the well, by [Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]] (which another admin stated he has done in the past) [134].. He stated that this comment was me [135] right here [136]. This is not me and is no way connected to me. This isn't the first time he is blaming me for things that aren't me (Now that I think about it, the first IP is strikingly similar to an IP chain used by CrazyAces: see here. He is well known to be stalking me before and after his block around Wikipedia, including AfDs. I do not recognize the second IP however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)) [137] and has been lectured about it. (No, but I will advise TheGracefulSlick to refrain from pointing fingers at CrazyAces when we all know it's not CrazyAces. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)).
I am simply asking for a Wikipedia:Standard offer, which states "Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." I have done all 3 the requirements and have behaved well for a while now. It also states "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." TGS has asked for apologies for something that I haven't done and influenced the vote as shown here "Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)" SO does not require apologies, but I have accepted responsibility for what I have done not for things I have not done "I should have never engaged these individuals and kept on creating articles such as Camp Van Dorn Slaughter, John W. V. Cordice Martha Boto Bretagne (rescue dog) William Warrick Cardozo Free Bleeding Movement Giichi Arima William E. Robertson Jimmie McDaniel 1961 NCAA University Division men's basketball gambling scandal Friendship College and more" [138]. I have also stated that TGS and I don't interact to him directly. [139] . What else can I do to prove that I will be an asset? Why have an SO if someone follows the rules of the SO and as contrite but still won't be given a fair shot? BlackAmerican (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

• Strong oppose. I was initially indifferent, perhaps leaning support, but the ongoing comments focusing on TGS suggest that this editor hasn't let go of past disputes. They're focusing on editors and making baseless claims about those editors. (In particular, it's not "casting aspersions" to note you've been disruptive in the past. That's a fact.) I don't see anything good coming from unblocking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree, this last response isn't a good sign. Had BA come back and taken the higher road, ignoring or mostly ignoring everything TGS said, I could've looked past a lot. Engaging like this has torpedoed BA's case, at least in my eyes. I'm not as concerned about the misconception that a SO is just a matter of not socking for six months and promising to be good. In fact, these are seen as necessary conditions to a SO unblock, not sufficient ones. The decision is highly discretionary in the end. I don't think BA's arguments on this point are evidence of an entitlement attitude, just a misunderstanding of policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

George Mason University

I just deleted a slew of essays in user sandboxes, complete with GMU honor statements and essay-for-college headers. Has anyone else run across this before? Is there something I don't know but should? Is this a perennial issue and could you direct me to relevant discussion? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Might want to ask over at the Education noticeboard if someone more involved with educational outreach has a point of contact with GMU to see if this is part of an actual course (and if so, if there's some way the educational outreach people can help the course instructor). — /Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would welcome input at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#George_Mason_University. — Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• We are not interested in the "GMU Honor Code" - it cuts no ice here. If a page is a copyvio it gets zapped, honour code declaration or not. But these were not copyvios. I have zapped them as classic student-essay forks of existing articles. Let the teacher who suggested them, declare themselves here and be roundly criticised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. I will continue to U5 the things unless otherwise directed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerned about mental health of an editor

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

---

I've just reviewed an AFC submission that looks to me like it was written by someone with significant mental health issues. I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, which is obviously designed to protect WP, but is there nothing we can do to assist the editor? A message on their talk page "Have you taken your medication?" presumes the person has medication to take, so is probably quite inappropriate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Is there a reason you didn't provide a link? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: There's nothing we can do, and further, we should avoid such comments when dealing with editors who are making crazy claims since they could be interpreted as personal attacks. Just focus on the content. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BU Rob13. I did not provide a link to avoid victimising the editor concerned. I have already declined and tagged the draft for G1 Speedy deletion without any further comment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Mandruss. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: (Ping[140] not received, and I don't see any of the usual explanations for same. Confirms my suspicion that pinging is not 100% reliable.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a known problem with pings. See Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Not receiving pings, which suggests a fix will be in place on Monday and details a workaround. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Merger of Education noticeboard

Hello all, for anyone interested in participating/closing the discussion, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Propose to close/merge Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents to this noticeboard that could use some attention. Thank you for you time! Alex Shih^Talk 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Page creation protection: Extended-confirmed

Hey admins, is this a new standard: to set protection on repeatedly recreated spam pages to extended-confirmed, rather than sysop? Just wondering because I see it as an option, though I've continued using sysop but haven't been an admin all that long. If the protection is set to extended-confirmed, is the creating user expected to consult with the protecting admin prior to creating a page through the protection? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have exact parameters on what protection to use in such cases. I generally don't do it as I think that extendedconfirmed is being overused - although I don't perform that many protections period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not a new standard. Just use your own judgement.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I want to say I've done this once, on an article title that had been deleted a few times. I've not fully thought it out, but it seems it could be useful in limited circumstances, where an admin wants to disallow one particular person (or their socks, or just new people) from creating the same problematic article, but trusts there is a chance a real article is possible with an experienced editor. It just saves the step of the experienced editor having to ask permission from the protecting admin, etc. Again, most articles wouldn't get this, but some titles could arguably warrant this level of protection. Or as Ymblanter says, just use your own judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Dennis' perspective. I don't think it's normally a good idea (spammers can get up to EC with a little effort), but I agree that it can be good for combating sockmasters when an article might be warranted. So in other words, "don't do it most of the time, but don't think that it's automatically a bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Could an administrator please block my old doppelganger accounts?

Title explains it all, really - the accounts are as follows:

• Chessnaught555
• Chesnaught55
• Chesnaught5555
• Chesnaught
• Ches0555
• Chespin555
• Chesnought555

The reason I would like these accounts blocked (indef and TPA please, so "hard block") is because I obviously no longer go by the name of Chesnaught555, thus making these accounts pointless. I do have doppelganger accounts based on the username "Patient Zero", which IIRC, I have gone by since May 2016, but please do not block these ones. Thank you in advance to whoever does this for me. Patient Zero^talk 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac! Patient Zero^talk 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

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

---

If I am being harassed by a fellow Wikipedian, where do I report it? Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, it would go to WP:ANI, generally. If this is the preamble to an actual request I'll shift it over there. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, given that Nihlus seems to be simply giving you some good advice you don't want to hear, rather than actually harassing you, the place you go is probably nowhere, either that or perhaps away form the keyboard for a few minutes to grab a cup of tea and calm down a bit. GMG^talk 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks. Will report him here shortly. @GreenMeansGo: Its not the thing that I don't want to hear him is the numerous warnings and their tone that irritates me. Imagine if your talkpage will be bombarded with contradicting information. One user says yes, you can welcome editors the other says no not in this way and then when you decide to try to warn vandals no you need to welcome them in some fashion. Get the point?--Biografer (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But you are not being harassed. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Question has been asked and answered, no need to make a big deal out of it before we make a big deal out of it at ANI. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I predict this will go swimmingly for OP. GMG^talk 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am being harassed. Just take a look here. We are on the verge of discussing it civilly, but now I am accused of harassment, which happened because he provoke all this war of words. At least I believe that he harassed @Rich Farmbrough:. Going to people talkpages simply to get his point across is harassment. Inviting all the editors to gang up on me, is in fact, harassment too. And yes, lets go to AN/I and try to solve it there, because I am completely fed up with editors that gathered here to prevent somebody to make an edit that is no big deal, to be honest.--Biografer (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to know when the line between being a well meaning pain-in-the-butt crosses to harassment. I am pretty sure that Nihlus means well, and they do make some valid points (and some invalid ones). I agree with Biographer that they aren't made in the most constructive way, and this is really most of the problem here. I suspect that it will be hard now for Nihlus and Biographer to engage constructively, and would advise them both to leave each other alone. I also suspect this advice will fall on deaf ears, but I hope not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

I've asked Biografer to leave it for now and I'll look over it and have a talk to them tomorrow about it, and they seem happy to go along with that. And yes, I definitely agree with your advice that they leave each other alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm more than capable of editing constructively after heated moments with editors; I get over things very quickly. Just ask Primefac and GreenMeansGo. @Rich Farmbrough and Boing! said Zebedee: I'm not fond of the assumption that I cannot engage constructively or the recommendation that I leave a user alone merely because they've made a mess. Nihlus 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, someone should have notified me of this discussion. Nihlus 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for agreeing that you should probably leave Biografer alone now is that your well-meaning efforts aren't working - so how about you leave it to me now, tomorrow? (And yes, someone indeed should have informed you - I'm sorry I didn't realise you had not been informed.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to pass the buck; however, it should be noted that eight editors have made similar comments on this user's talk page. This is not something I was going rogue on. Nihlus 19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Arthur Rubin has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arthur Rubin case closed

Range blocker needed

Hey range blockers, if any of you are around right now, I got a huge-ass list that I need some help with. Please drop me an email or carrier pigeon, or hit me up on tindr. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Email me (or just post it here, if I'm going to block it it's not exactly secret). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks--I'll email, instead of posting here and showing my ignorance of range technicalities. :) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Nihlus, thanks for your note--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer

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

---

Sleep > Wikidrama. Try it some time

Some eyes and/or block(s) may be warranted at the situation at User talk:Biografer#Aspirations... Also, I don't really like being called a _________. We have got enough of this drama. Sorry, Boeing. Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he saw my previous welcomes to other editors and decided to appreciate my hard work (I treat it as such).--Biografer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And as for drama (drama which was caused by Nihlus by the way, not me), I don't appreciate this tone directed at me here. And as for @Boing! said Zebedee:, he and @Rich Farmbrough: are the only good editors here who understand me. I feel sorry that Rich need to endeavor this hatred on this site. :( Its always the good editors who are subject of guilt.--Biografer (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, I wish you'd held off on your welcoming until we'd had the chat I planned - as I just said on your talk page, I'll be busy for 2 or 3 hours now, but maybe it might be better to wait and see how this pans out here. But one thing I will say now is that "You can block me, for what I care. I will create a different account and will continue" is absolutely the wrong way to respond here. (Oh, and it's Boing, not Boeing - I'm springy but I can't fly. ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I removed it for my own sake.--Biografer (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN against making semi-automated welcome messages may be necessary. Spamming thousands of welcome messages in the way Biografer is doing isn't helpful to the encyclopedia; some of the recipients appear to have made reasonable contributions but others have not (e.g. Zach9999 (talk · contribs) and Chris Paul (talk · contribs)), I would expect the template used to distinguish between these. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This would be a good time for Biografer to agree that they're going to be more careful going forward and only welcome users who have made good faith contributions, rather than welcoming users indiscriminately. Hint hint. GMG^talk 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Considering that you are new too (I decided not to welcome you, because I didn't knew what to expect from you at the time), I would like to say that while Zach9999 and Chris Paul did some unconstructive edits, they stopped after the first warning. What would you all say about that?--Biografer (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

clerk note - power~enwiki has been here since 2009 Primefac (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My account dates to December 2003, but I've only been an active editor since April 29 of this year. I'm not sure I believe that he recalls deciding not to welcome me, the only batch of welcomes he has around then was on April 23. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case you were definitely welcomed back in 2003, long before Biografer had a chance to do so themselves. –72 _(t) 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are issues with Biografer's conduct, but I'm also shocked by the message Winged Blades of Godric left on his talk page. That's very out of character for you, Godric. You basically taunted him. The comment clearly wasn't going to de-escalate things. I do not think any action is needed right now. It will be the next time you mention Nihlus to deflect from your own behavior, Biografer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:--Yeah! On some retrospection, the first line was harsh.Apologies.But, that being said, I was tempted to write it seeing his illustrious t/p and in-general behaviour towards everybody who objected his methods and a stubborn objection to stop his welcoming(s),( even temporarily, at least until, he had a conversation with Boing) and felt that we were far past the point of any de-escalation.I also feel that there is a very real need to T-ban from his welcoming sprees, having read his justification of welcoming LTAs at this difference and his in-general behavior at this edit and his previous retaliatory welcomings which led to a warning from TNT.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Biografer: Twinkle has templates for welcoming users whose contributions are non-constructive. You might consider using those. I am a fan of {{welcomelaws}} whenever I warn users for copyright violations if they don't have a talk page. There are also {{welcomevandal}} and {{welcometest}}, which might have been more appropriate in the above cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Well, if I will toss them around like crazy, you wont like it either. I know that as soon as I started warning vandals, I again got into the hot water.--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: And in your opinion, the way how Winged Blades of Godric taunted me is civil. It's a shame if you think so. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that human editors are supposed to use some measure of thought when it comes to their edits. If we don't, then our editing literally falls under exactly the same policies as editing done by bots, and as others have pointed out, having a welcome bot has been proposed and failed to find consensus many times. Someone doesn't have to be a super duper editor to get a welcome, but it's best to check and make sure they're not an outright vandal. I normally welcome any editor who starts out with good faith contributions, even if those contributions get reverted for being less than helpful. But if someone is an outright vandal, your time and attention (because who knows, you could be the only one to catch it for hours or even days) should be spent warning them, explaining why their edits are nonconstructive if they're receptive to an explanation, and escalating to WP:AIV if necessary. The reason you got into "hot water" is because welcoming vandals tends to run counter to the efforts of editors who are active trying to discourage them. The easiest way to avoid hot water is to get out of the pot, not fight to stay in it. GMG^talk 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Understood. Now, if Nehlus would have explained it to me in the same way as you or @TonyBallioni: did, non of this AN/I thing would have happened. :) PS: I'm not blaming Nihlus for my edits, I blame him for conduct which was rather cold and unwelcoming toward me as a new editor. The thing is, is that when Rich showed up, he gave me a tip (which maybe wasn't as helpful), but he at least was kind enough to explain it in a less provocative way.--Biografer (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, but if you're gonna be hanging around vandals, you'll probably end up with a lot thicker skin before it's all over. That may be part of why some of our more experienced vandal fighters sometimes might come off harsher than they intend. We just want you to use your efforts in ways that are most productive, and can't be mistaken for running counter to the efforts of others. But you should take seriously that, having popped up on the radar twice here in as many days, if problems persist, it is very likely someone is going to start seriously pushing for a topic ban from welcoming anyone at all, and it seems increasingly likely that they'll get it. That's just more hassle for everyone, when the easiest thing to do is try to fix the issue and carry on. GMG^talk 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, Biografer is approaching WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE territory as it has been explained numerous times how to welcome users properly, when and where to welcome users, and how to warn users when they vandalize pages. He has responded with personal attacks, aspersions, deflections about how he is the victim, and WP:POINTy and inappropriate welcomes of users all because he got mad. I'm surprised he has not been blocked yet. His talk page is flooded with notices about welcoming users and he still does not get it, either by choice or incapability. Regardless, either one is problematic. @Winged Blades of Godric: Those messages were a little uncalled for and a massive trout is needed for them. @Biografer: For once, take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming other people for your shortcomings. Also, stop deflecting your inability to take criticism by disparaging me or my comments as if I was the only one who mentioned anything to you. You had numerous people explaining the same thing to you over the last three months; I just happened to be the first one who refused to buy your excuses. Nihlus 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: OK, ok. It just happened that when you came, you were like the last straw. I don't think I was pointy, and I think me and you just misunderstood each other. Its human, right?--Biografer (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: I understood you clearly, which is exactly why I made the comment above. Nihlus 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Well, I hope nobody minds if I will write some stub articles here about notable subjects? Any objections? At least that will prove that I am here to contribute (should have done that before to be honest). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking to prove you're here in good faith, maybe you can improve Government or Architecture? That said, I'm not worried about your good-faith, just your ability to respond to feedback. Lobbyists4Good (talk · contribs) looks to be an invalid username promoting a non-notable organization, maybe you should have commented on some of that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: OK. So, user Lobbyist4Good wrote an article in a sandbox, therefore I believe that he is exempt from being warned because maybe he is just doing test edit (and found a rather good place to do it). A lot of our users do test edits on articles themselves resulting into vandalism warnings and blocks. The safe place, if you don't know what is acceptable under your (our) policies, is to write it in a sandbox. As soon as the article will be completed, it might be considered for AFC. If the AFC editors would agree that its a fairly notable subject, then it will be moved to main space. Sounds OK thing to do in my opinion. Any questions about my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Not if the AFC editors decline it. I seen that some people post their articles to AFC and then get either accepted or declined depending on content.--Biografer (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the link? "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Geez Louiz! I was assuming you were referring to the content of the article, not the user. Yes, his username is promotional (I should have reported him, sorry). Plus, I got confused it with WP:OR.-Biografer (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure your word is enough. I think a topic ban of welcoming users for a couple months should help. This can be voluntary or community placed; however, both are equally enforceable with blocks (WP:PROBATION). Nihlus 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Of course, trust was never thought to a Wikipedian before. Got it. As for @There'sNoTime: comment regarding As I was pinged - you all need to cool off, I am rather chilled right now. We talked here and it seems like everything is fine... Don't you all agree?--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After a fun-filled trip to Morrisons, I came back to User_talk:There'sNoTime#Talkback. Godric, as I posted on your talk, don't prod things too hard eh? Biografer, take some time to cool off, and if you want some advice on what to do (welcoming, contributing) leave a message on my talk and I'll give you a hand -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow @There'sNoTime: Where do you live that there are Morrisons instead of Walmarts?--Biografer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The most United of Kingdoms - anywho, and I mean this sincerely and with the most respect I can muster after queuing for half an hour to buy food, I think this discussion would be better served by everyone disengaging and doing something else... There's plenty to do -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: In these least United of States, I waited half an hour for ramen... GAB^gab 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Where in the world do you live where buying a Ramen is creating long lines? Either way, I was waiting in line for 2 hours to buy a game on Black Friday.--Biografer (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh, I really wanted to try to help Biografer in a friendly way. But no, you couldn't wait and you had to escalate it to the drama boards. Biografer might be still learning things, and some welcoming might have been less than ideal. But I can understand why Biografer is feeling under fire here, as I see some warnings and tellings-off that are out of proportion to the relatively minor issues we're looking at here - and I can see why they might be feeling as if they can do nothing right. As for posting welcome messages on talk pages of vandals - hey, I do it too, usually in addition to a warning (and I've been here for around 10 years and an admin for 6). I usually only do it when it's minor vandalism - probably a youngster just having a play, that kind of thing. But I hope it makes people thing "OK, I got caught with that bit of petty vandalism, but they're welcoming me if I want to be constructive" and it might help turn someone round - and if not, it's done no harm. Come on people, get off Biografer's back a little here - or at least, just tone down the aggression a bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  That ignores my original point of indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages to the tune of 24,000 times. We're hardly being aggressive. The problem is Biografer continues to dig a deeper hole with each comment he makes. Nihlus 19:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  I offered to help with that, but I didn't get a chance. Even if he wastes time welcoming thousands of people, what actual harm has been done that needs such urgent attention that I couldn't have been allowed the time to try and help? Lots of people shouting the same things at him over and over again wasn't helping - can't you see that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Let's get one thing straight: you didn't get the chance to help because of his actions, not mine. I can clearly see that Godric's comments were unhelpful to the situation, as I made that clear above in my initial comment. However, I'm firm in my belief that we are now beyond the point of helping or being able to see any improvement in his edits. Nihlus 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  So you get to decide unilaterally that there's no hope and that I am not allowed to try to help. Lovely. Sometimes this place seriously pisses me off. I'm giving up for the night - if you lot don't get your pound of flesh, or if someone with more sense see fit to close this, I might try to help Biografer tomorrow - but I can't do that while trying to fight off a mob at the same time. (And please, there's no need to ping me - I know where this place is.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Where did I unilaterally decide anything? I gave my viewpoint on the matter as a member of this community and someone who has already tried to help this individual out before. Not a single person has told you that you cannot try to help out this person, so your mischaracterization of this situation is rather odd. Nihlus 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Okay then guys, might be worth wrapping this one up eh? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Would support such wrapping. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC).
  

  Ooh, wrapping, its almost Christmas -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Wrap. GMG^talk 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I will report to you There'sNoTime) if I will have any concerns regarding welcoming. In fact, (if a block wont follow) I will go on Wikibreak to give you some time to cool off. I would like to thank @Boing! said Zebedee:, @TonyBallioni:, @GreenMeansGo: the closing admin @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)in @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @There'sNoTime: No, I don't support it as nothing has come out of this yet. We will be right back here in a couple days when Biografer resumes. Nihlus 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Completely unethical on you part.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE. Nihlus 20:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion about paid editing and blocking etc

Administrators may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Statement from a paid editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς

Proposal: topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#Proposal for a self-imposed ban on closing threads
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 126#WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#Where Do We Go from Here ?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#This is not a BLP violation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

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

Last 30 deletions by Medeis / μηδείς --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[01] [141] Edit summary: is it legal legal advice? {{WP:DISCLAIMER]]. WP:NOTAHOWTO, WP:DNFT Does the OP even care? Note: Edit warring. Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [02] [142] Edit summary: we don't speculate or give medical advice, there is no source on a 100% salmon no water diet Note: Medeis answered this, then deleted the thread. Classifying a dietary question like "what if a person ate only salmon?" as a request for medical advice is controversial. [03] [143] Edit summary: no need to archive Note: At the time Medeis deleted this, it had been hatted (by Medeis) for three days and was about to be auto-archived. Classifying a "does this cleaning method make a surface clean enough to eat off of?" question as trolling is controversial. [04] [144] Edit summary: we do not answer and may remove requests for loegal[sic] or medical advice Note: Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [05] [145] Edit summary: not a forum Note: another example of deleting a thread that was already hatted. [06] [146] Edit summary: spam not to be archived Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. This deleted good advice discouraging future spammers and a comment saying "we don't delete, we hat it" [07] [147] Edit summary: no point archiving spam Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. [08] [148] Edit summary: delete as no point archiving Note: Another deletion of a hatted discussion just as it was about to be auto-archived. [09] [149] Edit summary: remove doxxing--seriously, we have no reference on Monty P. Burns Note: I cannot find any doxxing in the removed section, and in fact Nil Einne documented the relation between the named individuals and mining in the material that Medeis deleted. [10] [150] Edit summary: remove trolling by one-day user who posted and deleted same "question" on many different boards Note: The user in question appears to have made a good-faith effort to delete the questions from the other pages before asking at the refdesk[151][152][153] [11] [154] Edit summary: redact unsourced critical BLP violations Note: Removal of part of a comment. Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that were posted about Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein today, or is it removing criticism only for some public figures? [12] [155] Edit summary: remove irrelevant comment by sock of blocked IP user Note: While removing posts by banned user Vote (X) for Change is allowed, in this case Medeis has a COI , because the post in question disagreed with an answer she posted. She should have let someone else do the deleting. [13] [156] Edit summary: this is a BLP and needs balance, which is not helped by comments from non-notable authors and sources Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [14] [157] Edit summary: remove crap Note: Another removal for reasons not listen at WP:TPOC. [15] [158] Edit summary: rmv puerile trolling Note: Classifying a question about why dogs go into heat but humans do not at as a request for medical advice is controversial. [16] [159] Edit summary: : blatant BLP violation, unsourced speculation and derogatory remarks re living person Note: Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that are posted about Donald Trump every day? [17] [160] Edit summary: entirely unsourced BLP violation Note: See above. [18] [161] Edit summary: Russian interference: remove repeated violation of BLP; we do not speculate on people's secret motives and intentions Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. /Language&diff=next&oldid=781331054] [19] [162] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [20] [163] Edit summary: Undid revision 776767014 by JackofOz (talk) take me to ani, jack - we do not decide such nonsense Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [21] [164] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [22] [165] Edit summary: what if conspiracy theories were never posted? Note: Another removal for reasons not listed at WP:TPOC. [23] [166] Edit summary: remove obvious WP:BLP violation Note: Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [24] [167] Edit summary: WP:BLP speculation and opinion by editors does not justify discussion unproven criminal activity by Barack Obama Note: Edit warring. Removal of "Removal on grounds of WP:BLP reverted; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. This is a well-documented allegation and the source is directly noted without sensationalistic adjustment." comment. [25] [168] Edit summary: speculating on the possible criminal activities of living persons violates WP:BLP Note: See above. [26] [169] Edit summary: WP:RD/G Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [27] [170] Edit summary: either a banned user or should not be closed; but bad links incline toward summary removal Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [28] [171] Edit summary: BLP violation at best, not to mention there's not a ref in the entire thread Note: Edit warring. What BLP? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? And since when do we require refs in refdesk questions? [29] [172] Edit summary: removing defamatory speculation involving personal legal and financial matters, we have no answers Note: Edit warring. Who is being defamed? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? Some coffee shop that accepts credit cards? [30] [173] Edit summary: remove request for personal financial and legal advice Note: Reverted with comment "Defend your position on the talk page, where your behavior is being discussed."[174] That discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats, listed in the "Previous discussions" section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017

Poll

• Support: as proposer. The previous discussions and the link to recent deletions say it all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous reasoning. There are posts that should be removed ASAP and no argument has been presented to jusitfy M's ability to do that. OTOH this WP:HOUNDing of M needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's look at one "problematic" deletion by Medeis as presented above, shall we? this discussion goes against all basic talk page guidelines we have, and Medeis should get a barnstar for deleting this. If this discusion is what most refdesk regulars want, then it is past time to simply delete the refdesks instead. Fram (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram failed to give the number of the edit he refers to on the above list. It is #11. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One unintended purpose your list serves is to demonstrate the lack of vigilance by yourself and certain other members, for questions that have the potential to compromise Wikipedia itself: BLP violatons, requests for professional advice, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's a good one. That is a discussion. BLP does not apply, and the deletion was absurd. --Viennese Waltz 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP does not apply? Strange, and here I was thinking that BLP applies everywhere on enwiki. And of course, discussion of living persons and our opinion of them and their idiocy or greatness is another thing we don't do at enwiki, as we are not a forum. I'll take that as "strike one" for abolishing the ref desk then? Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, that's what you're gonna do anyway. (More seriously: If you really believe you can take this response as a "strike one" for your plans of abolishing the ref desks, then there's not much more to be said. One diff chosen from one list from one user's allegedly problematic actions, and one response by one user to your one criticism to one diff is apparently all that's needed. Knock yourself out). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram is dead wrong on this. Nothing in our BLP policy even hints at deleting commentary -- even negative commentary - about the published statements of a public figure. I think that such commentary is a waste of time, but it is not deletable under WP:TPOC or WP:BLP. I believe that Fram's oft-expressed personal dislike for me may be clouding his judgement and causing him to take a position about BLP that is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's you that's got it wrong. Yakking about a public figure's mental health is a blatant BLP violation, and removing that garbage was totally the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Wikipedia policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view.
  As for unsubstantiated accusations of Guy Macon's hounding: Seven experienced editors, including four admins, have recently stated that WT:RD was the wrong venue for this discussion, even if non-binding.[175][176][177][178][179][180][181] I fail to see how it can be hounding to follow their advice. Never mind that 8 experienced editors at WT:RD voiced support for a TBAN, lending significant legitimacy to the complaints against Medeis. Unless someone wants to allege a hounding conspiracy and call for sanctions against all 8 editors, such accusations are an abuse of WP:HOUND. In any event, such an accusation is pointless and unconstructive outside a separate boomerang discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nothing more than the usual scapegoating (or bludgeoning, to use Macon's term) by certain users who look for a target every few months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. I have noticed quite a lot of inappropriate forum chatter at the ref desks, and Fram's diff along with others I have seen shows that ref desk regulars often lack judgment about what is an appropriate usage of Wikipedia. It's likely that Medeis is wrong or stubborn on occasions, but the same applies doubled to many of the enthusiastic regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you appear to be ignoring multiple violations of WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look like Guy captured all of the many times many people have raised objections to Medeis's self-appointed refdesk curatorship. I don't think basing a support/oppose on the list of the 30 most recent is so helpful here, since some removals are appropriate. The problem is more visible in the discussions. If you search the refdesk talk archive and administrators' noticeboards archives for something like "medeis + hatting", you'll find an awful lot. I encountered it repeatedly shortly after stumbling across the refdesks 4-5 years ago. My frustration with not just Medeis's hatting but her persistent dismissal of objections is one of the reasons I couldn't bring myself to put my time there. Though, to be fair, it's less of a problem than the tendency of a couple other users to either answer every possible question with an inane response or to use the refdesks as a joke-around-with-friends social networking site. ...And that's why I wouldn't support a straight topic ban for the reference desks, since Medeis's responses to questions deemed acceptable are not the problem. Disclosure: I became involved in a couple of the threads from a few years ago and started this one (already linked above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I being overly sensitive?

I'm editing with others in a tv article, The Gifted (TV series). While it seems kinda piddling, one of the actors in the series is Asian. The character this Asian portrays is a (lavender) Caucasian in the comic book from whence the series is derived. The last time the same comic book character was portrayed was also Asian.
The problem started when a quote was used by a contributor was parsed to suggest that the series actor was cast because she was the same race that the film actor was. The larger body of the quote is pretty clear in that opening opportunities for Asians in Hollywood allowed both the chance, not 'she was cast because the person prior to her was the same race, too.' While Whitewashing in film is a very real thing - something that the actor being quoted is very vocal about, she credits the presence of other Asians in both tv and film media with the chance for both herself and the previous actor to be cast.
The crossroads is that the few editors arriving at the RfC seem to want to portray the showrunners as racist goons inserting one Asian for another, thinking no one will know the difference.
I decided to come here to ask for a few more editors with exposure to these sorts of problems of race and parsing interpretation to come visit the article and offer insight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me to be to be accidental prejudice. There's a song somewhere that goes "Everyone's a little bit racist..."

It isn't serious, but maybe comment that this might cause offence and revert it. Thanks for bringing this up. If this downspirals into an edit war, mention it here and I will take full responsibility for the idea that started it. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible FL error?

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

---

Does anyone know why List of awards and nominations received by Zara Larsson has the FL star on the article although it was never nominated for FL? It was just created today and was never nominated for FL. Is this a mistake and if so how can it be corrected? Jith12 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that the editor grabbed an existing article as a "template", which happened to be a featured list, and didn't know to remove it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was cut-and-pasted from Zara Larsson. I don't know why the FL-status, but I'll take it as an error or a mistake by the editor who created the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Zara Larsson is on my watch list so I saw the copy and paste. That is how I found out about this new article. How do we remove the star though? After a brief read, I don't think it is quite ready for FL yet. As far as I know it isn't just a line of code that you can remove to remove the star. Jith12 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Removed. It's just a case of getting rid of {{featured list}}. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Duplicate simultaneous RFC

• September 9: An RFC was opened[182] at Talk:Plimpton 322.
• October 9: That RFC expired,[183] but has not been closed yet.
• October 18: A second RFC on the same issue was opened on the same page by another user.[184]

I request any uninvolved individual immediately place a procedural close the new duplicate RFC.

It would be beneficial, but not immediately essential, to evaluate consensus on the issue for a full closure. Alsee (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)