Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ivanvector (talk | contribs) at 12:29, 7 May 2018 (→‎TBAN for Sbelknap: topic banned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

    Pinging is not enough
    .

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

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

    Template:Active editnotice

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

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to

      policies or guidelines
      ).

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

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases,

      it is appropriate
      to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

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

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

      There is no fixed length for a formal

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

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

      Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

      Any

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

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if

      discussions for discussion
      page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions.

      move discussion
      processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{

      Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved
      }}.

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

      WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
      .


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

      (Initiated 135 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

      (Initiated 118 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Tasnim News Agency

      (Initiated 85 days ago on 12 February 2024)

      Closure request for this

      WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      ed. put'er there 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a

      WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the
      WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Feb Mar Apr May Total
      CfD 0 0 40 0 40
      TfD 0 0 7 0 7
      MfD 0 0 24 0 24
      FfD 0 0 3 0 3
      RfD 0 0 54 0 54
      AfD 0 0 12 0 12

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

      (Initiated 123 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

      (Initiated 123 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 117 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talkcontribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

      (Initiated 113 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

      (Initiated 104 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how
      WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 98 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course.

      AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 98 days ago on 30 January 2024)

      AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

      (Initiated 92 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

      (Initiated 85 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Pages recently put under
      extended-confirmed protection

      Report
      Pages recently put under
      extended confirmed protection (76 out of 7724 total) (Purge)
      Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
      Jaffa riots 2024-05-08 04:31 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction
      Johnuniq
      Russia–Ukraine relations 2024-05-08 03:05 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for
      WP:RfPP
      Daniel Quinlan
      Rapunzel's Lantern Festival 2024-05-08 02:35 2024-05-15 02:35 create
      Repeatedly recreated
      Liz
      Dhadhor 2024-05-07 19:28 2024-06-07 19:28 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ponyo
      Background of the Rafah offensive 2024-05-07 18:39 indefinite edit,move
      Arbitration enforcement
      ScottishFinnishRadish
      Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the
      WP:RfPP
      Daniel Quinlan
      Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move
      WP:GS/AA
      enforcement
      Firefangledfeathers
      Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move
      Arbitration enforcement
      Robertsky
      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for
      WP:LINT
      fixes
      Primefac
      User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
      Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case
      Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA
      Daniel Case
      Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction: restore previous indef ECP
      Daniel Case
      Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move
      Arbitration enforcement
      ScottishFinnishRadish
      A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create
      Repeatedly recreated
      ToBeFree
      Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move
      WP:CT/A-I
      ToBeFree
      China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent
      WP:ECP
      due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts
      El C
      User talk:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
      User:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
      Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create
      Repeatedly recreated
      Pppery
      Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move
      WP:RFPP
      Favonian
      Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move
      Arbitration enforcement
      ScottishFinnishRadish
      Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move
      WP:ECR
      El C
      User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz
      User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz
      Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move
      WP:GS/RUSUKR
      El C
      Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery
      Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move
      WP:GS/AA
      Daniel Case
      List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA
      Daniel Case
      Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA
      Daniel Case
      Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move
      Contentious topic
      restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA
      Daniel Case
      Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
      Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit Persistent violations of the
      biographies of living persons policy
      from (auto)confirmed accounts
      Moneytrees

      Per

      WP:SO, I am copying here unblock request made by blocked user User:Leugen9001 on their talk page, for community approval. Checkuser shows no recent socking, and the blocking admin agrees (See: User_talk:Leugen9001#Standard_Offer_Unblock_Request). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      I would like to request an unblock per the Standard Offer. It has been slightly more than six months since October 1st, 2017, and I would like to return to the encyclopedia. I promise that I shall no longer engage in the disruptive and rule-breaking behaviour that I have demonstrated in the past, and I do not dispute any of the reasons for which I have been banned. I understand that the Wikipedia community has a legitimate reason not to trust my promise and am willing to accept "2nd Chance" limits like topic-bans and requirements to propose changes to articles in order to prove that I can now be a productive member of the community. Leugen9001 (talk) 4:47 am, 12 April 2018, Thursday (15 days ago) (UTC+2)

      • Leugen9001 was more active as a contributor in WikiNews.[1] Their block log is clean there. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WikiNews is also dead, so I'm not really sure its the best project to point out a track record on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Community ban and indefinite block for Lidiia Kondratieva

      This person is likely an undisclosed paid editor. Their competence in English and in WP is marginal at best.

      The last straw for me was this response they just made, to a DS notice given to them by

      User:Ronz
      . It perfectly encapsulates what they do here. Perfectly pleasant on the surface, but either completely incompetent or completely bad faith.

      Per their edit count, 8 of the top 9 articles they have worked on, are typical targets of paid editors. They also work on some historical figures as well (probably not paid?) and one of those is in the top 9 too:

      ? Not a typical target, but pretty clearly not notable and hard to understand outside paid editing
      historical figures

      A bigger list is at this COIN case I filed, which somehow got no traction.

      I encountered this person at Naveen Jain, where efforts to "control the message" on that page have been ongoing since 2007 per this note on its talk page from back then, and also per the extensive list of SPA/promo editors I just added at the top of Talk:Naveen_Jain. Ronz has been riding herd on that mess since the page was created.

      The COIN case linked above, shows past COIN cases about the Jain page and related topics.

      A lot of the promotional efforts over the past 11 years, have been directed to downplaying the

      Infospace
      debacle and trying to emphasize his more recent space efforts.

      More recently the page was pending changes protected in this diff in November 2017 and the Lidiia Kondratieva account showed up after that. They have made baffling Talk contributions like this, and this and this....and done radical edits to the page like this, where they deleted all the Infospace stuff and tried to create a POV fork with it.

      The DS notice was given just after Lidiia Kondratieva took yet another hack at the Infospace section.

      This person is not improving WP and is a drain on everybody else. In my view they should be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with Jytdog's assessment. I wish we could figure out who is behind the editing assignments that Lidiia Kondratieva is apparently getting (and the many other editors editing in a similar fashion). --
      talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Endorse indef block There is something seriously amiss. @Lidiia Kondratieva: please respond here. We have grave concerns about your editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I came across this editor a few days back and while the topics seem rather different, I believe this is part of one of the many South Asian UPE groups that I've blocked. There is some overlap with -- "Sudheer Telaprolu" group, but I can't be sure that it's part of that group, and per WP:BEANS I'm not commenting on a couple of other tell tale signs of being part of a UPE ring. If I hadn't seen this here, I'd have likely done some investigation into this account towards a resolution, but now that we're here, I think an indef block is in order (if not superseded by a CU block as part of a UPE ring). —SpacemanSpiff 03:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support: a clear behavioural pattern of UPE editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • just adding a comment to prevent this from being archived. This account is problematic and I hope folks look at this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      AN / ANI boards under criticism

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


      "Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only thirty-six (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), a recent survey by the Community health initiative on English Wikipedia found. The survey, which was undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation Support and Safety and Anti-harassment Tools teams, also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including 'defensive cliques' and biased administrators as well as fear of a 'boomerang effect' due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports." Source: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/In focus --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Not that it is in any way surprising.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Boomerangs are a feature, not a bug. It's not common for experienced editors to get themselves into hot water, without any kind of pushing involved. If we don't examine all aspects of a situation, we run the risk of rewarding those who stick a foot out and then go to ANI to report an editor has faceplanted into said hot water. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Boomerang/scope. I think that all aspects of a situation should be reviewed and that one should not automatically adopt the OP's pov. If the boomerang is keeping people from filing frivolous or misleading reports, then good. defensive cliques My concern is that there is a lack of input from uninvolved and disinterested editors, so the shrieking just moves here or that one or the other's friends pile on in a biased manner without looking objectively at the situation. We need more uninvolved user engagement, but I for one just avoid the drama.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, your last sentence is exactly why we don't have more uninvolved user engagement... I deal with ANI issues only when absolutely necessary (or I'm involved somehow). Primefac (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      "Nobody has ever helped their own cause in any way by participating at ANI. Even non-controversial edits have a way of getting people into trouble."
      π, ν) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The easiest way of getting in "trouble" at ANI as a regular editor is by NAC-ing threads (which is strangely controversial). Starting "this is a bad editor but it's too complicated to be handled at AIV" threads is generally fine, and !voting on existing threads ... sometimes is fine.
        π, ν) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Mostly off-topic sniping
      • Well, in my experience, the only mode of interaction at ANI which is typically unproblematic is reporting a relatively new editor who is doing clearly smth inappropriate (rapid vandalism,
        WP:BOOMERANG, but the reporter will certainly regret a lot ever showing up at ANI with this topic, does not matter what the circumstances were.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Or, indeed, if the person raising the issue in the first place actually has some hard evidence, rather than just having a grudge and trying (but failing) to get one over on another editor. Therefore, regardless of the "friends" the other editor has, it wouldn't matter, as the filling party's case would be strong enough not to be laughed at. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, as I mention above, from the last incident you concluded that on-wiki harassment is ok as soon as you have enough friends to cover you up. And it is even ok to continue it (I have seen your edit summary several days ago, but this time I decided that I would rather stay healthy).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't conclude anything, although facts and your perception are two different things. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If in your perception what you are doing is not on-wiki harassment stopping leaving such edit summaries in the articles immediately after my edits would be a natural first step.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Speak up, apparently I'm just some asshole. You like to make personal attacks but certainly don't like people standing up to you. Let me know how you go with your health. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      So you have decided to continue on-wiki harassment, and chosen AN as a nice platform. Fine. My health is not fantastic, and the last incident caused some serious pains, but then I decided that Lugnuts is not someone I should have my health deteriorated for. So at this point I will not go to ANI again. If you think you are an asshole, this may be or may not be true, but I am not going to comment on this. May be you should decide yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Amen.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm totally on board with changing the organizational culture so that if someone posts a response at ANI that contains a personal attack, the next uninvolved person simply removes it (rather than redact pieces of it) and they can try again. It'll piss off a lot of already pissed off people though. GMGtalk 18:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd be on board with that. If you can't say anything nice... Primefac (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course there's always frivolous reports when the filing party doesn't really understand what they're complaining about, usually with a lot of hot air and noise. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not even going to comment on this. Doing so risks sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you just did.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Is it not true that if anyone regularly participates in AN or ANI threads as an uninvolved editor -- no matter how helpful those contributions might be -- that fact will be held against them should they ever run for RfA, 'Crat, Arbcom, etc.?

      • "I supported but I think the opposers have a valid point in objecting to the candidate's disproportionate focus on drama boards as opposed to content involvement and I would similarly oppose most candidates with that focus without hesitation."[2]
      • "My one point of concern is that the candidate seems overly focused on the drama boards"[3]
      • (From the candidate) "I have tended to avoid the 'drama boards' ".[4]
      • "The only time I'm perturbed by a busy editor with a lower-than-usual percentage of mainspace contributions is when it's someone who spends all their time at drama boards"[5]
      • (From the candidate)"I have generally not been an active participant on the 'drama boards' "[6]
      • "There is a very large amount of opposition centered on lack of content contributions combined with spending time on drama boards."[7]
      • (Advice to someone considering running for RfA) "9 months of solid article work, significantly less activity in drama boards, contribute to the BOT activities..."[8]

      So we actively discourage veteran editors from getting involved and then we end up with a clique problem. What a shock. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      It isn't entirely clear to me what conclusion the Original Poster,
      the boomerang principle is a feature, not a bug. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I personally think that some significant reform in the governance of the English Wikipedia would be appropriate. However, that isn't likely to happen, because it isn't about to be initiated within the current system, and the WMF, which could start the ball rolling, doesn't understand well enough to be able to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What exactly is being proposed here, if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Not everything has to be a proposal. Some things are informational. If this is a problem for you, you should bring it up at Meta:Research:Detox and Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents/Quantitative data analysis where the data was gathered and presented. I merely reported it in the obvious place. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Letting people who are commenting in this thread know that I've been following it and I'm available to answer questions about the AN/I research. Also, I want to emphasis that Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team are looking for your ideas and thoughts about the broader topic of how to make improvements to reporting of and workflows around harassment. This week we are opening a discussion on ENWP (and Meta) about problems that have been identified already from the surveys. We are also looking to update the problem list during the community discussion with the purpose of identifying areas our software developers could make improvement later in 2018. I'm adding recaps of community discussions like this one. But it would be better to participate in the discussion yourself! SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Item needs looking at

      I don't know how long it will be until Materialscientist has a chance to see this so I thought I would bring it to this noticeboard in case it is something that needs attention sooner rather than later. If you deem that my post here is bringing undue attention to it please feel free to remove and even R/D this section. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I've removed the personal information, but this seems more like a content dispute. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Automatic community ban (User:Miccoliband)

      the policy, so I'm guessing this will be good enough. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Oops, I suppose under the policy, we need an administrator to declare that the user is well and truly automatically community banned – misread that. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Editors who are found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for any reason, are effectively site banned by the Wikipedia community. Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way. Users who have been banned in this way are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion.[2]

      Administrators should normally place a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard alerting the community of such a ban, place Template:Banned user on the master account's user page, and add the user to any relevant Arbitration Committee sanctions enforcement list.

      Are you referring to Administrators should normally..., or is some other admin declaration needed? Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend: Yeah, I was referring to the "Administrators should normally ..." sentence. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the point is having a trusted user do it, rather than just any autoconfirmed user; we don't want someone going around and inappropriately tagging a bunch of long-blocked users, either through malice or through misunderstanding. We also don't want someone going around tagging the user when the alleged sock is not blocked (that would either be getting ahead of a reviewing admin, or doing something in spite of a contrary review), but here the socks have been blocked. Probably the writer of this piece imagined that an admin would perform the block and then come here to announce it. Since that didn't happen, and since SPI clerks like you are quite trustworthy, I can't see a good reason to demand an admin do it. If an admin be needed, I'll have to revert or duplicate your notice here, and I'll have to revert or duplicate your edit that added the {{banned user}} to the userpage, since the policy says that the admin has to do those things. WP:BURO, let's be satisfied with what you did :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, works for me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The idea behind it was that it should be an admin so that accountability would apply. I don't think we've had much use of that part of the new policy since it was passed, because, well, most of the people who sock aren't longterm users and are mainly just trolls and spammers, who the policy wasn't really aimed as much at i.r.t. the unblock aspect. If you look at the discussion, there was some comment as to whether that part was needed, and given that I'm sure this is not the first THREESTRIKES ban, it might be worth tweaking that bit.
      I think the idea that we want community oversight when this is applied to a longterm user is important, but it doesn't make the ban any less operative in cases like this. The main part of the policy is that an indefinite block plus two incidences of socking is equivalent to a ban and requires the same conditions to unblock (namely, discussion). The bureaucracy part we can tweak as conditions requires. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I pushed to have the bureaucracy of that part worded as weakly as reasonable: 'administrators should normally', not 'the blocking admin has to tag the master and announce it here'. For me, basically, an editor who is blocked under the conditions is plainly community banned, even if it is not announced. Announcing and tagging is sometimes good (awareness by broader community, overview), but sometimes also to be avoided (don't feed the troll). Also, the wording has to be so that we don't get a sockmaster with 20 checkuser confirmed and blocked socks coming with 'I am not community banned, because a) no-one announced it to WP:AN, and my master account has never been tagged.
      Q: do we have a special parameter on {{
      sockmaster}} for the three strikes to identify that the banned user is banned 'automatically' and not be individual discussion? I do think that that is informative. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Dirk Beetstra, what do you think of what I said, Probably the writer of this piece imagined that an admin would perform the block and then come here to announce it? Were you hoping for the blocking admin to do the tagging and announcing? Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend: not hoping, I don't really care that the editor is tagged or not, nor whether the community has been explicitly notified. What Kevin did was fine, but, to me, superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I agree with Dirk. The situations where I see this is needed is for cases where we have a user who had previously been an established member of the community, who gets blocked and then starts socking. For the tagging, it might be worth updating the sock template with a parameter. This is useful for unblocks. I might tweak the wording a bit since this hasn't caught on. I still think it's a good idea to place a notice here if say someone like DrStrauss were to be socking again, but we don't need it for trolls and people who never hit extended confirmed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, I misunderstood the consensus – the wording of the policy made it seem like the ban is automatic and mandatory. Got it now. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The ban is automatic. The paperwork, etc. is a "normally" thing, and was worded as such, because like Dirk pointed out above, we don't want to feed the trolls, etc. Like I said, as there was some comments on the RfC that the paperwork wasn't always neccesary, and we haven't started posting the notice in every case, we should probably tweak it (and I'll work on that sometime later this week ) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      So, Tony, this sounds like it's for someone like Access Denied, whose name will be known to plenty of people who aren't sock-fighters. Is it supposed to be applied retroactively to everyone (minus those who got a community or Arbcom unblock, of course), or only to people who continue socking after the provision's created? On one hand, it might make sense to apply it to someone who was making a mess a few months ago, but on the other hand it would be a bit silly to apply it to User:WoW, the original incarnation of Willy on Wheels. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nyttend: LOL. WoW! That will certainly get the conversation moving-- on wheels!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an SPI clerk (this seems to fall in our purview) we add sock tags unless there's
        abused multiple accounts" in place of the checked=yes messaging. Also, as a clerk, if I find a tag that has been placed inappropriately I just fix it or remove it, and there are a few users I've asked not to do it because they've been making a lot of errors or using them abusively, but not that many. But if we are going to create or use a second template for this purpose, it's important that if there's a {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on the page already, it shouldn't be removed, just add {{banned user}} underneath if that's what we decide to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Ivanvector: I think the parameter option makes the most sense, and meant to start a conversation about that after the change went through. It might be worth updating the wording of the policy page to be something re: notification at AN to read something like A notice should normally be placed at AN if the user had substantial good faith contributions before being blocked. as this seems to get at the intent there. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Geonotices

      Would anyone be willing to help keep an eye on Wikipedia:Geonotice, or add their name as a backup contact for it? It's not a very burdensome task - there's a couple of requests a month and mostly they just need a javascript template to be filled out. A couple of minutes work in most cases.

      At the moment there's only one or two admins who frequent it. I'm mostly active on Wikidata these days, so if I don't spot it on my watchlist when I drop in, things can go weeks unanswered. I've just dealt with one I missed almost a month back (!) - thankfully it was requested a month in advance - but of course it's very useful if we can post up requested notices promptly.

      I used to do a lot of maintenance work here and the page still has me on as a "poke if nothing happens" contact. I don't really think it's a great idea to have someone semi-active as the suggested contact, but equally I don't want to remove my name when it's the only one there... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've watchlisted this and added my name to the list of people to poke. GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @GoldenRing: Great - many thanks. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

      Cross-posted from the ArbCom noticeboard: The arbitration clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner.

      Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for clerks rival that of arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

      Please email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

      For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

      Cleanup on Aisle G13

      Resolved

      We have a motherload of pages listed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that are eligible for G13 deletion. I'm not seeing it in Category:Administrative backlog yet, but I've gone through and tagged some of them and there's many more if someone wants to swing by and clean some of them out. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Empty. Feel free to one-click this. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Primefac: Not so fast - there's 307 pages listed at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      My apologies, I misread and thought you were talking about Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. For what it's worth, G13-eligible pages are not necessarily summarily deleted, they still require someone to nominate them (usually User:HasteurBot). There are some users who find "diamonds" in these pages, and so there's no reason to summarily d-batch the entire cat (otherwise we'd just have it happen automatically). Primefac (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, it is not (and will never be) part of the administrative backlog. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Primefac: Yeah, I bring up a batch of pages at a time and have a quick look to see if there's anything that looks really good. Unfortunately many of them simply consist of the unsubmitted draft template followed by an empty reference section. Incidentally, there's a tag at the top of the category page that I had overlooked stating that it will put the page in Category:Wikipedia backlog if more than 500 items are pending. Home Lander (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh. Colour me surprised. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I almost commented to that effect, but you did say administrative backlog ~ Amory (utc) 15:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is still true, I suppose, but I probably shouldn't un-strike my text, since my I too missed the {{backlog}} at the top of the cat and that was more of the point. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Tue bot only nominates AfC pages. When I looked a few hours ago there were over 400 non-AfC pages to tag.

      User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      alan jackson vandal again

      Special:Contributions/Ichabbie396. Do we have an LTA page for it?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      It's
      WP:DENY case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

      News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

      Administrator changes

      added None
      removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

      Guideline and policy news

      • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely
        restricted to autoconfirmed users
        .
      • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

      Technical news

      Arbitration

      Obituaries

      • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

      Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Puzzling entries at CSD

      I'm starting to see entries at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that I don't understand why they're on there. There doesn't seem to be anything in the entry histories that indicate they were tagged for CSD

      User:CAPTAIN RAJU/AFD
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 2
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
      User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday

      There might be others. But these jumped out at me for not having been nominated for deletion, but appearing on the list. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      They were transcluding one or more pages that were themselves nominated for deletion. It gets cleared once the transcluded page is handled one way or another, and the host page is recached. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. Thank you for the clarification. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for completion's sake, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo (software) (2nd nomination), deleted under G7. ~ Amory (utc) 20:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, Maile66, this is a function of the Job queue. If a page is added to a category indirectly because the category is part of a transclusion, the category does not get removed immediately when the template is removed: the page has to be edited first. Not an issue if someone edits the page to remove the transclusion, but if it's removed indirectly (say it's added by a template on a transcluded page, and the template's removed from the transcluded page), or when the transcluded page is deleted, you have to wait for the job queue to catch up. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Template vandalism nested within Disambiguation

      Probably thousands of pages are affected, every transclusion of {{

      05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      I'm heading to bed so I've no time to continue edit-warring with some shitty vandal, hopefully some admin will attend to this regardless of the idiot deleting this thread.
      05:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I've protected {{Disambiguation page short description}}, and blocked the vandal. Someone more knowledgeable should take a look at the necessity of this newly-created template. utcursch | talk 05:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Relevant thread (which I haven't read yet):
      05:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Thanks utcursch, Salvidrim!. The template is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions campaign to populate mainspace pages with Wikipedia:short descriptions to avoid WMF using inappropriate or poor quality descriptions from Wikidata in search results. Precursory saga described at project page through links. Basically forced on us by WMF. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The image File:Asshole hat.jpg that was used in the vandalism above is still showing transclusions onto well over 500 pages. I've put in a request to have the image blacklisted but many pages may still need to be purged. I've loaded several but it's not showing on any so far. Home Lander (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Please help- who tried to break into my account?

      Can you please find out who tried to break into my account? It worries me. I want to see if it was someone in my area or other. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Alex of Canada: Someone tried three times several hours ago to get into mine. It happens; as long as you have a secure password you should be fine. Home Lander (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This just happened to me, too. It's not unusual, I get one or two a month, and about once a year, someone makes a whole lot of login attempts. Make sure you have a unique password for Wikipedia. Use a password manager if you don't already. Use multi-factor authentication. Consider changing your password if you are worried (or especially if it wasn't unique). I already have these set up on my account so I just ignore the warnings when they come in. You asked to find out who tried to break into your account. That information is not generally available, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      My password is secure, but I'm worried it might be a hacker who will find out how to get into anyone eventually. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Best case is to use a unique password here (so if they figure out who you are, can't get into anything else, such as your email) and set up extra measures. A
      WP:Committed identity would be a good start. Home Lander (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      That might be a legitimate worry, but it existed before some person or bot tried to brute-force some Wikipedia accounts. Hacking without guessing the password is a whole different proposition. Related stuff at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#two-factor authorization and User talk:Winkelvi#Compromised account attempt. ―Mandruss  17:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Related discussion at VPT (permalink) with some more detailed information. Seems there's a rash of this today. ~ Amory (utc) 18:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. Two threads at the teahouse on this same subject.
      talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Just tried and failed with mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Recommend that all admins set up 2-factor auth. Andrevan@ 18:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Everyone reviewing
      talk) 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Me, too (in case anyone is keeping track of admin v non-admin attempts). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Me too. I already asked a question at WP:Village pump (technical)#two-factor authorization. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I had this today as well, but I have break-in attempts on a regular basis, with a record of several hundreds per day (not today though).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      They must like you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Got an attempt today as well. SQLQuery me! 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Me as well. Question I should probably know the answer to: can a functionary look up the IP addresses behind these bogus login attempts and implement a technical restriction? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Technically, yes. Whether it is allowed by the policy I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if there's a way to determine that an IP is being used for abusive login attempts, autoblocking that IP for 24 hours is probably a good security practice. Wouldn't stop them hacking an account probably but then at least they wouldn't be able to edit. If our policies don't support that then we should change our policies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Me too. Natureium (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      First Thursday of every May. Coincidence, perhaps. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm probably the only editor right now that hasn't had attempted account hacks ...... Not sure if that's a good sign or a bad one lol. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Inevitable happened. –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Me too, Davey! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I readily admit I am not the most experienced CU, but I am unaware of how we could look up who attempted and failed at logging in. I’ll ask for further input though in case it’s just something I don’t know about.
        talk) 19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Good point. So all we need to do is all simultaneously set our passwords to "password* for five minutes and simply track 'em down!!? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, it would take far more access (database?) to determine where this is coming from. If that information is even stored. If this isn't a bot driven thing (which it probably is), then a limiter on logins per IP would be nice as well. Arkon (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’ve gotten some response form the other functionaries about this, here’s what we’ve got:
      • Currently, CU cannot do this
      • There is a phabricator thread about notifying the user of the ip of whoever tried to log into their account. It is approved and being worked on but not functional yet
      • There is some indication that this is a specifc banned user already familiar to some of the functionaries so it is possible some action will be forthcoming but I’m not sure wat it will be.

      talk) 20:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      @
      Beeblebrox: There is a way to check it, but it's on Toolforge. The people that have access to it aren't functionaries but more devs I think. There'sNoTime knows more about it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I got one of those failed login attempt messages too. I changed my password to something stronger and thought nothing else of it until now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      User:BullRangifer You posted it here on WP when you were talking with some IP who then posted it on my talk page because he saw me arguing with you. Someone tried to access my WP account too. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Thanks for clearing that up. Let's make sure it doesn't spread. I'll seek a revdel. --
      talk) PingMe 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      +1 - I felt like the odd one out so kinda glad someone attempted it , Jokes aside why is there a huge influx of password resettings ? ... It doesn't seem all that productive .... –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Happened to me 7 hours ago. Silly culprit; if he was targetting editors with any care, Davey2010 and other big-name users here should have been higher on his priority list than me. No one's ever bothered to try to hack my account before. Sideways713 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got that notification as well, 2 hours ago. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Same here, a few hours ago. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could this be related to today being
        World Password Day? FallingGravity 23:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Me too, although I'm pretty sure
      Talk 23:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Read the thread above. I'm fairly certain the WMF is already on it. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I was waiting for someone to say the Russians :) GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      According to this graph of the Wikimedia User Login Attempts, this account hacking attempt has resumed today and is still continuing, as of this writing. There are a lot more "Throttled logins" today than in yesterday's attacks, which now appears to comprise the vast majority of the latest attack wave. (And yes, this LTA/hacker took a swipe at my account yesterday and a couple more times today.) This is getting ridiculous. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I suspect this attack may have something to do with the recent Twitter password leak [9]. Is it possible that someone has got a copy of this "internal log" and has now got a botnet trying to find Wikipedia accounts that match the Twitter ones? (Yes, I got an attempt against my account too, and no, the other QuietOwl on Twitter is not me, I don't use this username anywhere else, or any social networking site, for that matter.) QuietOwl (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, this time, the next attack wave is longer than the first one, and it's still ongoing right now. This can't be a good sign. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      A graph depicting the duration and scale of the mass account-breaking attempts in May 2018.
      A graph depicting the duration and scale of the mass account-breaking attempts in May 2018.

      I've added a picture of the graph depicting the mass-cyberattack attempts. I estimate that at least 400,000 accounts may have experienced some attempt to break in. It should be noted that this is the largest account-hacking attempt that Wikimedia has experienced at least in the last 5 years (possibly the largest such attack ever). I also noticed today that the attacks seemed to have stopped. I wonder what happened to the hacker. What's keeping him? ;) LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Today, only 30 minutes ago, someone (probably the same hacker) tried to break into my account 3 more times. I guess it must have something with me uploading the picture. Though I already hardened my password 2 more times, so it won't really help them at all. What in the hell is wrong with this person? The WMF seriously needs to block the access for the IP network responsible; at least Globally Rangeblock the IP if it will help. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, God, they're doing it again! This time the attacks are almost entirely "login throttles". Seriously? Someone needs to block off the IP network hosting the attacks, or at least add in some new firewall rules to Wikimedia Foundation computers if this is some kind of offline attack. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      PSA: Admins should enable two-factor authentication

      As an additional security measure, admins and editors with similar permissions can (and should) use Special:Two-factor authentication to prevent account hijacking. Sandstein 21:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • (edit conflict)I would gladly use 2FA (and I was also the subject of a hack attempt) if the code was emailed, in addition to (or instead of) being sent to a mobile number. We have a cell phone but it's usually off, but my email is generally available. I may not be the only admin in a similar situation. Miniapolis 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really really do not agree, Sandstein. We've had several cases of admins, including technically savvy admins, who have been in despair because they lost their whatsits — I don't remember what they're called — some magic formulas that you need for your account when you have two-factor authentication — and apparently the magic gets lost every time you get a new phone. Ouch. Eventually, after much stress, these people have been rescued through being able to e-mail people who can vouch for them because they recognize the way they talk. (Hello, Jehochman, hope your account is OK these days.) People who habitually edit from internet cafes or library computers, or who have a mischievous twelve-year-old or a hard-drinking sister-in-law around the house, may possibly need the system, but everybody else had much better instead get a really strong password and not use that password anywhere else. In my opinion. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC). (PS: And yes, I've had the attempts today and so has Bishzilla. Considering the numbers of people who have, I find it hard to believe WWII editors have been singled out.) Bishonen | talk 23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      You're both right, to some degree. Bish, the magic you're thinking of is a scratch code (I'm not sure if that's what our implementation calls it) and it is just a plain text code that you're supposed to keep somewhere safe, so that if you do lose your authentication device (i.e. get a new phone) then you can use that code to reset your 2FA and re-implement it on your new device. If you lose your password AND your device AND those codes AND nobody can vouch for you, then yeah, you're fucked, but that's a lot of concurrent failures. If I remember right, when you enable 2FA here the codes you need are all displayed on the screen (you scan a QR code and the scratch codes are plain text), not sent by text or emailed or whatever. Maybe that depends on what authenticator you use. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • <<ec>>What Bishonen said. Every time I read the instructions my blood runs cold. With the two factor authentication I have w/ my bank and emails, there is a backup and authentication involves sending a request to my phone. The process here sounds dangerously complicated, and the grater risk is that I lose my whatsit.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it true that once you do this there's no going back? I don't want to do something irrevocable. And I have a strong password.--Dlohcierekim (talk)
      No, not at all, you can turn it off any time as long as you have access to your account. I get that we're still calling it "beta", but I turned it on the day my RfA closed, and I've never had a problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Blood-chillingly complicated is right, Dlohcierekim. And it sounds to me like the whole log-in operation, otherwise so smooth, gets much more fiddly with 2FA, every time you do it. That's quite a problem for people with a lot of socks![10] Bishonen | talk 23:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      Not by much, no, there's one extra step. The squirrel still gets in just fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Been a long time crossing the Bridge of Sighs
      • Two factor authentication, as implemented on Wikipedia, is farkakt. Jehochman Talk 18:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        gesundheit--Dlohcierekim (talk)
      • Regarding losing scratch codes - does no one else use a cloud storage or cloud backup service? --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        negative. I consider nothing in the cloud or otherwise online secure.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Psssst, Neil...be careful not to use too many *sighs* [FBDB] Atsme📞📧 20:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
      Hidden Tempo? Is that like a Ford Tempo but with a quieter engine? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      PSA: Admins might be better off with a long passphrase rather than two-factor authentication

      Just so you know, not everyone agrees that 2FA is a magic bullet.

      https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/09/economist-explains-9

      https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/nist_is_no_long.html

      https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/the-limits-of-sms-for-2-factor-authentication/

      https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/10/15946642/two-factor-authentication-online-security-mess

      I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Just as a reminder, users with advanced permissions are required by
        talk) 20:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        @
        Beeblebrox: Personally, I don't understand why the (not particularly strict, IMHO) requirements for privileged users don't apply to all users. Nearly every insignificant forum on the web has stricter password requirements than Wikipedia, for heaven's sake! Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      @
      talk) 18:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @
      Beeblebrox: I remember, but consensus might change. Maybe it's now the time for proposing slightly stricter requirements more similar to those customary anywhere else on the web? I don't get the "it might discourage new users" reasoning - after all, people should be well accustomed to having to use reasonably strong passwords by now. As it is, the password requirements for regular users are extremely and most unusually low, and the requirements for admins are still rather below standard. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      20 characters is almost certainly enough. A password that meets the requirements set forth in STRONGPASS (8 characters) will be broken by an offline password-guessing program in under a minute.[11][12][13][14][15] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be noted that most of those articles are about 2FA using SMS codes, or using such SMS codes as backups for the type of 2FA we have. Neither of which we do for that exact reason. Which is also the reason you are so screwed on this site if you loose your scratch codes AND your phone. However I agree that having a 20 character password that you only use on en.wp is probably more important than having 2FA. But I use 2FA on ALL my accounts wherever I can, and because i use it for so many services, it has stopped being bothersome. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup. Make sure it passes the dictionary attack though. rhin0cer0usstransgal4cticdifferential is easier to remember and just as good as 25 characters of random gibberish. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The passphrase Rhinoceros transgalactic differential. (with the initial capitalization and the ending period) is stronger still. Even better would be "My rhinoceros has a transgalactic differential." -- harder for a computer to crack and easier for a human to remember; just remember that it is a valid sentence using standard English spelling and grammar. Replacing o with 0, a with 4, etc. just makes it harder to remember without adding much in the way of difficulty for a password guessing program. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Source on that. The few times I've had to turn my previous laptop into a wireless router (long story), the password was something like "screwoffyoucommiespybastardsthisismygoddamnwifi" or similar full sentences.
      Now, it still needs to be multiple words, because single words are not a problem for dictionary attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Guy Macon: Re A password that meets the requirements set forth in STRONGPASS (8 characters) will be broken by an offline password-guessing program in under a minute. - Does WikiMedia not have, or could they not develop, a system where three (or so) failed attempts to log in to an account, lock the account? For a comparable example, if someone tries to use an ATM card and puts in an incorrect code three times, on the third try the ATM will eat the card. Couldn't WikiMedia have some way of locking an account after three (or X number to be decided) failed attempts at entering the password? --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • So you first lock all the admin accounts, then you go vandalize at will. This would work well. Remember, everything can be gamed, and this plan is game-able in two seconds flat. The reason teh ATM example works is because someone already has your card. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I am pretty sure the number of attempts per minute is limited (and not to 10^10), but I do not remember where I have seen this and what the number actually is.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there is some form of rate limiting although I don't know the details. I'd note a system which completely locks an account after 3 tries requiring some sort of reset is open to abuse since it means people who want to annoy an editor can keep locking their account. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      (If the following is too long for you, just read https://xkcd.com/936/ and https://xkcd.com/538/ ).

      Every time I have looked into the nuts and bolts of how the WMF does security, it has always, without fail, turned out that they do it right, so I am not even going to bother finding out how they stop an attacker from either making millions of guesses per second or being able to lock out an admin by trying to make millions of guesses per second. Clearly the WMF developers read the same research papers that I do.

      That being said, as explained at Kerckhoffs's principle#Modern-day twist, while doing things like rate limiting are Very Good Things, we are not to rely on them. We are to assume that the attacker knows every byte of information on the WMF servers (and in fact the attacker may actually be someone who has knows every byte of information on the WMF servers -- If a nation-state offered a key WMF employee millions of dollars if he complied and made a credible threat to torture and kill his family if he didn't, there is a 99%+ chance that they would end up knowing every byte of information on the WMF servers.)

      The WMF does not store your passphrase anywhere. When you enter it it a cryptographic hash is performed and the result compared with a stored hash. This means that an attacker who knows every byte of information on the WMF servers can perform a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing attack, but cannot simply look up your passphrase and use it to log on. So according to Kerckhoffs's principle, you should choose a passphrase that is easy to remember and hard for a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing program to guess. I will call that that "Macon's principle" so that I don't have to type "choose a passphrase that is easy to remember and hard for a high-speed offline passphrase-guessing program to guess" again and again.

      Bad ways to follow Macon's principle

      • Passwords instead of passphrases (single words instead of strings of words with spaces between them).
      • Random gibberish.
      • Short passwords or passphrases. 8 is awful, 16 is marginal, 24 is pretty good, 32 is so good that there is no real point going longer.
      • Character substitutions (Example: ch4r4ct3r sub5t|tut10ns)

      Good ways to follow Macon's principle

      • Use a standard English sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
      • Make it longer than 32 characters and have it contain at least three (four is better) longish words plus whatever short words are needed to make it grammatically correct.
      • Make sure that sentence has never been entered anywhere on your hard drive (including deleted files) or on the internet. "My Hovercraft Is Full of Eels" is bad because a dictionary that contains every phase used in Monty Python's Flying Circus would find it.[16]
      • Make it meaningful, easy to remember, and something that generates a strong mental image.
      • Make it meaningful to you, but unguessable by others (don't use your favorite team, first kiss, mother's maiden name, etc.)

      An example of a good passphrase that follow Macon's principle would be:

       Sherwood painted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with his flamingos.
      

      (This assumes that you actually know someone named Sherwood and that he owns a non-pink Subaru. Replace with a name/car from among your acquaintances)

      That's 78 characters that nobody in the history of the earth has ever put together in that order until I just wrote it. Typos really stand out (Sherwood paibted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with the Flamingos) and are easy to correct. The sun will burn out long before the fastest possible passphrase-guessing program completes 0.01% of its search. And yet it would be far easier to remember than the far easier (for a computer) to guess BgJ#XSzk=?sbF@ZT would be. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel there is some confusion in this thread around password security I'd like to clear up:
      • re MelanieN: Guy Macon is referring to an "offline" attack, which is a fancy way of saying how long it would take if the attackers found a way to bypass all rate limiting and had a copy of the password file from WMF's servers. In an "online" attack (When somebody tries to login via Special:userlogin many time), rate limiting does come into play. Currently the rate limit is set to at most 50 in five minutes (Which honestly, is a little on the high side for a short term limit), and no more than 150 tries in a 2 day period. Long before the hard limit comes into play, there is a soft limit where people need to enter a captcha in order to continue logging in. Of course we also record whenever their is a failed login and may take manual action if it appears an attack is happening.
      • re
        WP:STRONGPASS
        - the requirement for admin passwords enforced by the system is a minimum requirement, largely aimed (at least in my opinion) to prevent an online attack. People are of course encouraged to use even stronger passwords. The passphrase method Guy Macon mentions is one good way of generating strong passwords. Another popular method is to use a password manager to manage your random passwords for you. In addition to using a strong password, it is vitally important to use a unique password. It is much more common for attackers to get your password from other websites than it is for them to brute-force it.
      • re 8 character random password cracked in minutes. I don't think that calculation is correct. If we assume a random 8 character password (And I mean truly random, e.g. generated via dice or a password manager, not randomly chosen by a human as humans are terrible at randomly choosing a password), that's about 40 bits of entropy. Based on [17] we have about 23012000000 hashes/sec and we're using 128000 rounds PBKDF-sha256. 2(6*8)*128000/23012100000 ≈ 1565645769 seconds = 49 years. That said, longer passwords are much better, and most people are very bad at picking random passwords. Of course, if your 8 character password is '12345678' it will be cracked in milliseconds. In any case, I'd still highly highly recommend a password longer than 8 characters. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        My first password was the name of a fictional place. The, a number, then a combination. Now its a 15+ keystroke monster that requires hints. So far, I've stayed ahead in this Red-Queen's race.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, and I don't care what anybody else thinks. "Use a standard English sentence with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation." assumes there is a "standard English". English spelling, phrases and punctuation tends to vary by country, and often by personal background. Also, not everybody participating on English Wikipedia has English as a first-language. And God forbid anybody's account gets compromised, and they have to not panic long enough to type out the sentence. Not everybody has the same abilities, either technological or mental. I personally have encountered users (plural) who have motor skill limitations, and/or physical limitations, that would make this difficult on them. Not all users have the same level skill or abilities at anything. Please do not make it worse for people struggling already. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The advice to use standard English is usually meant as Don't use abbreviations or misspellings in your password because that doesn't make your password any harder to break. If you are using the, "use a long sentence as a passphrase method", you should spell out your long sentence in whatever way you normally write. The downside to the long sentence method is that it can be difficult to enter such a long thing into a password box (even if you don't have motor skill/physical limitations, but obviously its much harder for people who do have such limitations). For people who have difficulty entering long passwords, probably the best approach is to use a password manager program, which means you don't have to enter the password at all as the program takes care of it for you. Password managers are an approach that I personally would recommend in general as being the easiest way to have a secure password. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      U wot, M8? Standard English ya say? That'd limit me choises, now woulden' it?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I use a password manager, but I still need to remember the passphrase to get at all the other passwords in the password manager. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      No need to do the math. Steve Gibson has done it for us. See [ https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm ].

      The calculation is done locally, using Javascript, so the password doesn't leave your computer. To be extra safe, try

      • HZn?m+jW
      • PhBixXL4
      • qza7nm3g
      • pgupwmxn
      • 54606559

      as your 8-character test password.

      I just generated the above from my atomic decay true random number generator, set to chose from:

      • The 95 ASCII printable characters (0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ `~!@#$%^&*()-_=+[{]}\|;:'",<.>/?)
      • The 62 ASCII a-z/A-Z/0-9 characters (0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)
      • The 36 ASCII a-z/0-9 characters (0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz)
      • The 26 ASCII a-z characters (abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz)
      • The 10 ASCII 0-9 characters (0123456789)

      BTW, an 8x Nvidia GTX 1080 system is pretty low powered for this. If you want to read the details, see [On the Economics of Offline Password Cracking - Purdue CS].

      Key quotes:

      "Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that even PBKDF2-SHA256 with 100,000 hash iterations is insufficient to protect a majority a user passwords [from an offline attack]"

      "Bonneau and Schechter observed that in 2013, Bitcoin miners were able to perform approximately 2^75 SHA-256 hashes in exchange for bitcoin rewards worth about $257M. Correspondingly, one can estimate the cost of evaluating a SHA-256 hash to be approximately $7 x 10^-15."

      Or, we can just skip the math and see what happens when we try "Sherwood painted his Subaru pink so that it would blend in with his flamingos." on the GRC calculator. The time to crack goes from 27.57 seconds to 10.05 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel so inadequate, now. Mine would only take 100 trillion years!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Account hacking of World War II editors?

      Hello all, something is definitely afoot at the Circle K. I am seeing some reports about people who edit World War II articles having attempts made by someone to access their accounts. User:LargelyRecyclable alerted two other World War II editors of this problem [18] and just this afternoon the Wikipedia system alerted me that someone had tried to log into my account multiple times from a new location. On top of it all, there was a strange occurrence a few weeks ago, where someone impersonating an administrator called my job and asked I be "investigated" for my World War II related work on Wikipedia. User:Kierzek and I are both well known WWII editors and I wonder if others are having these experiences too. I changed my password this afternoon, I would encourage others to do the same if they are being affected by this. The most troublesome thing is that the group making mention of this are all World War II history editors, which is why I brought it up here. If for no other reason, then just to alert the powers-that-be that something is going on. -O.R.Comms 21:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I can confirm an attempt was made on mine. As mentioned on the linked discussion above, I suspect that Prüm was successfully compromised. I'm not sure when exactly it happened but some of the implications of the comments the account left at ArbCom are very worrisome. That someone called your work is also a very serious issue. This seems to be targeted and possibly related to the ArbCom case. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This is probably unrelated, as it has been almost five years since I edited anything related to WW II, but I received notice of someone trying to log into my account from another computer today, and someone left a comment on my user talk page in the Arabic Wikipedia, which I have never touched. Donald Albury 21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      See this thread. I don't think is World War II-related, it's someone trying to hack into a great many unrelated accounts. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) There's a thread about these hijacking attempts about two sections up. It's been going on all over, all day. It doesn't appear to be targeted at any one group or subgroup that anyone can tell so far. ♠PMC(talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)I have not had any issues, so far, but given the current atmosphere, so to speak, I am not surprised. Kierzek (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) It may be a site-wide attempt and not targeted, I've seen similar concerns above. The additional facets of O.R. having his worked called specifically about WWII editing and comments made with the Prum account at ArbCom may be unrelated but I'd still advise additional caution for any editors who've done work in that area. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Just notified of a failed attempt on my account. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I also had a failed attempt, as did another member of

      ☼ 22:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      It's random. I barely edit and I just got a failed attempt. Valeince (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Me too., and I'm not involved in any of the projects mentioned above. It seems to be some kind of wide-ranging attack. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yep, I had an attempt about 9hours ago. I've changed my password, which was decent, to a much stronger one. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Likewise. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The number comes from the WMF. I have been told they are releasing some sort of statement about this soon. [19]
      talk) 00:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Statement from WMF

      Just noting here that the Wikimedia Foundation has sent a statement out to the wikimedia-l mailing list: [20]. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Full text of statement

      Hello,

      Many of you may have been receiving emails in the last 24 hours warning you of "Multiple failed attempts to log in" with your account. I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia Foundation's Security team is aware of the situation, and working with others in the organization on steps to decrease the success of attacks like these.

      The exact source is not yet known, but it is not originating from our systems. That means it is an external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts. These types of efforts are increasingly common for websites of our reach. A vast majority of these attempts have been unsuccessful, and we are reaching out personally to the small number of accounts which we believe have been compromised.

      While we are constantly looking at improvements to our security systems and processes to offset the impact of malicious efforts such as these, the best method of prevention continues to be the steps each of you take to safeguard your accounts. Because of this, we have taken steps in the past to support things like stronger password requirements,[1] and we continue to encourage everyone to take some routine steps to maintain a secure computer and account. That includes regularly changing your passwords,[2] actively running antivirus software on your systems, and keeping your system software up to date.

      My team will continue to investigate this incident, and report back if we notice any concerning changes. If you have any questions, please contact the Support and Safety team (susa@wikimedia.org).

      John Bennett Director of Security, Wikimedia Foundation

      General Advice from a Non-Admin

      My advice, both to non-admins who can't use two-factor authentication, and to admins, who can use it, is simply to check your User Contributions regularly and make sure that they are all your own. If so, your account has not been compromised, and if your password is strong, it is not likely to be compromised. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This really seems more like a really elaborate troll than a genuine attempt at compromising tens of thousands of accounts. Just look at how much discussion, verging on panic, it has generated. I’m sure whoever made the bot tht did this is very pleased with themselves right now.
      talk) 01:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Should this all be rev-delled under DENY? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      (
      Wikipedia:Committed identity isn't a bad idea if you might ever have to recover your account. Additionally - I believe editors whom are admins on any wikimedia wiki can enable 2FA. SQLQuery me! 01:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      No, the attempt is likely a serious attempt at gaining credentials. If a hacker logs into
      b} 04:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      SQL is correct, an editor who is an admin on any wiki can enable/disable 2FA on their account. I've been experiencing attempts to access my account for over a week now and I have enabled 2FA through being an admin at test wiki. -- Dane talk 05:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      A strong password is the solution. If you are mostly editing from one place (say home) just write on a piece of paper a random combination of characters, 25 characters long (make sure you are not able to memorize it - otherwise make it longer) which contains small and large case letters, numbers and special characters - and possibly even letters of other alphabets if you can reproduce them with your keyboard. This will be your Wikimedia password. Have it written on the paper in a secure place (no chance to lose) and never use it elsewhere, on any other websites.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      "Mr. Owl—how many flops does it take to get to the Tootsie-Roll™ center of a Tootsie Pop™?" Factchecker_atyourservice 14:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly suspect that whoever is doing this is using a list of passwords leaked from other sites, rather than trying to brute force their way into each account. I doubt they're even trying variations on the password that's on that list. That's why most of us are only getting one failed login attempt and that's it. While it's good to have a strong password anyway, if what I think they're doing is what they're doing, changing the password is the kicker. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks indeed like yesterday they did not really attempt to break down any accounts, just let know that they exist to the largest possible amount of active user. However, this is not an isolated incident. We had recently two admin accounts broken, apparently because they re-used the passwords from other sites which were in the yahoo leak, or some other massive leak. I mentioned above that I regularly get attempts to break in to my account, sometimes up to several hundreds per day. It is obviously not possible to break a strong password which is not used on any other sites, however, it should be possible to break a weak password or to steal the existing password from elsewhere. 25 characters may be an overkill, but gives pretty much the guarantee - assuming they do not break in physically to one's house and there is no fire.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't know if anyone mentioned yesterday's twitter breach, but if you used the same password there as here, you should change both quickly.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      My user name and password are unique to this site. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's some handy advice. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Since everyone is giving advice I may as well chime in. The main reason people don't use strong passwords unique to each account is that it's practically impossible to remember all those passwords. But you can use a password manager to keep track of them and to at least partially automate the process of entering passwords. I use something called KeePass but there are lots of alternatives -- see our List of password managers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      It happened again, two more attempts. If you can find out who, please ban him. Do I have any reason to be nervous, if my password is safe? Alex of Canada (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      In a word, no. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Alex of Canada - I agree with User:Primefac. If your password was and is strong and it hasn't been compromised, you are all right. Just check your User Contributions from time to time. I will comment that the hacker or bot may be hoping to get people to panic and to change their strong passwords to new weaker passwords, but that is only my guess. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I will also comment that password regimes that require frequent changes of passwords, and that prohibit the use of a previously used password, are well-meaning but actually make things worse, because they increase the likelihood that the user will need to write down the password. This comment applies both to Wikipedia and to employer or government systems. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I got a failed-login warning a couple of days ago, but thought nothing of it at the time: I'm surprised there aren't more brute-force attacks. Perhaps this is where some sort of anti-bot measures might help? -- The Anome (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#PSA: Admins might be better off with a long passphrase rather than two-factor authentication. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      A wise Owl indeed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      page break

      looks like it's falling off.--Dlohcierekim (talk)

      • They're at it again today (I just got an alert that multiple failed attempts had been made to log into my account...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Clarification of a block evasion situation (without intent of deception) by Terry Foote

      A discussion about potential block evasion at User_talk:Terry Foote#Authorship_of_photo? was recently brought to my attention. It seems that Terry Foote had two accounts, his original account as User:Terry Foote and then a second account that was indefinitely blocked as User:Googie_man. Terry Foote has continued editing on the former account, contributing productively for a rather long period of time (ten years is my understanding). I let Jehochman know about the situation since he was the original blocking admin, and then pinged Alex Shih to weigh in on the situation. Despite the gravity of block evasion, it seems clear to me that since deception was not the intent in this case, we can just leave the Googie_man account blocked and let Terry Foote continue to contribute productively. Still, I wanted to bring the discussion to the community's attention nonetheless. ceranthor 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Request to an admin who has the power to delete pages that have over 3000 edits

      • If any stewards see this thread, then please be sure to help with the above ASAP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have moved both archives (
        talk) 01:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]

      You'll probably get a faster response if you post directly to steward requests page on meta. -FASTILY 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Anthony Appleyard: Not a steward here, but I highly doubt you'll be able to get this done because the history at "Eminem albums discography" contains over 9,000edits. The servers will probably have great trouble loading "Special:Undelete" because of the extremely high number of edits. When DerHexer and I tried to do a similar operation at the Madrid article (which then had over 7,600 edits), we had quite extreme difficulty with it, and in my experience the servers have only gotten more finicky about operations like that since then. They were never designed/optimised for this kind of work. Graham87 08:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather disappointing, but if anyone somehow beats the odds and accomplishes this, it would be quite appreciated. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Could someone delete the oldest 1000, then the next day the next-oldest 1000, etc? Or is it the number of past edits and not the number of deletions that give the servers problems? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question. I never even thought about that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Deletion is all-or-nothing; the only way to delete part of an article's history is via a process similar to what Anthony wrote above, and always has to begin with deleting the entire article. (You can revision-delete parts of the history, but that wouldn't be helpful - deletion and revision-deletion have essentially nothing in common other than policy, terminology, and that their end result is to hide some chunk of information from most users.) —
        Cryptic 18:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]

      Note by a steward: I can delete and undelete pages all-or-nothing with an unlimited number of revisions but I don't think that I can access Special:Undelete when there are more than a couple of thousand edits to select some to be restored. It might be possible from the database site but for that you will need a database admin. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I've restored 6000 revisions at once before, so it can be done, though it was of course very slow. Probably depends on how much existing strain is on the server. That said, with 9,700 edits, I don't want to delete the article and then be unable to recreate it. Best to start a phabricator ticket to handle this if it really needs doing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      TBAN for Sbelknap

      TOPIC BAN:

      Per community consensus in this discussion,

      broadly construed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits
      ) 12:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

      This person is a real world doctor of the same name; he confirmed his identity last spring, after I raised concerns that there was either impersonation or a few possible forms of COI editing going on. What I wrote then was

      If you are not Belknap, there is an issue with regard to your Username, with respect to

      WP:IMPERSONATE
      which is policy.

      If you are Belknap, your editing raises a host of issues, namely:

      • WP:SELFCITE
      • Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) with regard to advocating for a medical theory that you embrace in the real world, here in WP
      • possible financial
        WP:COI
        , if you are serving as an expert witness in any of the 5α-reductase inhibitor litigation that is going on.

      The pattern of editing that concerned me was self-citing and a focus on the sexual side effects of finasteride and dutasteride, which are 5α-Reductase inhibitors that are used for hair loss and enlarged prostate. The content issues here are not easy. There is not great data on this, and on top of that a lot of men taking these drugs are older and have other problems (like being older) that cause sexual problems.

      These drug articles, like our articles related to circumcision, have been plagued by advocates - men and their penises. There is an activist group called the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation that has been advocating for there to be a declared "syndrome" related to permanent sexual side effects of these drugs, supports litigation against the makers of these drugs, etc. Belknap is featured prominently on the foundation website.

      We previously had an editor Doors22 plaguing these articles, who finally acknowledged a COI at COIN here and agreed to stop editing directly, and was finally indeffed with the rationale long-term SPA, advocacy, apparent COI, focuses unduly on one editor, was warned.

      That COI thread was closed 9 May 2016, and the indef was 5 March 2017. Sbelknap picked up Doors22's slack, unfortunately - you can see from the bar charts in their edit count that they did very little here before Doors was indeffed.

      self citing

      From very early on, like this from 2008 (which he returned to defend/tweak several times and noted that on the talk page eg here in 2008, here and here in 2009, here in 2012, referring to himself in the third person, with corresponding edits to that bit of content and his self-cite eg here in 2012 etc.

      Here, added promotional stuff about his institution to the article about Chicago in 2009 and made a similar edit to the article about the neighborhood here in 2013.

      (to his credit, without selfciting he created the highly technical (but i think helpful in spirit)

      Optimal discriminant analysis
      in 2009. this is a kind of statistical analysis he uses.)

      sexual side effects

      So none of that is horrible. Not great, but not horrible. As I noted above, things started to get ugly last year, which is what prompted my inquiry. If you look at their edit count, over half their edits have been in the last two years, and almost all of those have been on these two drugs ( my tally is about 180 edits to these topics or discussion about them). And the focus has been entirely on these specific side effects.

      I want to call folks' attention to their first substantial edit to the Finasteride page, which is this. Do you see what they did there?

      In the topmost bit (the main adverse effects section) they a) removed the well-sourced content that side effects are generally minimal; b) took away the well-sourced content that most sexual side effects vanish with time; c) did nothing about the insane thing, that we mention sexual side effects before the risk of high-grade prostate cancer, which will kill you. (we had agreed to that, trying to get Doors to calm down, but it remains a bad compromise that anybody looking at the page with fresh, objective eyes should wonder at, as User:Jfdwolff noted here).

      In the bottom part, they ramped up the urgency and cited a primary source.

      This is very characteristic of the rest of the approximately 180 edits they have made on this narrow topic. Right down to their very long talk page post today. (which they didn't bother signing. They almost never sign their posts, or thread them. This behavior too is characteristic of people who are not here, as we all know) and this series of diffs just an hour or so ago, where they prominently cited their own work, elevating that nearly to the top of the adverse effects section and further burying the warning about high grade prostate cancer. Ditto this edit from earlier this week, where they added bizarre content from a primary source from 1999, the intent of which was to make the drug seem less useful for hair loss (I think) and again ramped up the urgency around sexual side effects. You can look at any of their edits to finasteride (here) or Dutasteride (here) and that is what you will see.

      See also this recent (and rejected) request for mediation they made, entitled: Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride, where the title says it all, and is basically the Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation company line.

      This is tragic, as this person is obviously very knowledgable, has access to many great sources, and could help make all of our articles much better. Instead they have chosen to edit about precisely one thing, with no regard for appropriate WEIGHT among other side effects or the article overall. I asked them to provide a draft of the section last year here, which they just ignored.

      They have never responded on any of the inquiries about their relationship with the Post Finasteride Foundation or if they are serving as an expert witness. As you can see from the history of their Talk page they just remove things.

      We should TBAN them from editing about sexual health, and should consider an indef. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead cite themselves and pound on this one issue, and drain the time of the volunteer community. Which is a damn shame. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I have proactively disclosed all potential COI. I have been transparent about my sources of research funding, which includes the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. These funding sources are cited in my published research. My only connection to the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation is having been the recipient of funding from them. I have never and will never serve as an expert witness in any finasteride or dutasteride litigation.
      I have reviewed the self-citation policy, and I I am entirely compliant with this policy, as I do so transparently and appropriately. I have openly used sbelknap as my wikipedia ID from the beginning, and do not use any other wikipedia ID. I have no connection whatsoever to Doors22. I also extensively cite other high-quality sources.
      I feel threatened by jytdog, who exhibits extreme ownership behavior of the finasteride article, has harrassed me with wikilawyering, and has gotten me briefly banned from editing. jytdog summarily deletes my edits with comments that often suggest they have not bothered to read the cites I provide. jytdog misrepresents wikipedia policies. For example, they assert that primary sources can not be used in medical articles and that self-citation is impermissible. They also claim that a secondary source is unreliable on an issue where an author of the secondary source is also the author of a primary source on that same issue. I note that many authors of secondary literature are also authors of some primary literature cited in their secondary articles. When I consult the wikipedia policies that jytdog cites, I find that they the actual policies are much more nuanced (and reasonable) than cited by jytdog.
      Also, in the last few days when I had a chance to make some edits to the finasteride article, somebody tried to log into my wikipedia account and I received a threatening phone call. I don't know who did these things. jytdog is not the only obnoxious editor who works on the finasteride article. As jytdog is a pseudonym, there is no way to confirm that they are not being paid by a P.R. firm or legal firm to edit the finasteride article or that they are not using sockpuppets and meatpuppets to amplify their edits. Regarding COI, methinks they doth protest too much.
      In my view as an subject matter expert and researcher in this area, the finateride article does not provide a NPOV. According to policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The current finasteride article overstates the efficacy and understates the toxicity of finasteride. I am working to correct that. jytdog just issued a bizarre post on the wikipedia finasteride talk page that included this: "Men and their penises is way down on my list of urgent needs to address in WP. This page currently discusses these issues and does a decent job of it - not perfect, but nobody reading this now would fail to understand there is some issue here. I am utterly uninterested in wasting any further time on this specific issue which is trivial in the big picture of medicine and of medicine in Wikipedia. This is approaching the disruption that the anti-circumcision activists cause as they push and PUSH and PUSH. Men and their god damn penises."
      Such misanthropy is grossly inappropriate. If jytdog is so angry at men, perhaps they could find a less triggering wikipedia article to edit than finasteride, which is an antiandrogen (male hormone blocker).Sbelknap (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      You would do well to read WP:Casting aspersions, which you are very close to violating. In addition, you, because you are a "subject matter expert" with a specific point of view about the article's subject, are in the worst possible position to judge the neutrality of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a little uncomfortable with that formulation. In a purely hypothetical example, suppose a Wikipedia editor was a climate researcher and their edits followed the (
      IPCC-ish) consensus in that field. Would they be subject to a topic ban from our climate articles as "a subject matter expert with a specific point of view about the article's subject"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Just to be clear, my comment was not by way of arguing for a sanction, but an explanation for why Sbelknap -- or your hypothetical climate researcher -- might not be the best judge of an article's neutrality. Such judgments should come from editors who understand the material, but are not necessarily biased about it, or who are able to put aside their prejudices in order to evaluate the article fairly. I think there are any number of editors, for instance, who hold strong political views, but who deal with articles on subjects on all sides of the political spectrum even-handedly - and then there are those who clearly cannot do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      As I noted at COIN, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, medical experts coming here advocating their pet theories is a problem, such that we specifically mention it in
      WP:MEDCOI
      . There is no mainstream medical editor who has supported Sbelknap's (and Door's before him) efforts to "pump up" the sexual adverse effects. This is medical advocacy, not the medical mainstream.
      I had added the following to the Society and Culture section of the finasteride page last week about the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation:

      A 2015 post in Health News Review noted that the foundation put out a press release timed to the publication of a review it had funded; the post said that the release "seems rather hyperbolic in admonishing physicians to be vigilantly looking out for 'symptoms in adverse drug reaction reports, suicide post-mortems, suicide-prevention services, and other patient records' and to alert the general population.... These appeals strike me as uncomfortably reminiscent of late-night TV and billboard pitches for malpractice attorneys." The release claimed that the NIH had "recognized" "post-finasteride syndrome"; in response to an inquiry an NIH spokeswoman said: "The statement by the Post Finasteride Foundation you referenced therefore is not accurate and was not determined by us."[1]

      References

      1. ^ Hoffman, Richard (August 12, 2015). "Advocacy group spin may skew discussion on finasteride side effects". Health News Review.
      That is what advocacy groups do. Sound the alarm, and make aggressive claims. Sbelknap has aligned himself with them, allowing them to quote him and post his face on their mainpage. (I strongly recommend health news review btw - they are great at calling out hype in the media about medicine.)
      The mainstream view on this may change as more evidence comes in. Sbelknap wants to make WP part of his efforts to try to make that change out there in the medical arena. He wants to assemble primary sources here to build the argument. None of that, is what we do here, and not what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Please support or oppose below

      Support TBAN. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Long term disruption. Ongoing COI issues. Removing high quality sources they disagree with here as it appears to not fit their POV. Referring to oneself in the third person is not cool.[21] Funded by the advocacy group Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation.[22] I am leaning towards an indef. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doc James errs here. The high quality source he mentioned was not removed from the body. It was removed from the lead, as it has been deprecated by another high quality secondary source. I referred to an article I co-authored. I did not refer to myself in the third person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talkcontribs) 14:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • note, in this diff, Sbelknap inserted his comment above into the middle of Doc James', and didn't sign it. I noted this pattern of ignoring how we handle talk page threads in the OP. I moved his comment out of doc james' and placed the unsigned template, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I don't need the slightest knowledge about medicine to see what's been going on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note. Adding a subheader for ease of editing. Jytdog has mentioned both a topic ban from sexual health, and an indefinite block: "We should TBAN them from editing about sexual health, and should consider an indef. They are not here to build an encyclopedia.." Could everybody please say which alternative they support? Pinging @Ian.thomson, Doc James, and Kudpung:. For my part, I support an indef as first alternative, and secondly the proposed topic ban. Bishonen | talk 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      As per Jytdog's opening thread title, I'm supporting a T-Ban. I would expect it to cover all articles, talk pages, images, and other discussions on health, medicine, anatomy, and related research, broadly construed. That should restrict his editing sufficiently without needing an indef. However, if the consensus leans to an indef, I won't oppose it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban. I've seen the ongoing long term disprution and it is clear that this user is here to advance a very specific point of view contrary to the consensus of other editors with medical expertise. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The medical literature onthat this topic is evolving. Should not the wikipedia article evolve as well?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talkcontribs)
      Sbelknap, that's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing the the santions to apply to a user. And please sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support POV/COI editing is not acceptable, even if "the literature is evolving". The editor clearly wants to make sure that the article "evolves" towards their preferred POV, which is hardly neutral. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Eggishorn: To clarify, do you support the tban or the indef? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Serial Number 54129:, thank you for the question and I apologize for not making myself clear. The immediate issue is the topic and a topic ban needs to happen first. Indeff is an issue I leave to admin judgment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Topic Ban - The evidence here is clear and the need to prevent disruption has been demonstrated. In fact, I would also support the indef. -- Dane talk 18:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban per Doc James. Will consider the possibility of an indef when that is specifically proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban per all of the above. (Hey, Jytdog, "have been plagued by advocates - men and their penises" sounds anatomically difficult to me. [FBDB]) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Tryptofish yes that is ...awkward, isn't it. I should have err ... circumscribed that better and sheathed it in a parenthetical like "(men and their penises.. problems everywhere)". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban, per Doc James. We do not need a bullheaded editor claiming some special level of expertise as justification to push their own point of view, especially an editor inclined to dismiss the concerns of uninvolved editors who know medical topics far better than I do. What I do know is that maintaining the highest quality standards on our medical articles is exceptionally important. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I browsed the above and Talk:Finasteride and there is no sign that Sbelknap is engaging with any of the points that have been patiently explained. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


      He keeps reverting my edits, using the argument that I'm a "sockpuppet" despite the fact that it hasn't been proven. [23] [24] [25] He's also vandalizing my user page. [26] [27] [28] Backarn (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      civility policy does not have exceptions. Wait until evidence is examined and let things go from there. Thank you both -~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      @Oshwah: He's the one who keeps adding the speedy deletion template, and he's obviously doing it on false grounds because of a personal vendetta against me. Backarn (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      It's just an image to an article... just leave the revision as is until the matter is resolved with the possible copyright violation with the image - it appears to be tagged for a legitimate reason and I have no evidence that shows any "personal vendetta" going on... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @
      Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Triggerhippie4 - That's fine; I see that there are concerns (I read your SPI) and I understand, but that doesn't give us the excuse to repeatedly add the sock template to their user page knowing that the user is removing it and asking you to stop, nor does it allow us to treat them any less than we would other users. If anything... why? What's the point? You're just making the user upset and adding to the disruption by doing what you were doing... is that how we should be behaving? Giving who you believe to be a disruptive editor even more reasons to be disruptive? Of course not... don't be silly ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Oshwah: Here we go again... he keeps slandering me and keeps claiming that the images are copyrighted, thus uploaded under the wrong license despite the fact that I repetadley linked to the respective countries' local laws which clearly allows for uploading such images. Please block this troll. Backarn (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Backarn - You're both behaving inappropriately toward each other. You're calling him a troll, he's calling you a sock, you're edit warring on the article, so is he... c'mon guys, enough already ;-). Just go your separate ways, stop being disruptive, and let it go. If you're not a sock puppet, great - you'll be fine and you have nothing to worry about. If he's not a troll, great - he'll be fine too. No need to claw on one another until a "champion is decided"... just leave it alone and behave like adults. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oshwah: I completely agree. But he's the one who's harassing me, how are we supposed to "go our separate ways" when he keeps reverting my edits and vandalizing my user page? Backarn (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked him to stop doing that above, and I'm sure he will do so ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Oshwah: Let's hope so, but I'm extremely sceptical. :) Backarn (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The images were deleted. Backarn will not add them anymore. I think this thread can be closed. --

      Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Backarn is now blocked indefinitely. @

      Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

      ARBPIA Notice

      Resolved

      Hi, please could an admin correct the admin-only template Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement?

      It needs this amendment (made to the ARBPIA editnotice), removing the words “of the revert”, as they do not appear in

      WP:ARBPIA3#Motion:_ARBPIA_.22consensus.22_provision_modified
      .

      Also pinging @El C: who added the words originally but seems to be on a wiki-break. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems to have been  Done by Onceinawhile. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]