Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an no admin backlog }} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to

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,

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

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

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if

Non-admins can close most discussions.

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

• 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

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 June 2025) The subsection "Indef proposal" has been open for 13 days, and there have been no new comments there in the last five days. Would be nice if that subthread is closed now by an uninvolved admin. Kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thread has since been archived, idk the convention here whether someone can fish it out to close or whether it gets assigned to history Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a consensus there as far as I can see. If people want I can fish it out of the archive and then re-close it as no consensus, but that seems a bit pointless. FOARP (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring suspected meatpuppets (BlackVulcanX, Koriodan, and an IP) and targets of the proposal, it's 17-5 in favour of an indef for BMWF Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the editors have edited since, so if admins want to remove this from here they can, I just don't want them to come back to troll anyone Kowal2701 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have mostly calmed down now. Strangely, the suspected IP of this case returned after 3 weeks, just to vote on the Veilguard RfCs, one with no comments for 30 days and the other for a week. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 23 days ago on 11 June 2025) There's a few proposals to close Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 91 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 91 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 86 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a

(Initiated 71 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(Initiated 70 days ago on 26 April 2025) Expired RfC with no comments in over a month and fairly light involvement to start with. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 6 May 2025) - No one has posted to the thread in nearly a month. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you!

(Initiated 46 days ago on 20 May 2025) Third of a three part RfC; last !vote was on 31 May 2025. (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 46 days ago on 20 May 2025) Second of a three part RfC; bulk of the discussion occurred in May but there were 2 !votes in June (last one on 11 June 2025). (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that I said I was working on this. I'll try to finish it this weekend; sorry. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 29 May 2025) Please and thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 1 June 2025) - There was a decent amount of discussion but the last !vote was seven days ago, and the interest has slowed down. Seems like a fairly straightforward close. (2405:6E00:2800:64CB:497:C7FF:FEB3:A82F (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• C Waiting for topic to be archived as any other !votes prior to closing would be beneficial to strengthen or weaken consensus. No objections to another editor closing before then. Will otherwise do it once archived, feel free to ping me then. CNC (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 116 days ago on 11 March 2025) No activity since late March, although the template wasn't properly transcluded, meaning it wasn't listed with other RfCs. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Working GoldRomean (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 63 days ago on 3 May 2025) Almost 2 months now. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Done}} —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undid. I am sure we deserve better than a supervote by a non-admin. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 9 May 2025) Initiated nearly 2 months ago, relisted once (May 17). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Toadspike [Talk] 15:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 24 June 2025) – Please relist or review this move discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 104 days ago on 23 March 2025) No comments since May 14. Issue affects many articles about Indian dams. Joe vom Titan (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 June 2025) A rough consensus seems to have emerged here, but it could use a close with a quick summary for ease of future reference and for allowing the result to be actioned. Sdkb ^talk 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 23 days ago on 12 June 2025) – This time waste has gone on long enough and seems to be meandering all over the place. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CONTEXT - I had this idea while reading comments about AE from admins working in this area some time ago. Thankfully I don't really know how AE is working these days. This may or may not be relevant today.

IDEA - Give admins AE powers akin to Arbitration clerks. Specifically, create an admin-only section on each AE case's talk page. Informally, call this the "echo chamber". If any admin believes comments by an party are largely a regurgitation of their past arguments, authorize that admin to simply move the comment to the echo chamber. Any admin who does this may not close the case file. Combatants upset that their comments were relocated should be taught that complaints will only be tolerated for gross errors in judgment by the admin who relocated their comment. Be quite free to hand out short blocks for minor wails. There will be some pain, but eventually constructive collaborators will figure it out and drama addicts will more easily accrue longer blocks.

Meanwhile, allow other admins to close the proceeding based only on the lean mean case file, with no obligation to even look at the echo chamber. They may, and may cite material found there, but would not be obligated to even review it. This way the complaint would be reduced to the new stuff. This could make reviewing the material less daunting, and could inspire more admin service in this area.

Maybe I'm not seeing the alligators or am being wishfully naive. But after wading through some old history I'm thinking to myself "OMG, this is how it works? That's nuts!" Maybe we could make it better by putting a cork in argumentation regurgitation.

NewsAndEventsGuy, initiatives like this are really nice and encouraged. If you could make your proposal slightly more streamlined, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is probably the better venue for this. Alex Shih (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah OK... I figured the intended audience (admins who might be recruited) were more likely to see it here, but sure, will do. Please hat this one.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:VPIL has an atmosphere more oriented towards that. Sounds like you have a promising idea. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Super, I will sit on it a few days while it simmers anyway. I will ask for hatting here when I return to add a pointer diff.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• (Non-administrator comment) Although I do believe that AE pages are hard to decipher and certainly needs improvement, the suggestion for issuing blocks over minor issues such as those listed above, makes me to think that this "echo chamber" should rather be called "massacre chamber" or "killing Chamber" for obvious reasons.
  WP:BLOCK doesn't work like that.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Curiously, do any of you admins put Wikipedia in the volunteer work of your résumé? Spellcast (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm applying for jobs teaching ESL students, I usually stick something put "Editor on Wikipedia (2006 to present)" in there, with a short description that mentions either "resolved disputes," "taught new users," or "collaborated with others from around the world." If a job might have a copyediting role, "performed research and edited articles." If I ever grab

Mom-and-pop operation run by folks who would assume that anything with the title "administrator" must be technologically advanced. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah the only downside I can see is if you think it'll make you seem picky or too technical compared to the job in question. In those cases, you wouldn't add it. Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've only applied for one job since I've been a Wikipedia editor. I don't often change jobs, so my resume does not often need updating. --Jayron32 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed some of you have enough time left over for paid work. Or do you earn rent money in your free time, when you can get away from Wiki?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I've had the buttons for 10 years, it's not something I've ever bothered including yet. It can't hurt to add it though. Obviously it's no big deal to us but from the employer's view, it's easy to see how something like "Current administrator on Wikipedia (world's 5th most popular website)" sounds more fancy than it really is. Spellcast (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's funny thinking of all the ways you can spin admin work to sound like a bigger deal than it is in interviews. This is inspired by a Reddit thread which asked to explain your job in a way that sounds shady. But here, I make what's leisurely to us in our spare time sound like 'hard work' to someone else:

• Closing AFDs - "Oh yeah I listen to community debates (sometimes heated!) and serve as a judge who makes the final decision in determining what entries are appropriate for the public to read on our encyclopedia. I could hear as many as 5 cases a day!"
• Blocking - "I do the thankless task of stopping vandals who maliciously deface or remove content from our articles that thousands of readers will never see."
• Protecting articles temporarily (this takes 2 seconds and you may never look at the page ever again) - "I facilitate and encourage editors who have a content dispute to mediate and resolve their differences amicably. Disputes often take a few days or even several weeks to resolve."

Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes--I cite it as community service, and aspects of it fall under professional work. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Other activities/Extra-curricular activities/Passion": yes, I put it. --Titodutta (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If you put Wikipedia on your resume, the only thing would happen is that your boss will keep an eye on your monitor to make sure that you are not spending work time on Wikipedia, lol 😁 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It depends what aspects of your Wikipedia work are relevant to your (desired) job. GAB^gab 22:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I describe my technical work here in a resume section, which is generally well-received. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends on the resume, on my CV I include it along with other volunteering. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My problem is that I have been self-employed for 25 years. I constantly tell my boss (myself) that my Wikipedia editing is very, very important and I think that I am convincing him. Next, I am asking for a raise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have included it together with hobbies/interests. I think it is relevant to some qualities expected by employers, such as interpersonal skills. I have found that people outside Wikipedia often think "administrator" means something like System administrator. Hut 8.5 08:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not have any résumé, since my job is permanent, and I am likely to stay where I am until I retire, but I mention it for my bi-annual evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I do put it on my (academic) curriculum vitae but it's a single line somewhere in the middle of 22 pages of other stuff and I don't know that anyone who would have a reason for looking at the cv would be likely to notice or care that it's there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have it as a single line among the volunteer experiences too. I don't think I have ever mentioned it in a job/interview setting(s) though. Alex Shih (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• So long as you're not then unwittingly hired as a
  WP:PAID editor. (Vague memories of the story of a French admin who had to resign the bit a few years ago to avoid coercion). Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It's not something that's even ever crossed my mind to do. I think it would actively repel employers in my field. Fish+Karate 12:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I might mention it as a hobby, but resumes in my area a pretty dry; plus, as far as I can see most people don't know how Wikipedia happens. My work colleagues are aware that I'm some sort of dungeon-master here. The younger people (I'm one of two mamils in the legals team) for whom Wikipedia has pretty much always been around are somewhat intrigued. I explain the way WP works with the example of Portrait of Paulette Jourdain. One Saturday morning I was eating my breakfast banh mi - I'm pretty much a vegetarian on weekdays - when I came across this. Recognising the picture (from the days when I would be in the Glenorchy library reading art history books, instead doing something constructive like breaking windows or shoplifting like any other normal Tasmanian child) I went to you-know-where to find out more about it. No article! I explain how what was needed to create it is coverage in reliable sources - there is not so much online in this case but there would be extensive offline sources - how articles are referenced and so on; how you can see how it was built up over in the article history and that there would be assessments and discussion on the talkpage. "And by that Saturday evening, there it was. One of the criticisms of Modigliani's later work is that they're not really portraits but caricatures painted while he was out of his noggin on absinthe and hashish. Well, as you can see from the NYT references, this "caricature" sold at auction in 2015 for [Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies voice] forty-two point eight million dollars." Almost always, the response is, "that's an awful lot of absinthe/hashish." Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shirt58: Could you possibly give more details about your workplace for the benefit of this thread? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely no. The government department I work for has very strict policies about social media posts, and I must adhere to them.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when has Wikipedia been social media? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Around about 2007 or 2008, maybe as early as 2004. It depends who you ask. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's all about what job you are after. It's definitely a valid listing for the category of hobbies. But I've seen people put World of Warcraft team positions on their resume because they wanted to show their familiarity with strategy development. You want to show experience with mediation? Why not put your ArbCom position on there. You want to show experience with information management ? Why not put your WikiData experience on there. It can also matter a lot if it is your first job, when you have little professional experience any volunteer experience will help you get some extra credit compared to that random other person with 0 experience being considered for a position. A big thing with a resume is that you need to stand out compared to the other resumes in order to survive the first culling. Better to be a bit unusual or quirky sometimes than generic and immediately land on the discard pile. I've always adapted the section of my resume with these kinds of volunteer and/or soft skills to the employer to which i'm sending it. Read what they are after, strike the right tone and make it interesting enough that they will actually take the time to read your cover letter. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I included it under volunteer work. Since I'm an admin here (and not on my native language wiki), I think it adds some credence to my claim that my English is much good Regards SoWhy 13:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh yes, my resume clearly states that I am the fourth-ranked Wikipedia editor worldwide, that I trained archivists of the Smithsonian Institution in presenting materials through Wikimedia interfaces, that I was selected to make a presentation at one of Wikimedia's annual international conferences, and that I established and maintained the U.S. Courts and Judges WikiProject, improving breadth and depth of coverage of all state and federal tribunals in the U.S., and of U.S. federal judges and state supreme court justices. bd2412 T 13:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting thread. I work in academia where I find a lot of negative attitudes about Wikipedia. When I mention that I volunteer my time here, reactions range from curiosity to revulsion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I am in academia as well, usually I get positive responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I do as well, also under "volunteer work". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I put my admin rights under technical abilities. As an academic librarian, it's a plus for me (see WP:GLAM), although if I were in most fields, I can imagine it being largely irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this isn't the place for it, but after making an

16 articles in the category as of now, but still needs attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back down to normal levels (1). Sorry for getting a bit behind, started a new job a fortnight ago and it's been a little crazy. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the backlog! The category isn't your personal responsibility and there should be enough active admins to prevent one person's dip in activity from causing a huge spike. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 70, but we all know that there's a difference between "actively patrolling" and "I'll do it if someone asks" ;-) Primefac (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do a fair number of RD in connection with copyrighted patrol but I confess I've only occasionally checked out that category and usually found it close to empty, so it isn't really on my radar. I see that it is in the {{Admin dashboard}} but not in the table of immediate requests. Should it be added?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding Yes, Please add it in the immediate request. Even I had to make such requests and then due to the delay, had to post on an admins talk page to get this handled. A speedy reply to requests in this category are expected. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible idea I think. I have added RD1 backlog to the immediate requests section in the admin dashboard ([1]). How does it look? Alex Shih (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it intentional that the category is not linked from Wikipedia:Revision deletion? (Or at least, if it is, I could not easily find a link).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I am coming here to discuss the possible unblocking of MaranoFan. They have lodged this request through UTRS.

They were blocked back in October 2016 by Bbb23 as a CheckUser block and then had the block settings changed by Floquenbeam. They have said that they were blocked for having an alternative account, User:MaranoBoy. They have said that this was meant as an alternative account for when they edit from public computers, and, in fairness, it looks like they did at least try to redirect the user page at some point. This is the unblock request that they have made to UTRS:

"I believe I should be unblocked because I've had enough time to realize how my actions violated Wikipedia's community guidelines. I assure you that it will never ever happen again when I get this account unblocked. Its been 6 months since my last sockpuppet was blocked, thus making me eligible for a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Administrators who declined my previous unblock requests cited this policy, hope I am welcomed back now as an act of good faith. This block feels punitive and not preventative at this point"

"There is a block currently affecting me due to sockpuppetry. I do not believe it was unjustified at the time but it has literally been two years since this account was blocked (and six months since I last evaded my block). I had a chance to realize my mistakes and a chance to realize what a privilege it is to get to edit Wikipedia. Its a very loved hobby of mine and I will never take it for granted once I'm unblocked. Hope the community will unblock me (as part of our own policy of good faith) because I've demonstrated my passion for it time and again."

"I would definitely like you to consider how keeping me blocked is doing the community a lot of harm (and no good). Once my account is unblocked, I will never make a sock again. But Wikipedia will gain a wonderful contributor (one who worked on so many good articles, and did you know? submissions). Its in my as well as the community's best interest to give me a second chance. Please let me have the standard offer now"

I have asked them to explain, in their own words, what led them to commit sockpuppetry before, why this was wrong and what they will do to prevent this in the future. I got this response:

"The account which I was blocked for User:MaranoBoy was intended as an alternative account for use on public computers. [2] I guess it did not comply with Wikipedia policies somehow and Floquenbeam indefinitely blocked me for abusing multiple accounts (I literally had always made it known that this is my alternative account, I don't think I ever abused it to pretend its a different user), and my talk page access was also pulled. I didn't realize that I can still contact admins through UTRS and felt like I was blackballed from Wikipedia forever, this did lead to me making some actual sockpuppet accounts. (Which did violate community guidelines but I didn't use them to vandalize. Look at the difference in this article before I worked on it and the current revision. Since I love Wikipedia so much, I finally mustered up the restraint to not violate my block for six months so I can come back with my dignity. I assure you that sockpuppetry is definitely not a mistake I will repeat in the future, hence me working so hard to get this account back. I have always had good faith and intentions with regard to the content that I actually edit on Wikipedia, even though I made mistakes along the way."

• Need more info. There's an exchange on
  legitimate alt, based on their explanation. From what I see on-wiki I would support unblocking, but I'd like to hear from the checkuser first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support unblock. This, as the user provided, shows they do have the ability to contribute positively. Happy to give them a chance.
  WP:ROPE and all that. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Ivanvector: There has been a checkuser check by Ponyo, see just above. Fish+Karate 13:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should've been more specific: I'd like to hear from Bbb23 regarding the original incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector I have received a response from MaranoFan which I think is in relation at least in part to what you have mentioned above:

"Hi, I have a feeling this encounter will come up during discussion. The "private information" that is being talked about is my bipolar disorder. I didn't want to reveal it if not necessary but the situation requires it here. I'd often have mood swings (due to being bipolar) and go on script-enforced wikibreaks, thus the alternate account also served as a safety net for me to be able to ask a reversal of it."--5 albert square (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, 5 albert square. MaranoFan's description of the events leading up to the block leaves a whole lot out. Including:

• A long, long, long history of feuding with others
• A lot more sockpuppets than MaranoBoy, *not* just the obvious "MaranoXXX"-named ones, but others used on the same articles at the same time as MF (I've struck this one portion, because that particular allegation was made for 2 accounts, but never proven --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)), and used to continue to argue with the people he was feuding with using the MF account[reply]
• Wildly over-the-top, irrational, blame-everyone-but-myself behavior after the block
• Homophobic comment on their talk page while blocked, leading to revdel of an edit summary and talk page revocation by me

I also think we need to discount admissions of error when they're just the generic, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear variety like "I have learned from what I did wrong and won't do it again". And it isn't a good sign when they claim with a straight face that the only thing they did wrong leading to the original block was to have a legitimate alternate account. If you're going to consider unblocking, I'd put a whole bunch of restrictions on it, along the lines of:

• An actual description of what he did wrong, so there is some reason to believe this time will be different
• One-way interaction bans with everyone he fought with previously
• 1RR restriction
• no alternate accounts, "legit" or otherwise
• Explicitly acknowledging that good faith and rope and last chances will be all used up. This would not be an unblock to resume previous behavior, it would be an unblock to enable them to act 100% completely differently. Any resumption of unhinged behavior will lead to reinstating the block with little to no discussion first.

I'd still be disinclined to unblock, but if people decide they want to, these restrictions seem like the absolute minimum to give this even a chance of working. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, though, it probably makes sense to restore talk page access so they can respond to questions raised here. I'll go do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. I've worked with MaranoFan on the Adele songs and consider their contributions very valuable. In terms of the disputes, the warring was usually from a tag-team/meatpuppet team that did no research but instead were AfDing everything by Adele without cause. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock principally for the reasons Floq mentioned. The idea of unblocking someone with that many restrictions, all of which would have to be enforced, makes no sense. Nor does the project need to take into account the user's mental disorder.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock only with one-account restriction - I'm not exactly disagreeing with anyone who's opposed an unblock here. I would like to think that Wikipedia can be sensitive and accommodating to people with health issues, as long as they are able to manage those issues themselves so as not to become disruptive. If MaranoFan wants to use these scripts to manage their own bipolar episodes (I'm sorry if this is not the right term) then I think that's fine; I'm not sure how well they've managed in the past but I'll take Softlavender's word for it that they can be productive. But no alternate accounts: if you need someone to undo the script when you're ready to edit again, use UTRS, or email an admin (I guess you'll have to email an interface admin these days). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock - per
  WP:ER/UC, like we did with UpsandDowns. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. 5 albert square says it better than I could, but in short, at this point, I feel like they wouldn't disrupt the wiki if they were unblocked, which is the whole point of any block, and that they would instead help improve the encyclopedia. It's been many months since they've caused any disruption or performed sockpuppetry, and they've shown that they can edit constructively - let's give them another chance.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "I have always had good faith and intentions with regard to the content that I actually edit on Wikipedia, even though I made mistakes along the way." If that is how you display the assumption of good faith, then we really don't need it.

"since the alleged feuds": Use of "alleged" is underestimation and misleading.

The unblock is not convincing and failure to compromise with the proposed restrictions seems to be telling that MaranoFan is going to continue their behavior for which they were blocked. GenuineArt (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from MaranoFan on his talk page copied below:--5 albert square (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GenuineArt:: I apologize for not being able to word myself correctly in my previous response. I want to use less buzz words like "swear" and "promise" and demonstrate my changed conduct with my behaviour. Being off Wikipedia for so long made me forget how these requests should be worded. I just want people to know what a tremendous loss keeping me blocked is doing. I used the word "alleged" with regard to my feuds because they were being projected as a one-sided thing by my blocking admin when the two users I had a feud with did malicious things to me like Want my good articles delisted, nominated articles I created for deletion etc. to provoke me. However, the time I spent blocked gave me enough time to realize how I contributed in the occurrence of those situations and how I can better avoid it in the future. I'm highly apologetic about the past and do not wish to continue on that same path. And when it comes to sockpuppetry (Which was the only reason provided when I was being blocked), It was actually a failed attempt at a legitimate account and the real sockpuppets came after a permanent block (It was highly disruptive on my part and I won't repeat it.) I just don't know what else to say anymore, I'm responsible for almost every good article listed here as well as the creation of the Wikiproject. Just please give me enough WP:ROPE to prove that I'm a changed person through my behaviour after being unblocked. I wanted to give you more insight into the situation, its totally your choice if you still want to vote to keep me blocked :/. Link to discussion--MaranoFan (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a one-account restriction (and I don't think we need more restrictions than that - she knows what the deal is). It's been nearly two years and it sounds like MaranoFan has used some of that time for reflection, and I'm big on giving well-meaning people fresh chances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock per long history of socking, deceit, and overreactions as well as everything Floquenbeam stated. This user has already been given multiple chances in the past and abused them. I'm very pessimistic things will be any better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS You have a response that I have copied from MaranoFan's talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think me creating dupe accounts should be considered as being given second chances by Wikipedia. This is the first time a discussion is being had to get me unblocked in the last two years. Its really not a foreign concept that a 15 year old matures a lot when she turns 17. When I say i have changed and do not want to feud with anyone or make sock-puppets, I mean it and words are the only way I can demonstrate it now under this infinite block. Wikipedia has its own pages describing this situation in forms of
    wikiproject completely died when I was kicked out.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

By chances, I was referring to how you'd promise to stop certain bad behaviors only to resume them later on, and your history of sockpuppetry makes me even less inclined to trust you. I simply can't trust you after all that no matter how much time has passed. What you've said is too little and too late to change my mind here. Your bad history unfortunately outweighs your good on this site. Saying I reviewed "countless" good articles you worked on is blatantly exaggerating and you know it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am fairly neutral about MaranoFan, having observed from a distance a number of things go down. Since I was very brief up above, I'd like to elaborate a little: (1) I do not believe she started out being a battleground-y editor. There were several editors (who shall go nameless) that were relentlessly pursuing her and her contributions, and since they were far older and far more experienced they knew how to wiki-lawyer and meatpuppet their way to success while bullying her. By the end they pretty much knew how to push her buttons to get her to act out. (2) As many of us know, she has contributed fine work and valuable articles and edits. (3) Although I know Wikipedia isn't therapy, I feel bad depriving someone who so sincerely wants to contribute to Wikipedia in the area of her expertise, and it's been two long years since she was blocked. (4) I really really hate sockpuppeting, and I'm astonished when good editors do it, but part of it seems to be a maturity thing, and when someone is upfront and admits that yes they were sockpuppeting, even yet again, I feel better about it than when they twist themselves into a pretzel in denial and then still get found out (I'm thinking of one good music-article contributor who shall go nameless). I didn't know MaranoFan was only 15 or less then but that does explain the maturity part. She's now a young adult. (5) It seems to me she just wants to quietly do articles related to Meghan Trainor, and contribute to the encyclopedia. (6) I'm with Fish+Karate: I see no harm in giving her one last chance, as a young adult, to fulfill her desire to contribute her knowledge to the encyclopedia. She knows it's her last chance. If she blows it, she's out. Not too hard to grasp, and not too much of a risk to take, considering she has grown two years by now. I think it's a risk worth taking. That's my personal take, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I've copied this from MB's talk page; if someone could keep an eye on their page and transfer anything else that would be appropriate, that would be great, as my participation is unreliable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deflecting some of the talking points being used to keep me blocked

• I might have a "history of feuding" with people (who feuded with me equally), but they were never blocked at all and are editing for two years with no problem. The block I got was for sockpuppetry, not for this. The standard offer exists for a reason and the 2 years that have gone by since the respective feud has made me get over it. None of the accounts I violated my ban with interacted with those users either and I don't plan on doing it now
• Yes, I had sockpuppets. I did go six months with no sock activity to demonstrate how I'm a changed person. Again, the standard offer exists for a reason.
• Excessively reverting wasn't the reason I got blocked, and I don't have a problem with that in general. No idea why a user is saying I need a 1RR restriction.
• I'm not gonna interact with any of the users I "feuded" with, again I didn't with any sock accounts and I won't with this one. I'm over it.

I was responsible for at least 3 good articles, 3 successful DYK submissions and had more GAs in the work. Its unfair to deny me a second chance when its been two years since the alleged feuds. (I simply just want to return and work on Meghan Trainor articles, I do not come to Wikipedia to make friends or enemies).--MaranoFan (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy this to AN

Hello all,

If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

• Proposed changes to how
  logging of blocks happens is being discussed now
  .

• The third set of designs for a new layout of Special:Block are also available for
  review and comment
  .

Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please undelete

I've parked it in User:TenPoundHammer/Urban Retail Properties for the minute; if I put it back in mainspace somebody may repeat the speedy, and then we'd be wheel-warring. Userfication pending improvement gives us more time to look at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I would like to report a disruptive user, that being User:Jhartmann

He began to undo edits that I had made to the pages Communist symbolism and Anarchist symbolism with his explanation being that I was, quote, "promoting Leninism". I undid these edits because this claim was absurd, and he undid my edits and claimed that I was a random internet user named "rennschnizzel" that I had never heard of up until this point. I decided not to undo his edit for fear of starting an edit war, so I went to his talk page to discuss whatever issues he may have had. He responded by calling me a "Lunatic", "Maoist", and telling me to "fuck off".

It's obvious to me that this user is not mature enough to contribute to Wikipedia without personal or political bias. I would greatly appreciate if this user could be dealt with in whatever manner is deemed appropriate. --

I'm not sure if that's a sickle or a

π, ν) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, if there are no notable organizations that use this symbol, then it certainly does not belong. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When i created and tried to publish, i got an error message saying that the word ஓசை is black listed or not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazhippokkan123 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the English Wikipedia should be titled as they would be referred to in English-language sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media

m:Wikimedia Forum#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media

Some adjustments will need to be made to templates, pages and bots. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove some userrights

User:In ictu oculi has had some troubling editing issues recently, which for me have undermined the confidence in their edits sufficiently to propose the removal of some userrights, i.e. "pending changes reviewer", "autopatrolled", and "new page reviewer". I don't think "extended confirmed" is a problem, and "page mover" is not really related to my concerns.

On 5 September, I deleted an article they had recently created as a copyright violation[7]. It turned out to be an unattributed copy-paste from another enwiki article, a problem they had been warned about twice in 2017 as well by User:Diannaa.

Then their article

Tal Vez (Marta Sánchez song)

was nominated for deletion. This article was created by In ictu oculi with only one, unreliable source (a Russian tribute page for an artist), and when researching the subject, it looked to me as if most of the contents of the article were completely wrong (as in, claiming that it is a single which reached #7 on the US Latin chart when it wasn't ever a regular single in the first place, only a very limited promo release). Okay, errors can be made, but what happened then meant that I lost all trust in In ictu oculi to use these user rights.

They opposed deletion of the article because it "is confirmed by es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez", questioned "what Spanish-language 90's chart books did you consult?" without having consulted any themselves (at creation or now), and added a totally unreliable source to the article and quoted it in the AfD to support the keeping of the article ([8] added a link to Prezi, a site of user-generated slideshows, which in this case used a machine translated version of our own article on Marta Sanchez, making it doubly unreliable).

An editor who creates an article based on unreliable sources, supports retention of such an article because it is supported by another Wikipedia language, and uncritically adds another totally unreliable source to defend the article (and at the same time ignores the evidence presented in the AfD that the information really is completely false), and just last week failed to adhere to our basic attribution standards), is not someone who can in good faith be trusted to patrol new articles and check for copyvios, sourcing problems, hoaxes, ...

Fram (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Autoreviewer should obviously be revoked from someone who creates unattributed copy paste articles, or thinks that an es (or any) wikipedia page "verifies" something in an article. Many of their articles (example) seem non-notable. So support removal of autoreviewer as their articles need patrolling for notability verifiability etc, and new page reviewer on the same basis, not that per logs they have used the right much (and pending changes reviewer too I suppose). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyone, I ask for some consideration that we all make mistakes, I do not create unattributed copy paste articles, nor indeed copy-paste break out articles, and no I do not think that Spanish wikipedia is a reliable source:

Yes (1) Around 1 September 2018 I created a break out article for The Cathedral (Honchar novel) and including two sentences from the author article into the book article without sufficiently re-wording it, re-editing it. Yes guilty. I left my PC and didn't come back in time.

Yes (2) On 2 December 2016‎ I created an article on a Spanish song including the chart information from es:Discografía_de_Marta_Sánchez#Sencillos in good faith I believe, but yes it may be that the Spanish discography is incorrect. I have apologized already for defending the article at AfD, pressed to find evidence to support what was evident in Spanish wikipedia I did not have time to do a proper job, and in addition I was feeling somewhat flustered by the approach taken. But these are two edits. The edits as far back as 2017 I'd have to investigate but habitually I do not copy-paste break articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Oppose. To be fair, they apologised for the copyvio and gave a reasonable explanation for why it was an honest mistake. Having several AfD nominations on their talk page is potentially a red flag as far as autopatrolled is concerned, but considering they've created over 8,000 articles, their 'error rate' is actually minuscule. I don't think adding ~20 pages a week to the NPP queue for the sake of catching these odd mistakes would be a net benefit to the project. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 or two sentence stubs or dabs take very little time to patrol (and something like 60% of their creations are dabs and the remaining are stubs), and a good portion of the actual articles they create don't seem notable and/or need redirecting. Overall I think patrolling wold be a benefit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I'm not saying NPP would buckle under the pressure, it just seems like IIO is a conscientious editor overall and this is an overreaction to a small number of mistakes. Notability being somewhat subjective, I'd want to see some of those articles actually go through AfD and be deleted, before agreeing that they were grounds for them losing autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These are kind of old mistakes. I hesitate to do more than give a strong warning for an article created in 2016. I'm not saying give a free pass, but this isn't an ongoing issue that I can see, and considering the total volume of edits, it is a small error percentage. I would say In ictu oculi needs to be on notice as this is exactly the kind of mistakes that can lead to a loss of bits, not as a sanction, but as protection for the encyclopedia. You really need to pay better attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Accepted, sorry. Particularly as I can read Spanish so could and should have not taken the es.wikipedia numbers as gospel. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dennis, if the problem was just the 2016 creation, I wouldn't have been here as well. However, their edits at the AfD and at the article from this week are what caused the request. If the reaction had been an "oops, no idea what I did there, seems rather stupid in hindsight", then nothing further would have happened. But when the reaction to a poor creation is to make things worse (by defending the veracity of the article and adding another unreliable source to support it), then it doesn't seem as if any one-off error is the cause of the problem, but an underlying and continuing lack of care or knowledge about what constitutes reliability, how to check sources, and so on. Doesn't mean that a warning may not be sufficient this time, but it is not al "old mistake", it is a current one.
    Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I oversimplifed in my reply for the sake of brevity, but I understand your point. I think their attitude now, after their recent problematic edits, on the old article, are enough that I think they get the point. In ictu oculi has been around a while, which means they should know how things work but they are still human and screw up. Since they are not being defiant and are accepting responsibility, I think the warning is still the best solution. If this becomes a pattern, then that is a different situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal of PCR, this is primarily an antivandlism tool and there are no indications that it has been abused. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a warning (they already even get that now) will suffice here as they really understand the problem. I am perturbed on the fact that they understand Spanish and went ahead to copy unverified info from eswiki, it's serious issue of course, but they tendered a sincere apology on that and have been good all this while; so what else can we do. In all I don't see a recurring pattern that may warrant removal of all these rights. –Ammarpad (talk)
• Oppose removal per Joe. Anyone creating content prolifically will eventually make a small mistake or two. That aside, copyright paranoia should be avoided. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this issue is more about In ictu oculi's activities around page titling and moves than anything. As I said in the ANI discussion last year, In ictu does have something of a pattern of creating stubs or making edits to justify moving another article that has the same title. In most cases, this is perfectly fine, but in a number of cases, the stubs he creates are poorly cited, contain copyvio, or are just plain wrong. Here are a few I've noticed from the last several years:

• July 2014: In ictu repeatedly introduced changes stating that the album Best & USA was titled "Best II", initially with no sources,[9][10] then with questionable sources.[11] This was to justify their RM of the "Best II" dab page to Best II.[12] They argued about it on talk, citing the Korean Wikipedia article. As it turned out, the album was not called "Best II", but one of its two discs was released under that name.
• March 2016: In ictu created a stub at
  Misfortune (Chekhov story).[13] This was to justify their RM to move the "Misfortune" dab page to Misfortune.[14] Having read the story, I knew that it's known as A Misfortune in English, so I moved the article and expanded it with sources.[15] In ictu reverted the move without comment,[16] and did not respond to talk page comments
  .
• November-December 2015, & March 2016: In ictu created an article on a supposed
  technical move to move it back to the demonstrably incorrect title.[20] In the ensuing RM, In ictu acknowledged that the title was wrong and that their objection was tied only to wanting to see the Toil article moved.[21]
• January 2017: In ictu moved
  At Christmas (James Taylor album).[22] This was to justify moving At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album).[23] In ictu did not respond to questions.[24]
• December 2016 & September 2018: In ictu created
  Tal Vez (song) by Ricky Martin.[25] They expanded the former with more unreliable sources[26] amid an RM to move the latter[27]
• September 2018: In ictu created The Cathedral (Honchar novel) with copyright violations[28] to justify moving The Cathedral (novel) to The Cathedral (Huysmans novel).[29] I didn't look but I imagine the earlier copyvios were also tied to moves of other articles.
  

All this is to say that, in my opinion, the real issue here isn't so much about page creation as it is to article disambiguation and moves. In ictu has strong opinions about titles and has a habit of making stubs and changes to support their preferences, and sometimes these have problems. But while I've been at odds with In ictu, I've never known them to be deliberately misleading or lacking in

WP:COMPETENCE

, just sometimes careless and hard-headed when trying to move articles around.
At this stage, I don't think removal of rights is necessary. I just don't see how it would fix the problem, and it runs the risk of alienating a good editor who already seems to understand what went wrong. In ictu, I'd suggest that you don't focus on disambiguation so much, and be much more careful with the material and articles you add. And if someone brings an issue to you, don't dig your heels in, but step back and seriously consider whether you're wrong. If that sounds doable, I think we can consider the thread closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, okay thank you for that which seems balanced. Really. No, I 100% absolutely shouldn't have had a quick kneejerk reaction on the AfD Spanish song. I was away from desk, quickly went to the Spanish page, didn't pay attention that it was the song above the one under discussion which was sourced (and that the three country entries for the AfD song were unsourced) and I reacted foolishly and quickly assuming that chart info in a Spanish-language singer's discography wouldn't be fake. Wrong, wrong. But regarding creating new articles, as I browse Wikipedia, and including subjects raised by move discussions, I see gaps to be filled and if the "X is" test in books indicates that there are sources I sometimes fill them. I hope that stub tags and expand German/etc tags will encourage other editors to expand, but the nature of neglected subjects is inevitably such that other editors don't, why should they. Having said that I did recognize your comments last year to take more care and have been trying to. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with your responses. Hopefully we can chalk this up to a learning experience and consider the matter closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction logging

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors

Per

Iridescent 16:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Main pages: Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes § Merger proposal, and Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes § Disputing the outcome of the recent merger proposal

This post regards the above discussions linked, and was previously asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but received minimum input, and Radiphus stated that the discussion should initially been posted here. I'm reposting it here, since even though Radiphus contributed to the VPPOL discussion and the dispute raised over it, I became aware that they are continuing their merger per Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes § Requesting opinions regarding the merger.

• The question is: Can major layout changes be implemented to a Featured List based on the consensus of only two supporting editors, with the changes themselves based only on a guideline?

MOS:TVPLOT, the guideline in question, states that for television series' season articles, an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. This is not a policy, and suggests "should not" rather than "cannot". Radiphus proposed a merger proposal of the prose content in each season article to List of Game of Thrones episodes

, the Featured List in question, on the Episode List's talk page. He received the support of two editors, and later deemed this enough to close the merger discussion himself with the result of a consensus rather than waiting for either further opinions or the discussion to be closed by an uninvolved editor.

Should such a discussion have been advertised elsewhere, such as

^TW 06:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As i explained in

WP:MERGECLOSE. - Radiphus (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

How is any of this issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest, not a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator)? Admin's opinions count for no more in a content dispute than those of anyone else. ‑ 

Iridescent 08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe Alex should take the opportunity to request a review of the closure (by stating so in his post) and cease his

forum shopping. - Radiphus (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No advertising was made, it was kept between a tight huddle of a few editors, and the discussion was closed by the opener. That's not in any way a discussion of good faith, it's almost as if it were done deliberately so that their proposal would pass without distraction or dispute... If nobody agreed with my dispute, then that makes it even clearer that barely anybody is watching the talk page (having it on your watchlist isn't the same as paying attention to it), something Radiphus clearly knew (and still does) and took advantage of. The reason I didn't respond to the VPPOL discussion was because I received no ping from the discussion, and thus completely forgot about it; it's only come to my attention again because of the new thread for the continuation of this "merger". (Nor does the editor seem to understand his false accusations of "forum shopping".) --

^TW 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As for this discussion, it's both a request to review the closure as detailed at

^TW 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I acknowledge your personal attack with accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, but i will

ignore it as i have already expressed my feelings about you making Wikipedia an ugly environment to work in. - Radiphus (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• MOS is best practice that should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Since no one presented a good reason not to at the merge discussions and the consensus (albeit limited in editor participation) was clear, I cant see any issue with the outcome. Not every discussion needs a formal close by an uninvolved editor. And the definition of contentious is not 'I don't like it'. If you want to challenge the close, challenge the close. But closure challenges are not a forum for relitigating. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Article

I would like my userpage to be created. User:69.130.153.83 69.130.153.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless for a dynamic address, or a vandal. It's not going to happen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you want a user page, register. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all y'all should be more welcoming. Hey, IP, I suggest you start by pasting this code on your user page. All the cool kids have it. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So true. (With a salute to Michael Auprince and Arinn Young.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 62-7 victory? You are a triumphalist, Drmies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328, those who know me know I was there during the lean years. These fat years, yeah they feel pretty good. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History merge :: help needed

• See Category:Candidates for history merging :: someone has dropped 31 basketball-related history merge requests on me. Help with them would be appreciated. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh! I haven't done any of those in a while. I'll clear some. :-) Katie^talk 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie and Anthony Appleyard: a lot of these appear not to actually need histmerges because they were created by the same author in draft and/or mainspace, got draftified, and then got recreated by the same person (i.e. attribution is fine). Histmerges in these cases create semi-mangled page histories like at 2018–19 Southland Conference men's basketball season when they aren't required. Redirecting would likely be the best option here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The backlog is back under control. Many didn't require a history merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames etc.

So...just created, none of them with edits, 济南办证电话131-2389-2398微信-济南办毕业证, 福州办证电话131-2389-2398微信-福州办毕业证, 合肥办证电话131-2389-2398微信-合肥办毕业证. Not sure what to make of these names or these accounts. Not sure if there are editors behind them, or even whether to notify them. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the same spambot similar to the one back in January, see [30]. I am not familiar with filters, pinging zzuuzz. Alex Shih (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a handful of them earlier with different numbers - they're obviously just spam usernames. The last attack created something like 1,000 accounts per hour, so I don't think we're in the same ballpark. It's worth keeping an eye on the account creation log though. Filter 895 stands ready. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alex Shih and Drmies: Google Translate translates them into English as "Jinan Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Jinan Office Diploma", "Fuzhou Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Fuzhou Office Diploma". "Hefei Office License 131-2389-2398 WeChat-Hefei Office Diploma". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked at this a bit more, it seems likely that in the past few hours most accounts containing Chinese characters created on this wiki - and there's a definite increase in them - were created by the same entity. There seems to be three solutions: 1) ignore it 2) throw around a lot of huge range blocks, or 3) target the filter at the creation of Chinese usernames. I've done the latter, as a temporary measure. Filter 895 - feel free to disable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the work on this. I applied for blacklist at meta, but probably not going to help much. Alex Shih (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex Shih: the blacklist was updated for this. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had request those spam accounts for global lock. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question — how would we distinguish between the creation of completely new Chinese usernames and the creation of a local username by someone who's already registered it at a different project? After all,

WP:SUL doesn't create an account at every project simultaneously: it creates an account in the global database and automatically creates an account at a wiki if you visit it while logged in, but only when you visit it. I've presumably never visited the Volapük Wikivoyage (if it exists), so I don't think I have an account there; and probably a lot of people who have previously registered Chinese usernames at Chinese-language projects come here later and have accounts created automatically. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nyttend: while not 100% authoritative, looking at Special:CentralAuth/Nyttend (replace with username) is generally useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Xaosflux said. This question however is probably not applicable to the current situation, where they are obviously spam accounts (I am not sure if it's as obvious to non-native Chinese speakers). Alex Shih (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I'm sorry: I wasn't clear in my question. I'm meaning how do we distinguish from a technical perspective? I'm a human, so I can see that it was automatically created (and you're a human sinophone, so you can see that this is a spammy and unrealistic username), but how is a filter supposed to tell the difference? Can the filter read the account creation log and see that it was automatically created for someone from another project or that it was a totally new creation, or can it merely observe that someone took an action that should result in the creation of a new account? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: it may require some testing, but from the abuse filter point of view, autocreateaccount and createaccount are separate values that may be in the (action) variable. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case it's a lot simpler than I had imagined. Thank you for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you can locally utilise (( action == 'createaccount') | (action == 'autocreateaccount' )) in a filter to prevent things. I know that something similar is used at meta to stop things happening at login.WMF; or we can utilise m:title blacklist. First is logged, second is not. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst and Xaosflux: They are now back again with the username telephone numbers "186-7275-9878" when I visited the report for global lock at meta:SRG, have you all added the text into the meta:Title blacklist? SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be suggesting that the ability to block these number patterns is something that can be managed by abuse filters; or if we have a global problem then we should be looking at advanced regex for title blacklist. For an advanced regex, as they are generic, and that can be a problem for file uploads, or possibly random non-encyclopaedic pages, I would think that it should be an RFC type submission on that page that we can at least note to other wikis for their involvement. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SA 13 Bro: as far as 'they are back' - and doing what? Just registering SUL accounts, or making edits? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added '.*186.?7275.?9878.*' to the meta tbl. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging Close of section in RSN

I am challenging the close here: [31]

This should be a very easy challenge. The close did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion and it closed the section shortly after the section was created. It was simply nothing more than a

WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for the purpose of stifling discussion. Not even a citation to any policy was given for the close. How much easier of a challenge to a close can you get? -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks to me like you got the answer you deserved. It's not that you can't challenge the ongoing RfC because the question is not neutrally-worded, but the way you went about it is not appropriate. I might also point out that challenging an RfC that has already attracted so many votes and so much discussion is not going to be greeted with joy by the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the appropriate way if not to seek consensus on a solution? I'm aware that with so many votes and discussion that some people may feel for that reason they do not wish to go through the effort of starting over. But people should make the claim, and if there is consensus on that we can resolve it that way. But an early close (after one other !vote), is not an appropriate close. -Obsidi (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note, I asked at WP:Help desk what is the appropriate way to handle this and the only response I have received so far is I would strike (<del>...</del>) the original request and replace it with a more neutral one, or even close it and open a fresh one if the statement is way off. But these solutions may be controversial, and I’m also very eager to see what other editors recommend. Which, in my opinion, would generate even more controversy than what I did. Is that the appropriate way to handle this instead? I somehow think we would be right back here for a close review... -Obsidi (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidi, the first step in challenging a close is to contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Also note that a request for review at Administrators Noticeboard is supposed to include a link to the discussion with the closing editor. After examining the closer's talk page and the challenge here, it appears that you have done neither. However shutting down your hasty and malformed challenge, to have you go chat with the closer and then re-open this challenge, would be a waste of time.

Regarding the closure: I wouldn't have closed it so quickly, but only because letting a few more rejections pile up there would have been less nuisance than wasting time on it here. It can be difficult to foresee which doomed proposals need a few more opposes piled on for the most efficient and quiet burial. We only kill and restart a heavily-participated in-progress RFC when it is egregiously malformed and result itself is credibly in doubt. I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect you have enough clue to see where community consensus lies on the issue. Any attempt to kill and restart the RFC would be a time-wasting delay of the inevitable. I suggest you voluntarily withdraw the challenge. Otherwise I:

Endorse close as unfortunately swift, but accurate. Alsee (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close it's a perfectly reasonable close of an unreasonable motion. I am going to list the discussion on

π, ν) 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Obsidi, this is the kind of facepalm-worthy obstructionism (both the request to close and invalidate a massive and extensive RfC basically on the grounds that
  you don't like it, and now the challenge of the excellent close of that request) that makes people examine your contribs to see what other kinds of wackiness you might be up to. For instance, you seem to be majorly obsessed with climate-change denial. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The basis was not

WP:IDLI, it was based on policy, specifically that the RfC question should be neutrally worded. Do you disagree that is WP policy? This has nothing to do with climate change at all, neither in the question, nor in the proposal, nor in the close. If you wish to discuss unrelated topics I would be happy to do so, but this is not the proper forum. -Obsidi (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't see it being valid for an involved user to make a separate motion to close an RfC (or any discussion) in their favor, for a procedural reason. The given procedural complaint is not a valid reason to
  boomerang. 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 06:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, at least you finally presented me with a policy based rational. Specifically the last line there. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.. As that is the case, I will withdraw my challenge. I would request that be added to the closing statement for further clarification to those that read the close. -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would note that one of the criteria in

Ending RfCs is The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. Although it doesn't say if that is consensus of the RfC participants or if it means all of the participants. -Obsidi (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to clarify my statement. If it is the consensus here that per policy at

Ending RfCs. If I am mistaken about that (and the consensus here is that an RfC cannot be ended in such a way), all I would ask is that the closing statement cite that policy.-Obsidi (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse close- The motion was obstructionist nonsense, and I commend the closer for acting swiftly and sensibly. Reyk _YO! 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the RfC is non-neutrally worded. Is the descriptive " partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy" inaccurate? Are there exculpatory facts that were not mentioned? I've seen two editors (both with a reputation for not-exactly-moderately-right-wing opinions) complain about this, but no-one has done more than simply assert that the wording is non-neutral.
  Tell me all about it. 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I'll play devils advocate and try to answer your question: I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Furthermore the listing of the RFC, and feedback-request-service advertisement of the RFC, contained that rationale. Non-neutral RFC advertisement constitutes canvassing, and anyone who arrived via advertisement was therefore canvassed. I believe there is particular concern that the RFC says Breitbart "admits to pushing fake news", sourced to an AmericanConservative article using essentially those words in the title. However it does not appear that Brietbart's editor used the words "fake news". It is debatable whether the behavior-admitted-in-that-article is technically "fake news" or whether it's merely grossly-immoral, psychopathic, and utter violation of any standard of journalism. Therefore we need to invalidate the RFC and permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source. (Because if this RFC goes away, my imagination sees a future where no one opens a new RFC on the same question.) Taking off my devil's advocate hat, if this were the standard for invalidating an RFC then half the RFC's I've closed would have been invalid. And when *my* imagination sees a future with no replacement RFC, it involves a rather large asteroid saying hello to the planet. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I want to correct one thing said, my proposal explicitly proposed that "a new RfC with a neutral worded question concerning Breitbart be started." So it is NOT true that under my proposal we would need to "permanently accept Breitbart as a Reliable Source." I would be happy to personally open such a neutrally worded RfC if I was allowed to do so by consensus, specifically the one that was proposed in the discussion: "Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same way as WP:DAILYMAIL?" I agree that resolving a RfC consensus on that question is important. -Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the argument is that the RFC contains a rationale for the proposal, and that makes it biased in favor of one side (regardless of whether the text is true or not). Yeah, that's pretty much what's been said already. I already pointed out that

WP:NPOV

directly contradicts that, too. If one side is supported by policy that doesn't mean admitting it is a POV push.

I also agree with you about the debatability of the source linked, but I think that very debatability cuts both ways: If you can't cite the source as a verified fact, you also can't characterize the bit mentioning it in the question as deceptive, which leads back to

WP:NPOV

again.

All in all, I think it's pretty clear that some editors want Breitbart to be taken seriously (though others merely fear the precedent being set by treating other sources like the Daily Mail), and I think that, right there, is one of the weaknesses of the project.

Tell me all about it. 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Rollback edits by Backendgaming

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other non-pertinent issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 06:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed Paid editing

Here is the link of https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017606e1f806e37476

Needs to hire 10 Freelancers Review and Accept submission of Recording Artist Famoe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Famoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.205.249 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I was also notified on my usertalk) How does it happen that you saw that upwork page; it's apparenty restricted to those with an account. Please email me from my user talk page; or email arb com at [email protected]. In either case your identity will be considered confidential, but I do not like to proceed upon anonymous accusations where I cannot see the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The apparently identical article appears at German Wikipedia and possibly others, if that assists in investigation. I also corrected false song titles, which were modified to include Famoe's name. I consider that a significant indication of promotionalism. Alsee (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit by the account, creating the entire article at once, has the edit summary We just added a Biography & Discograpgy Profile with all links for the Record Artist Famoe that Charted in several Countries. The account is being operated by, or on behalf of, multiple individuals. This is a violation of

WP:SHAREDACCOUNT

policy. I have posted this issue on the account's talk page, but an administrator may want to follow up on this.

They have added a userpage COI notice[32], but no declaration of paid editing. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move against the consensus

Move has been reverted. GiantSnowman 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

An editor moved

Talk:Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)#Requested move 15 September 2018. Please restore the name.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please raise at WP:Move review. GiantSnowman 10:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? If you don't understand the situation, please do not comment here.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was correctly at Typhoon Mangkhut following a closed requested move. It was moved again, against the outcome of the RM discussion. I've moved it back and move-protected the article. Fish+Karate 11:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal to adopt Community Approved General Sanctions for Horn of Africa Articles (Broadly Construed)

In a search through the Admin noticeboard archive the word "Somalia" comes up 106 times, mostly in AN/I and 3RR related pages, which suggests a long term pattern of disruptive editing relating to Somalia. In addition, the phrase "Horn of Africa" specifically comes up 15 times with similar lists to AN/I and 3RR. Many of these reports are from the last 12-18 months, and demonstrate a long term pattern of editorial disagreement punctuated by revert wars, POV accusations, questionable sources, and other issues which have most likely had a long term net negative effect on contributors working in this particular geographic area. In February of this year, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) summarized the problem in an AN/I thread as follows:

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles. There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.

In lew of this and the most recent incidence of Somalia on the AN/I page (here and here), I would put to the community the issue of adopting community approved sanctions mirroring those at

Wikipedia:ARBPIA for the Horn of Africa region (broadly construed). TomStar81 (Talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. This is necessary. Many of the disruptive editing in this topic area are prone to excessive lawyering and frequently done through meatpuppetry. I can support a community approved discretionary sanction in place. Alex Shih (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If the current ANI threads are any indication, the situation is a complete mess; the only involved voice of reason in those threads is Ms Sarah Welch. The rest of them are like squabbling children. Something needs to be done. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Completely justifiable. Simon Adler (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Inquiry is there any way to narrow this slightly?
  π, ν) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    Power~enwiki: This is intended more for geographical and regional culture as well as ongoing conflict related articles, not for sports articles per se, but I could see how they'd get wrapped up in this. For the time being though I prefer to think of "broadly construed" as meaning "where we need it now" with a provision for expansion to other areas should they become problematic in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Is this with or without 1RR? MER-C 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MER-C: I say with 1RR, cause that's whats being used in combination with ARBPIA in most general sanction articles. TomStar81 (Talk)
• Support. It is clear that something needs to be done about long-running abuse of WP guidelines in the project, as the current conditions are not conducive to building an encyclopaedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would there be room to establish modified SPI norms where behavioural evidence is more integral to to the workings of investigations at least within the Somali project? It has been established in previous SPIs that long term vandal of the project Middayexpress/Soupforone, as well as potentially other disruptive editors, have means of evading technical scrutiny. With that in mind could there be stipulations as part of the new sanctions of having it be mandatory (or at least recommended) to review behavioural evidence? --Kzl55 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kzl55: Unfortunately, this is less for editors and more for articles. The idea here is to place the articles under longterm supervision so as to frustrate the efforts of SPI and unproductive editors, who would be unable to take much action to disruptive the articles without ending up blocked for violations of much stricter article enforcement policies. That said, this is going to provide a measure of protection from people like Middayexpress and Soupforone, so a !vote for it is a !vote in the right direction. Trust me on this :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sounds like a plan! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I could see switching to support in the end but want to make sure that we're being judicious with our use of this heavyweight tool. I would love to hear from some more admin who think that existing tools/noticeboards aren't enough to deal with the problems in that area. Even if/when that assurance comes, I'm not sure I can get behind the full scope listed here and would suggest a slightly more targeted scope would be appropriate based on the kinds of problems that have been going on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I noted above, its largely within the realm of culture (language, terminology, religion, historical identifications, etc) as well as with regards to the current ongoing conflicts in the region. @Cordless Larry: can back me up on that one, most of the ANI reporting has been with regards to these subject areas. I would still like to see everything related to Horn of Africa, but I'd settle for cultural, historical, and military related issues, broadly construed. That said, I can not in good faith fault you for your position. Its the really heavy artillery I want to bring out, but that should only be brought out after everything else has been tried and failed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would note that it extends to cultural topics outside of the region itself but involving its peoples. The AN//I discussion that led to Middayexpress's original topic ban partly concerned Somalis in the United Kingdom, where he/she had been trying to distort and censor source material for years. If anyone has the time, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does this end? Will every page subjected to controversy be put under discretionary sanctions, undefined and broadly construed? Is this not
  power creep? What has been tried so far? Somalia has been semi-protected for a few months, what impact did that have? How many editors have been blocked? Note that discretionary sanctions serves to allocate control of the controversial to admins, at the expense of ordinary editors, is this really the way to go without even presenting the history of what's been attempted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Ideally, this ends when the articles are better protected against disruptive editors, but thats my take on the matter since I've been waltzing to the beat of this issue for some time now. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So never ending?

Can you list the article this would apply to? How many have been semi protected or pending revisions? Are undefined extensive powers being requested due to other processes being to slow? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I’m not sure we’re here yet. It’s a controversial area, but I don’t see it at the stage where DS are needed yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I think we are, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs). Between Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress which continues to expand ever downward as more accounts are discovered, and the initial attempt at adding discretionary sanctions here (which I F&%# up badly, I must concede) we are well past that point. Well past that point. How much longer are we going to pretend that this is not a serious problem? Or are you and the community gonna let a few dozen more of these reports fester before we take action? I say the time has come to try something new, and judging from the supports here others feel the same way. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPIs are not usually dealt with through discretionary sanctions. If disruption on an article is great enough and semi-protection isn't working, then admins are already authorized to use ECP, so I don't see the need to add another category of pages where admins have broad authority to apply ECP as a DS. Re: the edit warring, just block them. I'm personally not comfortable extending DS into this area, but I also understand if others are. Like at least one member of ArbCom has expressed, if we're not careful, soon everything will be under DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Except for a few differences, our Horn of Africa space-articles suffer from the same problems such as those related to Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan/Pakistan/India where we have DS. The Horn of Africa region has been war-torn, is religiously divided (particularly Ethiopia, Somalia border region), one with many clans-tribes-ethnic groups, numerous claims of historical or modern era nation-state or pan-nationalistic entities, a deeply contested history, sociology, anthropology, genocides/abuse/terror and the rest. What concerns us in wikipedia and this discussion is whether wikipedia articles are reasonably honest in reflecting or at least including an npov summary of the peer-reviewed scholarship, and do admins have the tools to encourage constructive editors to participate and discourage the disruptive editors and a toxic PA-filled work environment? The answer to the first is largely "no". This is a long-term problem (for evidence, see Ethiopia1, Ethiopia2, Somalia1, Somalia2 (see the two AfD discussions), Somalia3, etc). For the second question on admin tools, perhaps @Buckshot06, Doug Weller, and Nick-D: may have some input since they have commented/acted in HOA disputes (Cordless Larry has been already pinged above). There are factors indeed that may suggest a "not yet". First, there are fewer editors in the Horn of Africa space and fewer ANI/AN/ARCA cases. I see this in part an issue of the PA-filled toxic work environment (see the unhelpful 'racist' and 'white supremacist' etc allegations, coupled with edit warring and mass redirects in the most recent AN case, for example) coupled with longterm MidDayExpress/SoupforOne disruptive editing as TomStar81 and Nick-D have noted. This frustrates and drives away the more constructive editors. Second, given the poor state of many of our articles in the Horn of Africa space and relatively lesser number of peer-reviewed publications to read carefully and summarize, we may wonder if DS tools would help or make things worse. I believe the DS tools would help because they would not discourage participation by new editors, would help discourage systematic disruption/abuse by the likes of MidDayExpress, and because our admins remain obliged to use such tools with discretion. Third, given the tools available through SPI and against edit warring, we may wonder why does HOA space need DS tools? Given my experience and efforts in this space, I believe that the DS tools are needed for the same reasons that Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, etc space need them. DS tools may help reduce the systematic disruption by contesting or agenda-driven parties who are less interested in building the encyclopedia and more interested in presenting their unsourced passionately held views along with wiki-lawyering/meatpuppetry to block the editors summarizing the other sides (yes, plural). It may also encourage quality participation and help create a less hostile and less PA-filled work environment in the difficult Horn of Africa space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Endorse strongly and completely; Middayexpress would not have been as half as much a problem had these sanctions been in force. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Largely per Buckshot. This appears to be a systematically troubled area, and few if any admins have enough knowledge of it to be confident about wading into the endless disputes which are going on. A large stick will be helpful in excluding and stopping the bad faith editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images without sources

I've been tagging a LOT of images for no source (F4): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ShakespeareFan00&namespace=6&tagfilter=&start=&end=

based on https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29748

I'd like admin feedback on how a backlog this big possibly built up without anyone knowing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on File:DESFINA.jpg at the top of the list. It looks like the only issue there is that the author didn't specify "own work," which is (for better or worse) the default and what is presumed (again, for better or worse) when someone declares that they can license the image in a particular way. Is there a reason to assume the uploader is not the source? A reverse google image search does not return hits predating the upload and it certainly looks like an amateur snapshot (i.e. there's more reason to doubt the uploader of what looks like an obvious publicity shot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the image was taken with a

Tell me all about it. 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I was told previously not to assume own work unless there was something more obvious to indicate a connection. Hence no obvious indicated source = tag it, and let an admin make the call on whether it was in fact own work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote {{img-unclaimed}} and {{img-claimed}}, and these could be used more widely, if someone was able to do the legwork in getting tools to implement them in TWINKLE with a suitable notification to users. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(see also: - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Template:Media_by_uploader_and_how_to_confirm_uploads_are_in_fact_own_work?)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the image has the original meta data, and you cannot identify any earlier images online through an image search, then you should probably not be tagging these for deletion, especially ones which are of a quality or composition that is consistent with own work. That's not doing very much other than saying "Dear admin, please check the meta data, see if you can find an older version via image search, and check if the quality and composition are consistent with own work." If these should all be blanket tagged for deletion for review by an admin, then we can probably have a bot do it, but you don't need the toolkit to manually check these indications that it most likely belonged to the uploader to begin with. GMG^talk 19:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The query I linked currently had a 20,000 image backlog. Most of them probably ARE own work, but the images tagged so far had practically no information on them other than a non-self style license tag. I will stop tagging for now, so that there can be a fuller discussion. (I'd very strongly recommend an RFC).

If in the meantime any admins wants to review the currently placed F4 ( re-tagging them as {{img-unclaimed}} or even {{img-claimed}} would be my recomendation), it would be appreciated, as the query drops images with those tags out of it's results.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an assumed self/own work is the default for certain licenses ( and I'm not exactly comfortable with that given various advice I was given in the past off wiki.) , then can I have a link to where that is documented clearly in policy?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00: It's not explicit in policy anywhere; it's just a thick layer of common sense and critical evaluation, especially considering that the current upload wizard wasn't implemented until 2012. The original meta data plus no previous online versions means there's virtually nothing we can do on our end to say it isn't own work, and very little anyone else can do to say contrary either. If it fails either of those tests, then delete away. If someone challenges it, then err on the side of them being right and delete it regardless. If it has some other meta data, like meta data from Photoshop or from a scanner, original meta data from a photo of a non-pre-1923 2D work, or original meta data plus a photo obviously uploaded by the subject of the photo, then err on the side of delete, at least in my opinion, without any compelling reason to think otherwise in some particular case. GMG^talk 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So. where do we go from here? Some recommendations:

1. That there is ONE consistent position on this.
2. Document the reasoning you expressed above as actual policy, as opposed to undocumented guidelines.
3. A suitably worded, {{tl:img-unclaimed}} and a suitably worded user notification is added to TWINKLE.
4. There is a central notice reminder about the need for media sourcing to be appropriately indicated.
5. After a suitable RFC, the 'implied' sourcing/own work policy is sunseted. I.E have a policy (given the upload wizard) that media uploaded after Jan 1st 2019 all media must be appropriately sourced (or marked as Own work ) at upload.
6. There's a site-wide effort to add full {{information}} to all othewrise freely licensed media. When I was doing this, I seemed at times to be the only user (on this and my alternate account) doing it.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00, just a reminder — we didn't require sources for the first several years this site existed (I can look up the precise date if you want), so the earliest images need to be grandfathered because they were compliant with policy when uploaded. You probably know this already, so this comment is more for casual readers than for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... sometime around 2006(?) was when sourcing was made more enforcable IIRC, this was something I've tried to take into account when tagging images. I've tended to take images that old to FFD, or use {{

bsr}}, {{img-unclaimed}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've stared replacing the F4 tags (which are contested) with {{img-unclaimed}} which isn't. I still think this is merely postponing the problem, but may as well at least attempt to give a longer period than 7 days to rescue the images that can be.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, clicking through some of these, many of them are so old that any waiting period is essentially the same as no waiting period. If someone hasn't edited in five years, the chances of them fixing the issue in seven days or 30 days is still pretty much nil. GMG^talk 14:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments community consultation now open

The Arbitration Committee invites the community to comment on candidates for appointment as functionaries. Comments may be posted on the candidates' subpages or submitted privately by email to [email protected] through September 29.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove templateeditor group from my account

Template editor right removed by Jauerback. Orientls (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

I have no plans to use the template editor right in the near future. Can some administrator please remove my account from the templateeditor group?

talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Hardy

Per Floquenbeam, current discussion suffices for the immediate purpose. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

SarekOfVulcan has blocked Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been on a mission for some time in respect of what he insists are libellous comments about some academics. We probably ought to consider and review this, given that Michael Hardy is a long-standing and prolific user and an administrator.

For the avoidance of doubt, I support the block, Michael Hardy's behaviour has been bizarre and obsessive for some weeks now, but indef blocks of admins are not common I think. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I support the block, and I am sure
  WP:DSTOPICS if this ever comes up. Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm more sad than anything else to see this, as I had opposed any sanctions and had thought just letting him blow off a little steam would be fine. But these repeated attacks are unacceptable, including blatant falsifications of what other people have said or done - for example, the totally unsupported (and as far as I can see, false) assertion of "a dozen-or-so Wikipedian who told me I was stupid or dishonest or otherwise deeply flawed because I couldn't see that such a conference is a scam." And this is all after he got what he wanted with the offending AFD blanked. It had to stop, and if he wouldn't stop voluntarily then yes, he had to be stopped. I must, reluctantly, support the block - but I'd really like to see such a prolific contributor back to doing what he does best as soon as possible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not have any opinion on the situation and the validity of the block, and I did not look deeply in the situation, but I am not happy with a de-facto desysop by blocking indef. Probably after this discussion, if the block stands, someone would need to file an arbitration case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  May be just expanding on it, a bit more, without any relation to actual Sarek's block. I guess it is more difficult to gain a consensus to overturn an indefblock than to not get a lose the mop in a desysop case. If the block is in a grey area - it could have been a block, or it could have been no block - there will be no consensus formed to overturn it, but the arbcom could have dismissed the case or just issue a warning. This could open a de-facto desysop route which was not really the idea of the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see this as a de-facto desysop at all, just as a block to stop an editor from continuing their attacks on others long after it's been time to drop the issue. Are you really objecting to the block because he's an admin and implying he should be above being blocked because of it? (I doubt you are, but I honestly don't get the desysop thing, so I'm just asking). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not desysopping, it's an indef block like how all other users are blocked. He can appeal it on his talkpage, the same way other people are appealing. This is true and invalidates your hypothesis unless if you want say there's esoteric clause in

  WP:BLOCK which states that "Administrators cannot be indefinitely blocked whatever they do, they can only be blocked on limited basis because they're administrators". –Ammarpad (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Exactly. He can be indef blocked for as long as it takes to agree an unblock, and when unblocked he'll still be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, my point is not that we can not block admins. My point is if he remains indefblocked after the transient period (community discussion + unblock requests), the situation is not normal, and the arbcom must be asked to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it not normal? A block is a block; admin status is irrelevant to this. If we were blocking to prevent MH's use of the admin tools, with preventing his editing at all considered an unfortunate side effect, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case here. (Also, that would be silly, since IIRC blocking doesn't prevent someone from using admin tools.) One can certainly take this to Arbcom if one wants, but there's no reason they have to be consulted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "if he remains indefblocked after the transient period ... the arbcom must be asked to have a look" - Why? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because if he is indefblocked, he can not make admin actions, and users who can not make admin actions get desysopped. Though I realize now that if he remains indefblocked he gets desysopped for inactivity after a year anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this is also incorrect, since he is able to read deleted material, for example. I still find it odd - if someone behaves so badly that they need to be indefblocked, than for me it means they have behavioral issues preventing them to be an admin - but I will not file an arbcom case, it is not a matter of life and death to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "users who can not make admin actions get desysopped" - I've never seen that happen, do you have an example? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think we had so many admins who were blocked indef long-term, but isn't the whole point of the inactivity desysopping policy exactly this?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you only mean inactivity desysopping? That's nothing to do with Arbcom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems there are several avenues short of indef, let alone community indef, so oppose - it's just not in Wikipedia's interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Adding that the diffs now provided are incredibly weak for indef, considering the original complaint for supression/deletion was also rejected for being vague or opinion, Hardy's statements are equally vague or opinion. Moreover, this process is fundamentally unfair, Hardy has not appealed here -- I think there is actually a rule somewhere you cannot appeal for someone-else, and regardless it should be followed here on the basis of simple justice, so move to strong oppose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong oppose what, exactly? Nothing's been proposed to support or oppose here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it not clear? If not, I strongly oppose your poor use of admin tools and admin discretion, here, especially given your past interaction, and the process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, watch his talkpage. As I said there, as soon as he can convince one other admin the attacks will stop, I wouldn't object to an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As we're reviewing the block here, could some diffs of the problematic edits which led to the block be provided? Fish+Karate 12:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to be because of this followed by this and now followed by this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The diff that convinced me a personal attacks block was necessary in this case is here -- by people who were contemptuous of any discussion or argument with me, and who appear to have motives unrelated to the merits or demerits of what I said. Going back a bit in the same discussion, we have this -- There have been numerous factually incorrect statements by people who I think are gaslighting me because I've gone against their agenda. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just had a look through the original post at AN, and MH is correct that there were a number of very unhelpful comments there:
  • In my opinion Michael Hardy is massively wasting the community's time here, and considering his former related reprimand by the Arbitration Committee may warrant a WP:BOOMERANG for this time-sink, or even a WP:CIR block/ban for just not getting it
  • Is this the same guy that not too long ago should have had the mop removed for incompetence, and is not that same incompetence now being displayed?
  • Does this ex-admin have nothing better to do with their time?.

  This seems to be the cause of his later actions, but when you are at noticeboard with a less than stellar case, these types of comments are common and have to be ignored. Everyone knows the noticeboards are unpleasant, but there's not much we can do about it as long as comments from the community are welcome. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to also endorse the block as a means of halting disruption, which is what blocks are for, irrespective of the blocked editor being an administrator. Repeating my comment from one of the many discussions about this: "I propose leaving the AfD courtesy blanked (not suppressed), and leaving Michael Hardy alone about it. If he wants to continue making a big deal about it, we can burn that bridge when we come to it." And here we are, 3 weeks later, standing across a thoroughly smoldering bridge.
  If there's an underlying point that MH was trying to make, he hasn't made a very clear case of it and apparently is unable to do so without attacking people. @JzG: you seem to have been following this more carefully than most, would you be able to summarize what the issue is? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Told you so. Frankly this has had numerous chances to nip this, but as the subject is an admin the special treatment they have recieved has prolonged it to their detriment. A normal editor would have been under a number of sanctions by now or have been indeffed ages ago. (support block btw) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I final-warned Michael Hardy to stop calling editors bullies and liars a short time ago - to be fair he did strike his comment. Since then I have had a number of emails from Hardy asking for "clarification" on the issue of the AfD and the surrounding events. I tried to respond to them in a polite manner - though I said at one point "All of the answers to your questions should be obvious to someone who is an admin" - because frankly, they should have been. However Hardy became more and more argumentative each time I responded, to the point that I eventually gave up answering. From the looks of Hardy's talkpage, @Alex Shih: has had the same problem. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have as well. The theme is constant and boils down to MH insisting that any version of the facts and events other than his own is malfeasance. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it clear to him that if there are any more unwanted emails, I'll remove email access for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really have a problem with the block. I do wish User:JzG had not been brought it here without Michael's request, because now any admin reviewing any future unblock request is going to be hobbled by a "community consensus" about the block; i.e. a reviewing admin would have to get a new consensus here for any unblock conditions. That's needlessly bureaucratic, and makes it harder to de-escalate. If I've misunderstood our current process, and an admin could work out unblock conditions without having to get consensus for it here, then it would be valuable (at least to me) if the closing admin for this section specifically said that in the close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we should look at this as a community block or ban, I do think we can't go around indef blocking admins with huge edit histories without at least some discussion. I brought it here for awareness and debate, not bannination. Guy (Help!)14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I should rephrase; I don't have a problem with bringing it here if it doesn't imply needing community consensus before an unblock with conditions. I just thought that's how we rolled now. I'll be thrilled to know I'm wrong about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think there are two different things. One is deciding that an unblock request should be handled by community discussion and bringing it here, in which case a Decline effectively makes it a community block. The other is just asking for second opinions on an admin block, which is something we often do, and I don't think that turns it into a community block - my support for the block is certainly not meant as a support for a community block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam:, I saw that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If I am reading

  WP:CBAN correctly, if a block is endorsed by the community it is an automatic CBAN. Afootpluto (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As I read it, "due consideration" is required. This discussion isn't primarily about whether he should stay blocked, it's about whether I was incorrect to block him in the first place, so there's hasn't been due consideration of keeping the block in place indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I am correct the requirements for the discussion to have been duly considered is wait 24 hours. I personally think if the community says it is a good block, I think that should be treated as an endorsed block. I personally think the banning policy should be more clear, because this isn't the first time that people debated about this. Afootpluto (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After these latest instances of
  WP:PRAM - although I don't think that I would have indeffed - I cannot oppose this block. The behavioral problems have continued unabated. GAB^gab 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• While this sanction is not one I would have personally imposed, I could see it coming from a mile away, and I cannot argue that it was outside admin discretion. All MH needs to do is to undertake to drop the stick and move on. It's not complicated. Vanamonde (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw the title of this thread and thought "Is this still going on?". It is, and after looking at the diffs, particularly the one SoV has provided above, this is clearly disruptive and the block is a good one. The fact that they are an admin has nothing to do with this. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? 'I think people are gaslighting me' - just the insipid stuff people say all the time on the Pedia, or "Unreleated to the merits or demerits of what I said", well per the diffs already provided, in the original discussion, they did actually not address merits but made comments on him, so yes that suggests a motive unrelated to merits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I shouldn't be, but I was actually shocked to see that MH is still acting out like this. I'm sure people will complain bitterly about this comment, but it is quite clear that this is nothing but an unending temper tantrum, and we all have better things to do here than put up with it. So I endorse the block, for what it's worth. As to the question of whether this discussion would hinder any admin working out conditions for an unblock, I ask you: what conditions other than "drop it, entirely and move on with your life" would be reasonable unblock conditions? I then ask you: what are the odds that MH would agree to those conditions? This discussion is not a hinderance, because the only way MH will be realistically unblocked will be if an admin decides to simply ignore the entire reason for the block.
  Tell me all about it. 15:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, as every parent knows, ignoring is often the right way to go. The most recent discussion, could/should just have been ignored until it was archived, as in 'who cares'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already tried to ignore it for a couple of weeks and it didn't help. Afootpluto (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it helped, nothing happened until the 'we' stopped ignoring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did. He was emailing people, making demands. Ignoring someone only works if they will let you ignore them: MH pretty clearly wants to keep demanding until he gets an answer he likes. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. You don't want an e-mail, you ignore it, or respond 'don't email, me'. At the very least. "Blah, I have nothing more to say.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. When a user continues determinedly trying to engage in an argument they lost a long time ago, they end up blocked. That is how it goes. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want an e-mail, you ignore it So, you are saying that we should have just let him keep going indefinitely. I don't think that's helpful to the project at all.

Tell me all about it. 16:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No. People are allowed to have all kinds of opinions, even Micheal Hardy. You don't like his argument fine, then don't engage it, and if you do, just stop when you are done. People have open e-mail because they invite e-mail, and if someone e-mails you but you don't want them to, you tell them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Close? So it seems clear that:

1. while support for the indef block isn't unanimous, it trends significantly towards supporting a block of some length, or at least not opposing the block
2. combining the people who oppose the block with those who explicitly state that it shouldn't be considered a CBAN, this isn't a community-sanctioned defacto ban, just a community endorsement of the block
3. if this discussion doesn't last 24 hours, then even a harsh reading of
   WP:CBAN
   couldn't consider this a community ban, and any admin can unblock when convinced the problematic behavior has been addressed
4. I think all the feedback that was needed has been given, and further discussion will only serve to escalate bad feelings, so
5. I'd encourage an uninvolved admin to close this soon, and
6. if one or more people who want to talk MH down can engage with him on his talk page, perhaps this can be resolved in the relatively near future.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally one of the first editors who would take issue with #2 being in conflict with the second and third bullets of CBAN, but this is an unusual case and I for one fully endorse this proposed close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

IAdmin access request for User:Pharos

A request for

Interface administrator access under the stop-gap process for User:Pharos is currently open at /Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#IAdmin_temporary_access_request_for_User:Pharos. Community commentary on the request is welcome at that page. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]