Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	29	41
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	8	20	28
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 154 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 34 requests for RD1 redaction
• 34 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 144 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 24 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (22 out of 7739 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist Proximus Group 2024-05-22 13:44 2024-08-22 13:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry, COI editing, or both NinjaRobotPirate International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine 2024-05-22 12:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Wokipedia 2024-05-21 23:50 2024-05-23 23:50 edit,move Shenanigan precaution. BD2412 Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill Wikipedia:Golden Diamond Timeless Watch 2024-05-20 06:54 2024-05-23 06:54 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Ebrahim Raisi 2024-05-19 22:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me) El C 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash 2024-05-19 21:15 2024-06-19 21:15 edit Contentious topic restriction Ymblanter Koli rebellion and piracy 2024-05-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Spicy Khirbet Zanuta 2024-05-19 12:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree

A message to administrators about UTRS

UTRS is in the process of moving over to UTRS 2.0 of the software. We needed to do this because several users were unable to file proper appeals due to IPv6 IP addresses not being accepted by our severs. Therefore, we made the decision to move over to a rudimentary beta software instead to allow everyone to appeal properly.

Please note:

• In doing this, please understand that there will be bugs and issues. We will try our best to keep up with those issues. You can get assistance at the UTRS talkpage (preferably) or by placing "{{UTRS help me}}" on your talkpage.
• New features are not being considered at this time. Though your idea may have already been thought of and be in development.
• Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0. The only thing that needs to match is your Wikipedia username. You should receive a confirmation email to verify your account within 5 minutes. At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons).
• Temporary tool administrator status can be requested on WT:UTRS, and will be granted liberally at this time to help create templates from the old version. All bans, user management, and other tool administration functions are only available via the database or automated scripts already running on the server at this time.
• More information will be available in the days to come about the features of UTRS.

Please cross-post this message as needed

We appreciate your patience in advance,
For the UTRS Development Team, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Is there a phabricator ticket or project associated with this? Is it looking for volunteers to contribute to the software? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: We are on github. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0 ... At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons)" - that's the end of my contributions to UTRS then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm same question, even ACCtools does not have OAuth and OAuth is much more mature now. There's mwoauth for Python and mwoauthclient-php for PHP clients which are pretty stable, doing most of the work behind the scenes. It's probably more ideal to onboard more people into the development process and do it, if the workload is the issue. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: We've been trying to onboard people since it's inception in 2012 - we've only gained SQL and lost 2 others. No one has expressed an interest - or if they have, it missed my desk. I did not know about the PHP client, but I still struggle to understand OAuth and how to properly integrate it with Laravel as the login system is pre-build in there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I'm not that used to PHP but I can take a look into the OAuth integration. Maybe @DannyS712: can help as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Given the comments below, I'd also be willing to pitch in to at least get OAuth working. Depending on what other tasks need done I may be able to lend a hand elsewhere as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK and Wugapodes: If anyone wishes to pitch in, they can via pull requests, just be aware, we don't just use PHP, we use Laravel on top of it, which is the complicating factor. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: It's not small enough to resolve via pull requests, can you set up a development instance or if you already have one, grant us access. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the Wikimedia Cloud team if I can limit access to one instance I create that would allow you to do that. I think the answer is yes, but I'll have to get back to you - because I can't blanket hand out access because CU data exists on the server. In the mean time, if you don't have one already, you'll need to create a WM Dev account and tell me the name. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have asked the team, and there is no way I can limit access to only one instance. Also, if I understand you correctly, you just want to go in and code on an instance, and then have me integrate it back with whatever changes I've made in the meantime. That's a lot of extra time that a PR can solve while still allowing code review to make sure security remains intact. There is no limit to the size of a PR, in fact ACC has one here. The code is able to be ran on a local computer, and it only requires one install. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad: I will try but I have no experience with VPS (I work with Toolforge) and even if I could get it to work locally, there's no guarantee it will be usable at all in production. The ACC pull request is still open from 2017, so can you really say it's helping, either way, is it possible to get an instance up at Toolforge, or is it some VPS feature that is required, even a barebones instance is fine as long as we can test the flow in production, just saying it because it's known be finicky. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's something we can't put on toolforge. As far as I understand it, rules 2 & 5 would be violated to put it on toolforge. Beyond that, I would have to request individual pieces of software to be added which would not be guaranteed to be added and would take time. When we created UTRS, we were specifically told to stay away from toolforge (what it was at the time) with it. So the two options left would be that myself or @SQL: could push your changes to a test server when we have the time, that or I have to request (if it gets accepted) a separate wikitech:Help:Cloud VPS project and rebuild everything from ground zero. Speaking to personal development, if you google "how to install a lamp stack", it will tell you how to install all the things needed on a virtual machine that can run off your computer in any flavour of linux. Google is great for how tos on setting these up, and they don't need much resources at all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's always been a struggle to get admins to monitor requests at WP:UTRS. I think the OAuth made it easier for admins to pop in and check requests since it was introduced. I'm worried that adding extra layers for access will really drive down interest in participating and we'll lose any ground gained in this regard. This is absolutely not a criticism of all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in maintaining the system, just a concern from someone who has been active there pretty much since its inception.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with those above that ditching OAuth isn't desirable, I've popped in to UTRS occasionally when asked, but now will be more likely not to. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree on all points with Ponyo. Back when there was a separate UTRS login, there were at least several admins I know who were confused by the faff of having different logins for different bits of admin work (including me). I also had concerns about the security of the UTRS login at the time, and I refused to use it - I don't know what the security of UTRS 2.0 login will be like. When it changed to OAuth and just two clicks to get in and no new password, that made it a lot more accessible. Very easy to click through UTRS notifications on user talk pages, for example, and then perhaps review a couple of others when there. It made it so that every admin could see it easily, not just those who went through setting up a special UTRS account - and I remember a number of "No, it's easy now, just click" discussions I've had with other admins. Going back to a separate login again, I will simply not be bothered with the complication of the extra faff and I'll just give up on it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. (And, as per Ponyo above, that's not criticism of the people working on it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• login difficulty = 1/likelihood of my usage. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Update There are four requests in queue and I couldn't stand it, so I longed in. So much easier than beore! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  How did you do that then? The links still take me via OAuth to version 1.8.5 which says "UTRS is down :(" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

• @DeltaQuad: The registration form at [1] is trying to POST a password to an http:// (insecure) URL. ST47 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And there's no Strict-Transport-Security header set, so passwords are actually going over an unencrypted connection. ST47 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @ST47: Everything should be forced https, unless you specify you http for a page, the next page, you will still get redirected. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks like you fixed it, thanks. ST47 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Here. Though I guess there are still a few problems. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But how do you create the login in the first place? It's OK, I see ST47 has just linked it above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party" is not a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it is all being straightened. And once you are logged in, you can go to individual appeals from the Category:Requests for unblock page w/o bothering with OAuth. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say my first impression is that it's a horrible user interface, with important elements separated by vast areas of white space wasteland, and with enormous pointless icons. A good UI should take your eyes straight to the parts that matter, and this doesn't do that at all (at least, not for me). Anyway, I'll say no more - I'm walking away from it, but I might take a look in the future to see if it's any better. (Various parts of the UI contain spelling and other errors, if anyone fancies fixing those - they should be obvious). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• OAuth definitely made life a lot easier. –xeno^talk 12:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I understand OAuth made life a ton easier for everyone, I poured over the relevant documentation for days, and still couldn't figure out how to get it to work with our system. Some people have offered to try and help above, and if they can do it, i'll put it back in. I just simply don't have the ability to do it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DeltaQuad. Wish I could help, but it's way over my head. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do have some experience with OAuth (IPCheck uses a very hacky client to accomplish it - the very same that the original UTRS used). I cannot make a firm commitment of when I would be able to look at integration due to off-wiki circumstances at the moment, but I will try to do so in the near term. SQL^{Query me!} 02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've made a pull request to implement OAuth authentication. – Majavah ^(t/c) 07:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sensitive/private information

• @DeltaQuad: Is the new UTRS open to everyone to register an account and not just admins? UTRS is supposed to be used when unblock requests contain sensitive/private information (like IP addresses or real-world identities) and therefore surely needs to be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that the reason I ask is that I just saw a note on a non-admin's talk page denying their request for an account, but only because they don't have a registered email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've just seen at the login/register page, "For users that are here to comment on, process or assist with appeals, please select the button below. Please note that only user accounts over 500 edits are allowed to participate in this form." FFS, come on, there can private and sensitive information in UTRS requests. At WP:UTRS it says "UTRS access is limited to users who have undergone a community vetting process for higher tool access such as sysops, bureaucrats, and stewards in addition to Wikimedia Foundation Community Advocacy staff" and blocked users using it to request unblock will expect confidentiality - not exposure to anyone who's made 500 edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  That bit was inspired by the existence of ECP, wasn't it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  What's the relevance of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I dunno, it just seemed to me that since ECP has been introduced this 500edits thing has been spreading everywhere on Wikipedia, including places where it doesn't belong either because it's too strict or (in this case) too lenient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. Extended confirmed should, of course, have no relevance here, and the ability to view UTRS requests should be restricted to admins, crats etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not to mention that non-admins can't actually unblock them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  And aren't allowed to decline unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  So UTRS does not give out private information nor does it allow non-admins to review requests. In the old system, and still even now, we see multiple people who appeal basic blocks that do not contain private information at all. There is a system in place where the user can flag their appeal as having private information, and have it either just visible to administrators or oversighters. It is then reviewed to make sure it has private information. If not, it's released for public view so appeals that don't need to be hidden aren't. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  And what happens in the situation where the person does not flag it for private review but it contains private information anyway? Is it automatically released to every UTRS user? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes it does, just like it happens here on Wikipedia. There is an option for admins to defer it back to privacy, and other users can still use WP:RFO. -- Amanda (aka DQ)

• I've gone to review a UTRS ticket and been denied access due to "privacy". Is that a bug, or am I just less special than I thought? On the 500 edits issue, I really feel only admins and so forth that have been vetted should be seeing UTRS. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• There's a benefit to admin-only UTRS access that hasn't been mentioned yet: Spam, vandalism and harassment. Users who have been denied even talk page access by the community should not be provided an official new platform for reaching Wikipedia users with advertisements, insults, outing and libel. Not even for the thirty seconds or three hours until someone notices and removes it from public view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this LTA?

I know that one of you knows who this is: [2], [3]. And if you do, maybe you know what else we might could do besides just blocking the IP--is there a range we can do something about? a filter we can introduce? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

See the logs for Special:AbuseFilter/1050 and Special:AbuseFilter/2 where some admins have been working to address this. Yesterday, Enterprisey was blocking IPs that triggered the filter before the LTA could adapt. I'll use the new misses to try and fix the edit filter. Thanks for bringing this up here as more eyes on the problem would be incredibly helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated them, hits on 1050 should be immediately blocked. 2 is used for testing, so it may pick up problems the first one doesn't catch. If other admins see similar postings somewhere, let me know so I can update the filter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No User:Wugapodes, thank you! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ST47, Tks4Fish, you may be interested in this. ST47, you dropped a one-week block on one of the IPs; is there any point in extending the ones I placed? BTW I revdelete this shit as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: assuming you pinged me here so I can globally block the IPs, both are done :). 188.240.208.105's /24 for 3 years as an open proxy, and 114.134.189.16 for 1 month as a possible one. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tks4Fish, actually, I pinged you really just to keep you informed, but yes, that will work! Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Special:Diff/953991014 :/ Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The silver lining is that the filter is preventing human readable rants. Suffusion of Yellow made a wonderful edit that fixes the false positive problem caused by the growing filter, so that was a huge help. I've updated 1050 to account for the issues in the recent diff. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is reason to suspect cross-wiki abuse - (presumably) the same vandal has also been affecting en.wikt. It is probably safe to assume that any IP they are using after their main range got blocked is a proxy. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what I am smelling too. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure who this is, but with this and other recent vandalism, it unfortunately seems that wikipedia is finally facing the dreaded "tea spillers". Mostly teenagers, they've been ravaging social media for the past few years, obsessing over social media based controversies. They mainly congregate around beauty youtubers, and find power in constantly spamming gossip everywhere. Look at the history of James Charles (Internet personality) for examples. Be careful in blocking them, they may cancel you on twitter..... (#Drmiesisoverparty) Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• According to my daughter, that's not trending yet, but she looked up "Drmies" and said "it's not good". #blockedbydrmies apparently is a thing. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Anyone notice any activity on this today? I didn't see anything in the logs or at RFPP like I usually would, and we're past the time they're usually active. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• If someone can set up an LTA page for this user, that would be appreciated. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Everyone discussing this IP hopper, it is not an LTA. I can positively identify the IP hopping as block evasion by User:CGFSH, who got indeffed for posting similar kinds of BLP violations on the Connie Glynn page and for socking JavaHurricane 10:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I meant User:CGSFH, sorry. JavaHurricane 10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• FYI active again today – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wugapodes, [4]. JavaHurricane, what do you mean "not an LTA"? Is it not "L" enough? Ponyo, you blocked that a-hole account; what else can we do? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I had already set up something in filter 2 to catch this, and testing it on those edits shows that it hits, but nothing showed up in the logs? @Enterprisey: Any thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Stranger still, the text on the filter says it matched these edits, but they aren't in the log... — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wugapodes: Revdeleted (and oversighted) edits are always hidden in the EF logs. The logs for disallowed edits can also be oversighted separately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, I meant that this is a relatively new vandal rather than a long-term vandal. JavaHurricane 03:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• In case anyone is watching the logs and thinks I've gone mad, this vandal has started linking to previous revisions that haven't been revdeleted, so I'm trying to track them all down to prevent that. Plus it's for the best anyway per BLP. The good news is that the edit filter is working well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't noticed anything today; has anyone else? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg

Can someone undelete this file? It was deleted as unused but a copy of it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar). --MGA73 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This one was uploaded by User:Jason 8837, who identified themself as author and licenced is as PD-self. The date of upload (and tagging), which may not correspond with the date the photo was taken, was 16-12-08. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

These files are used as source for files in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas. Sadly there is no information about uploader/author etc. Can you undelete these so I can check?

• File:Coord8.GIF
• File:Coord6.GIF
• File:Coord5.GIF
• File:Coord3.GIF
• File:Coord2.GIF
• File:Coord1b.png

--MGA73 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For this group, all the .GIFs were uploaded by user:Loxley~enwiki (with no further information). That user has been inactive for many years. The .png was uploaded by user:Keenan Pepper, who remains active now. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're asking about the licence for the .GIFs - we don't know. Back then it wasn't mandatory to put licence information on uploads. I don't think it's safe to assume these GIFs are really licenced with a Wikipedia-compatible free licence. The .png was tagged with GFDL - if you're concerned about it, Keenan Pepper is still around to ask. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: Thank you. Okay so the GIF-files are not really good. But the 2 x png should be fine. Can you undelete the png so I can move it to Commons? I prefer to have the direct source. --MGA73 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay it is perhaps a bit confusing with the png, jpg and gif so let me clarify. Can someone undelete

• File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg
• File:Coord1b.png

So I can move to Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RIP Ronhjones

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

---

For those who may not have heard the news, I am very sad to report that it is believed User:Ronhjones has died. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or getting permission. Graham87 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no words... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Oh my goodness, how sad. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What a terrible way to die. I hope they succumbed to smoke inhalation first. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Good Article ban proposal

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

---

Currently there is a proposal to indefinitely ban an editor from contributing at the Good Article project (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN). The discussion is already underway there so it might be best for anyone interested to participate at that page regarding the ban. There was some discussion as to the appropriateness of deciding such a ban at the Good Article Nomination talk. I am not overly familiar with the history in this regard, but it might be worth getting some clarification on this from some editors here. If it is the wrong venue then we can move it here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Small note, I fixed your wikilink above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that is not allowed, the banning policy says community sanctions discussions have to take place at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am seriously nervous about this. I should note that AfC has occasionally done reviews of AfC reviewers, and I don't know whether that would be counted as similar or different (as we also control giving our de facto userright etc). The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree. I think that this is the place to carry out such a ban. And who would enforce a ban made there anyway? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I too agree - this is the correct venue for a community TBan (which is what this would amount to) to be discussed. I have offered my tuppenceworth at the discussion there. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• What's the difference between the discussion being linked here and taking place elsewhere and vice versa? It just makes a difficult decision unnecessarily harder and more burdensome on the editors involved, and is absolutely not based in the quoted policy which does not mandate that community sanctions must occur only at AN/ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bilorv, the relevant bit of WP:CBAN, as I read it, is Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I guess it doesn't go on to say that they can't happen anywhere else, but nor does it say that they can - this venue is clearly specified as the preferred venue, with AN/I being the only other option given. It's less of a problem now that it has been linked - but why not simply move the whole discussion here? I do appreciate the difficulty involved in making a decision like that, it can't be comfortable for anyone, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors can be banned from taking part in community processes without wider scrutiny. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• "May be discussed" is not the same as "Must be discussed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, indeed - I acknowledged that, and I agree that it would be worded better, but when I read 'May be discussed at X (preferred) or Y', I see that as a choice, and infer that Z isn't an option. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not read it that way. I see no exclusion, only a suggestion of possible venues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do read it that way. Two options, one of which is preferred. P-K3 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree, Girth Summit, Beyond My Ken, and Bilorv: I've proposed updating the wording to clarify this. See WT:BAN#Proposed wording change to WP:CBAN. Your input there would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per GS, how about just moving the discussion here, where there will be many more administrative eyes on it, and generally of editors independent of the GA project (which is not implyng that members of the GA project cannot "police" themselves, mere that, on principle, distance is good). In any case, although the letter of the policy indicates that other venues are availble, in reality an appeal based on "It didn't take place at AN/ANI" will almost certainly suceed, if only because the reviewing admin considers WT:GA too narrow a venue. ——SN54129 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure keeping it independent of GA is a good idea. Watchers of WT:GAN are generally pretty knowledgeable of the process and should be in a better position to judge if an editors reviews or nominations are up to the required standard (one which is pretty lenient) compared to editors at any other venue. A bigger concern to me would be ban discussions taking place here with no input from the GA project. To be perfectly honest most of our best reviewers are not admins. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• My experience with GA is limited (I've submitted 2 candidates, and happily both were accepted), so I'm not an expert there. I also have no knowledge of the particular editor in question here, so all this is in the abstract. There's two issues here:
  1. Can editors be banned from participation in GA due to WP:CIR? Surely the answer has to be yes. There's a variety of administrative tasks (new page patrol, AfC reviews, various forms of clerking, OTRS, NAC, DRV, DYK, etc) which don't necessarily require admin rights, but do require specialized knowledge and skill to perform correctly. Surely GA (particularly reviewing) is one of those. In almost all ways, we bend over backwards to be inclusive, but we do have standards and as you move up the hierarchy, those standards get stricter, and there needs to be some way to enforce them.
  2. Where is the right forum to discuss it? I think the current approach was correct. Start with one-on-one communication, and try to provide useful guidance for how the editor can improve their work. If that fails, a project-wide forum such as WT:GAN makes sense. But, ultimately, WP:AN is where sanctions get imposed. Basically, you're come here and say, "Look, these are all the lesser steps we tried, they didn't fix the problem, so now we're asking the community to impose a TBAN".

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: that's an excellent assessment of our "chain of command", and should probably be pag-inated. ——SN54129 13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thoughts:
  1. WP:SOFIXIT If you really think that discussion should be here, move it, and leave a 'this discussion has been moved' template. Now anyone can do that, but addressing specifically administrators commenting here who think it should move, here, you are in administration, which in part is administering process.
  2. Keep in mind WP:NOTBURO, and what are the trade-off's, everyone here now knows about that discussion and can comment there if they want. If it's closed against the editor, there will be a record of a bunch of editors telling an editor not to do something, and if the editor continues doing what a consensus says they should not, pretty much prima facie disruption by the editor.
  3. To me, that looks like a rather sad or embarrassing situation, perhaps ask the subject if they want it moved here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved topic ban discussion

The following content was copiedtranscluded copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry to steal your post, Wugapodes, but I think transclusion is cleaner here. Please undo my change if you think it is not benificial. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As the whole idea was to transfer the discussion here and continue it, transcluding and closing it is exactly what we don't need. Primefac, Wugapodes, can this discussion and the !votes please be continued here? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: as no one seems to be around, I have restored the Wugapodes move so that the discussion can continue. I hope that I have done so correctly. The first section was the initial discussion that led up to the proposal to ban. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Consultation with Happypillsjr

Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.

In this open setting, I would like to invite @Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall a similar discussion only a few weeks ago regarding another review which you got involved with. From a glance, I must say that the quality of reviews may in part be attributed to what I see as a less-than-ideal grasp of acceptable English grammar. I think Happypillsjr has good intentions and I don't dispute that he believes to be contributing in good faith, but I can identify with the concern that he is perhaps not suited to be reviewing and passing judgement upon articles, particularly when assessing prose quality. On the review I mentioned above, the line "looks perfect, no confusion and bad grammars" is questionable and not just shorthand. I am always very mindful about being critical of those who, like many here, want to help out and contribute in the right way, but equally I fully take the point that in processes like GA, FA, PR etc, those passing judgement need to possess some degree of competency to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I think Happypillsjr should leave the GA process until they can demonstrate the ability to build GA-level articles. It makes me sad to see enthusiastic editors have their well-meaning hopes to contribute frustrated, but here I see no other option. Happypillsjr has been editing occasionally since mid-2014, very regularly since mid-2018, and has accrued several thousand edits, so newness isn't the problem per se. Early in their time here, they were asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA, and were briefly blocked for non-compliance. In August 2018, BlueMoonset has to again ask. June 2019, BlueMoonset again asks them to stop. December 2019, epicgenius asks the same. Same month, Kingsif kindly offers mentoring after more of the same. I see no sign things are improving with time. Just this month Happypillsjr nominated yet another article for GA after doing some cleanup (which included adding material directly copy-pasted from a source), and again it was quick-failed. I'm not aware of any example of a nomination or review led by Happypillsjr ending well (though some example may be out there). At this point, I think further intermediate steps are a waste of everyone's time. I truly appreciate Happypillsjr's enthusiasm, but they cannot seem to contribute constructively to the GA process, and so they should not. Perhaps they can re-build trust by contributing constructively elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I must note there is a nomination that Happy is currently reviewing, which they previously nominated (that nomination was removed by Kew Gardens 613 because the article was far from the GA criteria). I think that, besides that nomination needing to be restarted, we need to consider whether Happy should be temporarily restricted from GAN reviews, since mentorship has had only a limited effect. I am hopeful that they could improve with time, but right now, it does not look like they should be reviewing good article nominations at this time. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with those above. Happypillsjr should be restricted from creating GA nominations or participating in GAN reviews, and encouraged instead to just focus on improving article content, making sure that they do not ever copy text directly from a reference. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, Kingsif, and Coolmarc: I am just aware of having a consultation of me of considering temporary restricted from GAN reviews and nominations. I know my presence from nominating and review articles is troubling to you guys. I know you guys heard about my history of nominating articles. I wanted to apologize about that. I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. So that again, I wanted to apologize.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the apology, I am disappointed in Happypillsjr's response. Not simply because they did not answer Kingsif's initial questions, but mostly because there was no offer to stop nominating and reviewing GA articles. As noted above, they've been asked politely many times to please not nominate or review at GA because their skills at assessing articles are clearly inadequate, yet they've ignored every request. Each time a problematic nomination or review has been made, other editors have to drop what they're doing to fix things. They have had five years to learn and understand the process, and still haven't. They were unable or unwilling to make use of the mentoring they were given several months ago.

Happypillsjr's problematic edits related to the GAN process began with their first nomination, made on April 12, 2015, the day after the expiration of a three-day block for disruption. They then opened a review of that very nomination, which had to be deleted, and when the nomination was reviewed two weeks later, never responded to the review, which was ultimately failed. In the five years since, they have yet to make a nomination or take on a review that was not ultimately problematic. I think we need to take formal action on the informal consensus that I see in the above comments: they need to take an enforced hiatus from GAN, hence the following proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN

As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.

The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This community cannot be forever cleaning up after an editor who should know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose has anyone suggested they could work with Happypillsjr on either one of their nominations or a review they might be conducting as a mentor? That would seem to be an obvious first step before trying to ban someone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I'm going to stay neutral on this discussion, but I think Kingsif already tried that. Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, that's great from Kingsif. Perhaps a more direct "Let's stop all your GA activity right now. Pick one single GAN and an experienced reviewer will review your review. Do not attempt to review any other GAN or submit your own in the mean time. Otherwise BlueMoonset will seek your indefinite ban from the GA process." would work? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I tentatively support the idea, i'd similarly feel a little uncomfortable making a formal declaration supporting an actual community-backed ban on a user acting in good faith, even though it's clear this user should step away from GAN. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: unfortunately, this has been continuing for years and Happypillsjr doesn't have the expertise needed to participate at GAN, which is a very demanding and highly skilled area. They have threatened to retire if banned, which is unfortunate, because they can absolutely learn to make useful contributions to articles. I encourage them to focus on improving articles without thinking about GA status for them, after reading more about copyright violations, so as not to make any more mistakes on that front. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support With notes: 1. a support for the ban is based on Happy's unfortunate history of ignoring requests to stop even when they've made it clear they understood the request. If this discussion goes stale, I would bet on another review/nom in two weeks. 2. the burden it places on other editors, not just myself, with the implicit obligation to double-check Happy's work is unfair; it is also unfair on nominators. 3. the rate of abandonment for both reviews and noms put up by Happy could be considered disruptive in itself - though I feel this comes from not fully understanding the project, which more experience (perhaps at their native language GA project) could help with. 4. that, should Happy return in a little while with more experience, I personally would be OK with them having some involvement (perhaps just watching and asking questions) when I review GANs, to help Happy get experience within this project for a ban appeal in 12 months. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Apears to be well-meaning but WP:Competence is required. Also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
• Support Although the editor may have good faith, they are unfortunately causing too many issues and wasting everybody's time here. Their comments are bizarre. One of the biggest GA criteria is being able to assess prose and this editor is not in the position to do this when they can't articulate themself properly. Cool Marc ✉ 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose (n.b. partially duplicated from my AN comment) - I am seriously nervous about this decision being made here. The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Depending on how urgent the project considers it, the "should GAN be allowed to handle the matter" discussion could be had first, or just restart the case etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural oppose struck due to move Nosebagbear (talk)
• Procedural oppose as this simply is not the correct forum. AN or ANI are the place, and it's easy enough to raise the issue there with a link here telling people here it's happening. GA is project wide as is said above. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per Nosebagbear and Doug Weller and Josh Milburn. For this to be binding, it would have to be logged as a community imposed TBan, which be discussed at AN per WP:CBAN. That it has happened differently in the past isn't a reason for us to disregard policy now. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per those above: this isn't the forum. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I encountered Happypillsjr about a year ago in another venue, and their use of English was so repeatedly poor that I assumed English was not their first language. Happypillsjr insisted then that it is their first language, which troubled me even more, because such poor use of a first language is less likely to improve. Their post above timestamped 19:00, 30 April contains these two sentences: I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. That seems to me to be clear evidence that it hasn't improved.
  I don't see how an editor with such poor skills in using the English language can make any constructive contribution at all to an English-language encyclopedia ... and they certainly have no place assessing quality. Their good intent is very clear, but good intent is not enough. Since requests for self-restraint have been unsuccessful, a topic ban is needed as the minimum step ... but a siteban would also be justified, because I fear that a ban from GAs will simply displace the disruption to another art of the 'pedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• TBAN with exemption, I considered a more limited response, but both my own checking and the consensus of the field experienced editors makes me inclined to agree that a straight TBAN is needed. However. Assuming the editor doesn't retire, an option for an experienced reviewer to do a review with them (if both parties are willing) at some stage feels like a positive. The experienced reviewer would need to sign off on the result, but it would be a helpful step for any future appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support partial TBAN, if carefully phrased. I wouldn't support a complete ban from the entire process; I'd suggest a ban from nominating articles to GAN, and from initiating a review, and from participating in a review where they haven't been invited to take part by the nominator or reviewer. If there is a third party who would be willing to work with them, that person could make a nomination, or initiate a review, and them work with them through the review process. Would that work? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I concur with BlueMoonset that most of the nominations mentioned were well below standards. Too much time is wasted from this. This user's contributions aren't bad on a whole, but he shouldn't be nominating any more good articles without doing far more work on them. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support limited TBAN, something like Girth Summit's phrasing - basically, let them work in the GA process if someone will supervise them. If the supervision works out, then they might someday show that they've learned and the TBAN can be lifted. If supervision doesn't improve things, then I expect they'll run out of people who will supervise and it effectively becomes a total TBAN in the GA space. creffett (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Creffett: Happypillsjr has acknowledged[5] dyslexia and problems with comprehension. Those problems cannot be resolved by supervision, so it seems to me that supervision will almost certainly to be just prolonging the agony for Happypillsjr, for the supervisor, and for the community. It seems to me to be much much kinder to everyone involved to simply say now that this isn't going to work out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, I am not willing to write someone off for those reasons. We can't mentor someone to not be dyslexic or not have comprehension problems, but we can still work with them on decision-making and learning when to ask for help. creffett (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Creffett: I am not suggesting writing someone off. I propose redirecting them to areas better suited to their abilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support with preference towards Girth Summit's proposal except unlike them I'd also support a full topic ban as third choice. Nosebagbear's suggestion which is fairly similar to Girth Summit's anyway, is my second choice. Like Nosebagbear, I'd emphasise that this is entirely voluntary. No editor should feel compelled to help out Happypillsjr and Happypillsjr should recognise this also means they are not allowed to go around continually bugging editors about a review. It may be that there is already no one willing to let Happypillsjr review and this will be a functional complete topic ban. I acknowledge even with someone else assisting, their participation may still be annoying to others in the review, and since I don't do GA reviews myself, I'm prescribing something that will affect others and not me. Still I feel it's worth giving that faint hope since I trust those who may offer to help won't keep at it if it's not working. As for BrownHairedGirl's point, IMO it's better to let any prospective supervisor decide for themselves if it's worth their time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comment: Is this the place for this discussion? Wikipedia:Banning policy says that conversations about community bans should take place at WP:AN (preferably) or WP:ANI. I don't think it says that they can't take place elsewhere, but I think it would be advisable for this to be explored there rather than here. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, community bans can't just be implemented at some backwater. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• GAN has previously done its own banning with editors who were causing significant problems here, which is why I didn't see a problem with doing so here. Oakley77 was banned from reviewing and nominating in 2012, and was subsequently blocked for violating their ban. (Was Matisse ever banned at GAN, or is that a Wikipedia-wide block?) Nor is GAN alone: Billy Hathorn was banned from DYK in 2011 (in advance of his indefinite en-Wikipedia block later that year), and when the block was lifted and (the same day) they nominated a large number of DYKs, the DYK ban was deemed to be still in force, and the nominations were removed. The ban remained in force through their final en-Wikipedia ban in 2015. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would think that as long as the ban doesn't affect other areas of Wikipedia and there is a decent consensus then there is no real problem. We are after all just a glorified wikiproject and this is our main talk page and where most editors familiar with the issues hang out. I would like to think the affected party should have a right to appeal at AN or ANI though if they so wish, although I see it unlikely that the community would overturn a ban from a wikiproject if most of the other members of the wikiproject support it. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• My understanding is that community bans are supposed to be implemented by the community as a whole, not just the community of a particular corner of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the noticeboards becoming the focal point of the community as a whole for matters like this. (I don't like it; the noticeboards are not pleasant places. But that's not the point.) This all feels a bit grotty to me. At the very least, make sure an uninvolved administrator is the one to close the discussion. But I've said my piece: I'll take no further part in this. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I understand and you may be right. My fear is that theoretically someone could be banned at ANI from this wikiproject without members of this wikiproject even knowing about it and I don't think that is right either. As BlueMoonsets research shows this doesn't happen that often. What about if we put a neutral notice at WP:ANI informing editors there of this discussion. That way it keeps it in house, but allows wider community input. I imagine it would stimiulate some discussion on how to handle these in the future which could be useful (although it is ANI so who knows). AIRcorn (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that is a good idea - and if a discussion here genuinely is a no-go, then I'm sure someone from the noticeboard would let us know. I can't speak from much experience, but, years ago, I got the impression that AN wasn't as bad as ANI. You (or someone else) could post there again to seek an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Likewise. There is absolutely no harm at all in making the attempt to community ban this user available to a wider audience. After all, they may have some other suggestions to resolve the situation. Keeping it "in house" is subversive and inappropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay I have left a note at AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Good Article ban proposal. "In house" might have come across a bit strong. I more meant that it is still hosted here. Either way we will get some clarification on this hopefully soon. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: *@BlueMoonset: If you seriously want to banned me from GAN then, I will be retired from Wikipedia.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Happypillsjr, I think the point is that your reviews aren't good enough and are creating more work for others. I suggest you take a step back from all GAN reviews, and maybe do what Kingsif suggested in December, which is to be mentored through a review so you know what you're doing? No-one is asking you to retire, some of us are just trying to help you improve your reviews. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I really don't want to retired. I thought I was confident for editing articles hard but I was like editing random articles for nomations. Maybe I deserve that.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that English appears not to be your first language and that's causing problems with your review comments and your comprehension of the advice you've been receiving from a number of good faith editors for several months. Don't retire, just ask for (or even accept offered) help. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Happypillsjr: Another way of making this work could be to take part in the GA process at the relevant Wikipedia for your first language. You could gain experience and a better understanding of the criteria on that wikipedia instead of the English one. I'm afraid to say that, given some of your review comments have asked people to make perfectly fine sentences incomprehensible, you might not be up to reviewing the prose of English articles until language skills improve. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't think the issue is a language barrier per-se, if you look at his userpage (native speaker of "American English") and one has to consider that there may another reason why the language issues present in this way (there may be many reasons besides the one I am thinking). I think this discussion has diverged into something I am not comfortable with, as it seemed clear there was consensus for Happypills to step back from this and he seemed to understand and accept there was consensus. I feel sorry for him here - I don't think we need this additional humiliation but I hope he accepts the position the community have taken here, albeit in a less than ideal manner. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Bungle: I agree you, language is not an issue but dyslexia is may not the only reason. Sometimes I have problems with comprehension.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Happypillsjr: I am sorry you have been subjected to this process - it isn't how the GA community tend to act. I do sense there is frustration surrounding your participation though and I can accept the reasons why; I can even accept that you should focus your efforts away from the GAN process and hope that you will take on board the constructive suggestions being offered. I am mindful many people have various difficulties in learning, understanding, comprehension etc that is entirely of no fault of their own and considered this may be a factor in your case. That isn't for us to speculate or discuss though, if that's your business. I do hope that despite this, you accept and understand that well-intended contributions to wikipedia are welcomed, yet at the same time you must take heed of (i.e. accept) community feedback and respond accordingly (in this case, unfortunately, you must step away from GAN). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps, and I suggest this as a genuine way to help, simple English Wikipedia and their more simplistic GA process could be useful experience? Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• In response to the drive-by admins asserting a procedural opposition, active WikiProjects like this one have every right to manage the functioning of said WikiProject, including banning activity from some editors. WP:GA isn't imposing a siteban or anything beyond their remit. Political maneuvers insisting that the issue has to be handled at WP:AN shows disrespect to the editors here improving the encyclopedia because your clique thinks it has the monopoly on community consensus. Your opposition is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am not some drive by sysop though I am a sysop. I'd said nothing when I saw this yesterday but I also think this is the wrong forum. GA isn't a Wikiproject, it's a community process. Topic banning from a community process should be done by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Like Barkeep, I am a sysop but not a driveby sysop, and I think this is the wrong forum. "[Managing] the functioning" of WikiProjects - not that this is a WikiProject - is one thing. Banning is another. To use a real-world analogy: private clubs can certainly manage their own affairs, but there are some things they can't do without getting others (e.g., courts, lawyer, accrediting bodies, accountants, insurers...) involved. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I apologize for my "drive-by" comment, which was unfounded. Still, is Category:WikiProject Good articles a misnomer? WP:PROJ seems to intone that DYK, GA, and FA are all WikiProjects. The only thing I see about "community process" is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would feel differently if the proposal was about topic banning from say this page. That feels akin to a Wikiproject managing itself. But there is a reason Wikipedia:Good articles is the home of GA not WP:WikiProject Good Articles. There is a Good Article Wikiproject but that's not where Happy faces a ban from. It's from The Good Article process and that is a community process - it's why unlike WikiProjects GA appears on the article itself not just on the talk page.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'd actually go further and argue that even Wikiproject topic bans shouldn't be discussed on their talk pages. While Wikiprojects are allowed a fair degree of self governance, once you start talking about topic banning someone it should go to the community. Other editors are free to ignore any posts of someone to the Wikiproject if they wish. But once they start talking about a topic ban which can be enforced via blocks or reverting the editor IMO it should be handled like any topic ban. That said, even if others disagree on this aspect, I think it's hard to argue against Barkeep49's point. If I visit Talk:Joe Biden I see Talk:Joe Biden#Community reassessment, a transcluded assessment. Any member of the (en.Wikipedia) community should be entitled to take part unless sanctions prevent it. It shouldn't come via the Good Article Wikiproject imposing it without involving the wider community. Likewise if I or an anon visits Polyethnicity, we see the green good article plus symbol. Clicking on it takes us to Wikipedia:Good articles. The good article status is being promoted on the article itself. It's clearly something the wider community has an interest in and so again anyone should be allowed to participate unless the earlier requirements were met to prevent them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Request: Since a number of people feel there are procedural issues that prevent the WT:GAN page from being the proper venue for this proposal, even with a link back here from AN, pinging those admins (Nosebagbear, Doug Weller, and Girth Summit) in the hopes that one of them will move this proposal and discussion to AN (or whatever venue is best), perhaps with a pointer back here to the outer section (Consultation with Happypillsjr) to give context. Or perhaps one of the admins in the most recent thread (Barkeep49 and Josh Milburn) can take care of it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Now that the move to AN has taken place (after a few missteps), the discussion can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Creation request

Please create R/shitniggerssay and /r/shitniggerssay with

#REDIRECT[[Controversial Reddit communities#FatPeopleHate]]

{{Rcat shell|
{{R to section}}
{{R from subreddit}}
}}

and also append {{lowercase title}} to the first one. Thanks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Does everything mentioned need a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, since this redirect is clearly unintended collateral of the title blacklist entry. If you think this redirect, and the redirects for the other 3 communities mentioned in that section, shouldn't exist, feel free to RfD them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: how to you see this as "unintended collateral" - the blacklist entry is fairly specific to include titles with this phrase in them at all, it was not a scunthorpe problem. This is basically an edit request, and it was clearly being at least questioned for further discussion; why did you feel using your template editor access was appropriate here? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Because one doesn't ususally need special privleges to create redirects, and the appropriateness of these redirects has nothing to do with the fact that they contain the N word in them. Either none of r/hamplanethatred, r/neofag, r/transfags, and r/shitniggerssay should exist, or all of them should, and the correct venue for that discussion is WP:RfD (as I said earlier), but the situation in which this request is not fulfilled, and all of the controversial subreddits banned on 10 June 2015 have redirects except for the one whose name happens to be on the title blacklist, makes no sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

One does require special privileges to create pages that violate the title blacklist, specifically because they may be controversial - that the page is a redirect doesn't make it special. I'm not arguing if these pages are actually appropriate or not, just why you didn't allow for the discussion to continue before acting. The TPE usage standards are fairly clear and it is quite a stretch to extend that access to this use case in my opinion. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you actually look at the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, you can see that this term was added in 2012 due to current, ongoing abuse, not due to controversial creations of pages whose titles legitimately include the n-word. 1234qwer1234's request was clearly made in good faith, so is in that sense not within the scope of the title blacklist entry. I disagree that my action constitutes blocking the discussion, merely redirecting it to the correct venue for challenging the existence of redirects (if anyone wishes to do so). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't address how you think your action was in the scope of template editing - the use case for TE's is "templates, modules, and editnotices" - and no xFD is not the correct venue to request a page creation. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, out of curiosity, are you a) intending on continuing this line of discussion as a formal review of Pppery's actions as they relate to the Template Editor permission, and/or b) intending a discussion about what constitutes a potentially contentious creation where the title blacklist is involved? I ask mainly to see if the above discussion should be put into its own sub-section or the whole thing can be closed off. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: my main concern is the Was this inappropriate use of the template editor tools by Pppery? issue. Feel free to section however it will best drive discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse action. This is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Template editor#Use, with emphasis added: "Editors are permitted to exercise this permission to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and editnotices." I don't see how one can claim that Pppery answering this reasonable edit request is abuse of template editor privileges: it's a reasonable request obviously in good faith, it improves the encyclopedia, there's no apparent consensus against creating descriptive redirects to this target and it's a thing we do very often (see WP:RNEUTRAL, WP:RFD#KEEP point #3, or WP:NOTCENSORED). The request was simply correcting an inconsistency in our coverage, and Pppery had the ability to respond; had I seen it first I would have done so. If an editor objects to the existence of redirects from these banned subreddits to the article subsection where they are described in encyclopedic detail, then that editor should list them for discussion at redirects for discussion, which is the correct venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: I don't want to get in to a silly argument about comma placement, but my reading of the spirit of the TPE guidelines is that the emphasis there should be on the to templates, modules, and editnotices part. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Are we endorsing and not endorsing this? Seems like a backward idea to create something that's on the blacklist and tell people to vote for it to be deleted if they don't like it. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia mostly works by allowing people to create things and letting people nominate them for deletion. For the record, if it adds any clarity, as an admin I would probably have accepted this request and created the redirects (and pointed complainers to RfD). Though I agree that Xaosflux probably has a point about TE permissions. Maybe this should be brought up at the TE page (it certainly isn't currently sanctionable for one instance). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Zzuuzz: I'm not looking to revoke ppp's TPE access here as a "sanction" - as an admin I wouldn't have created the pages as the request was at the time, since it was bring questioned - until there was a chance for the discussion to come to an end. Now that the pages are created, RfD is a good place to deal with them for anyone who doesn't want them there. When we select TPE's at WP:PERM we don't currently look to strongly review their non-technical consensus determining and content-related contributions to see if things like using the override titleblacklist permission on non-template related pages is something they would be good at, the same as we don't expect them the use tboverride to create borderline usernames; that access is primarily to extend the ability to manage edit notices to the toolkit. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I accept the request was being questioned, but with all respect to Johnuniq this is not a policy-based objection. It's also an objection which doesn't really hold up, as was later shown. As an admin I would have the leeway to exercise this discretion at some point, and I probably would have assuming no massive consensus developed otherwise. I hope this puts to rest the question I was responding to. At the same time a template editor probably does not have this discretion, either with or without an admin objecting. I don't think anyone here would want any sanction, but this noticeboard's slogan, "what admin action is being requested here" springs to mind. What I mean is that I find the policy a little weak in this area, and the policy's own page might be a suitable venue to clarify it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
          • • If "what admin action is being requested here" is necessary, I suppose it would be to review to determine if a notice/caution of this permission use should occur - as the revocation guidelines calls for a "pattern" to occur first, however notably the pattern is only about "protected templates", this use-case seems to not be supported by the guidelines at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse Should TPEs generally go around answering blacklist requests? Probably not, but per WP:NOTBURO I really don't see a reason to raise a fuss over this. I would have done it if Ppperry hadn't. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Page not found

Hi there, I remember a page named Pakistan International Public School and College Abbottabad to which I had contributions as well. Earlier today when I searched it, I couldn't find it. I searched in my contributions log as well and couldn't find but there were some deleted edits as well which I was unable to open. So I assume the page got deleted. I request admins here to help me finding that article and let me know whether it was deleted and when, why?? Thanks USaamo (talk · contribs) (uSaamo 13:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

@USaamo: I presume you mean Pakistan International Public School and College (I found it in your deleted contributions, which admins can see). It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan International Public School and College (2nd nomination). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for letting me know. Also if you could suggest me what to do next, whether I should go for deletion review or create a new article? USaamo (t@lk) 11:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@USaamo:. I think the best thing to do is restore the article to a Draft page for you to work on, assuming you have some reliable sources (which weren't present at the time of deletion). When you've finished updating it, I'd be happy to have a look at it before it's moved back to main space (and maybe Bearian would take a look too?) The important thing is to be sure you have the sources that demonstrate the school satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. So if you want me to check whatever sources you have and give you my opinion, I'd be happy to do so. Anyway, for starters, I've restored the article contents at Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone delete

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

---

User:Awesome Aasim/test.json - I tried tagging it for speedy deletion per u1 but it is not transcluding for some reason. Aasim 00:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. PS do you remember me? :D Aasim 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Request to lift Topic ban

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

---

Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. The main problem was relisting the discussions with no keep votes. Now I am familiar with the policy. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• A couple of questions @SS49:, I'd say you were TBanned for two main reasons (noquorum and relisting bias are extremely common for nacs) - can you identify and then expand upon the second issue? Secondly, do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way), and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose removing TBAN on relisting or closing discussions but sure to removing it for sorting. I would say there's been general consensus at WT:NAC that NAC at AfD is unnecessary except in a few cases including in a discussion spurred by this ANI thread. There is no need to expand our pool of potential closers to someone who has had issues doing this in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear:, My understanding on this area: If all points have been debated with no chance of consensus, the discussion should not be relisted. If new information shows up late in the discussion, relisting is suitable. It is important to participate in the discussion than relisting or closing. If the ban is removed, I will sort the discussions and will relist and close discussions if there is a clear reason to do so. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The other concern I wanted noted was your lack (or hostile) communication to those who tried to raise the issue. Most nacs (including myself in the past) get the issue raised at least occasionally, but so long as they're engaged with it isn't an issue.
• Like Barkeep I support sorting being reallowed, but I am currently neutral on the other aspects, I'll need to think further. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• SS49 I'm all for second chances, but I have a problem with supporting this. Your interests and motivations are none of my business, and I'm certainly not trying to imply anything improper, but I can't understand why someone would be so keen to clerk discussions that they so rarely take part in. I just looked at your contributions to AfD, hoping to find that you were engaging actively with the process, and evidence that you had a good understanding of policy, outcomes etc. What I see is that you have only participated in a dozen or so discussions since your TBan, and all your !votes/nominations are accompanied by a very short 'Non notable X' rationale. The only grounds for lifting the ban would be 'time served' which, when not accompanied by evidence of development of greater understanding, doesn't cut it for me. Can I make a suggestion though? We don't really need more hands on deck to help with closures, but we always need more people willing to review articles, evaluate sourcing, and actively take part in the discussions. Why not do that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, My username in topic ban list really discourages me. I want my username removed from that list. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SS49, I guess I can understand that. Have you actually read through the list though? Yes, some of it is a bit of a rogue's gallery, but you'll also find some very experienced and widely respected editors on there too - you're not in such bad company, it shouldn't feel like a mark of shame. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, Thanks for understanding. Much respect. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Barkeep49. I don't see any community benefit in having another potential closer, and I don't see evidence of SS49 having learnt since the ban was imposed. The communication failures noted by Nosebagbear are a strong red flag for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. The brief statement does not convince me that SS49 understands the problems with their editing. If they urgently want to close AfDs they should run for administrator. Sandstein 13:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wanting your username cleared of a badge of shame listing at WP:EDRC since March of 2019 is good motivation to change your behavior. However, by expressing you want to return to the same arena doing the same or similar things is cringe-worthy to me. If wanting to clear your name is a priority for you, never return to your old haunt ever. Then request the tban is irrelevant because you have moved on. With what you have stated here, I would have to oppose because it seems to be serving its intended purpose of keeping you out of trouble and conserving other editors' efforts. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, I would really want to see a good amount of actual, constructive participation in AfD debates if you want to demonstrate you're now competent to clerk and relist them. AfD needs editors looking at articles and sources closely rather more than it needs more non-admin clerking. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Voluntary rights removal

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

---

Since I have been inactive for a long time at pending changes, and I do not see that improving in the near future, I would like to request my PCR right to be removed --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Take good care of yourself, Kostas20142. SERIAL^# 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash

Relevant accounts:

• GargAvinash (talk · contribs · count)
• Kumargargavinash (talk · contribs · count)
• ADPS (talk · contribs · count)

Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students, GargAvinash, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, Kumargargavinash and ADPS. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by ToBeFree and Yamla (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Would it be an overreaction to apply WP:G5 and WP:BE where applicable, indefinitely block the sock account and insist on a proper unblock appeal in no less than six months? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  As a very minimum measure I insist on, I have removed the trust-based autopatrolled flag from the account. Ping Swarm who had been tricked into adding it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I mean that the creations appear to have a straightforward "academic" focus and intent, which gives the user the appearance of being credible, benign and here to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. I generally would not grant Autopatrolled to single-purpose stub creators, but a perceived "academic" motivation would make me more likely to trust them. In this case, Garg was focused on academic institutions. In the other, the user was a supposed astronomer who merely wanted to work on the backlog of celestial bodies lacking articles (I don't recall their name, but I will dig up the case if you want me to; they immediately created a promotion piece after being granted Autopatrolled. This was explained to me by someone as being a known sock tactic.) ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Putting aside the rationale for deleting the pair, how do they stand on their own merits? As I view them in their deleted states, they're so amply referenced that they're hard to read; but my impression is that this is conscientious referencing rather than refbombing, that these were worthwhile if unremarkable articles, that their loss is a (minor) misfortune, and that (if we put aside the history for a moment) this is an editor who's an asset to the project. I'm open to being corrected. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't see how blocking the GargAvinash account would be WP:PREVENTATIVE, on the other, blocked users circumventing declined unblocks by creating new accounts is probably not something to be encouraged even if they are entirely good faith and helpful. This isn't the first case of that I've seen on this board, so maybe it's worth looking at broader patterns to resolve this. To this specific request, I'd say let GargAvinash continue editing as GargAvinash, and leave the two previous accounts blocked with a tag stating they are former accounts of GargAvinash. I just struggle to convince myself that blocking Garg would be preventative. I trust Rosguill's judgment, and he's clearly keeping an eye on the account, so I'm not very concerned that disruption will return. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm not sure what to think for this case. On the one hand, I agree that there isn't anything really preventative about blocking now, I have yet to notice any significant issues in their editing since the block was lifted, and the most recent unblock requests seem to be reasonable explanations for past editing behavior, and they seemingly had very little to gain by confessing out of the blue. The argument could also be made that the break between 2018 and 2020 could be taken as "time served" for a standard offer unblock. On the other hand, the unblock requests in 2017 and 2018 strike me as less good faith, in some cases clearly deceptive given more recent confessions, and I'm at a loss as to why they requested an unblock on the old account about a week ago. That the original block was related to promotional editing is further concerning for an editor that's beelined to requesting NPP and autopatrol, even if they haven't done anything to suggest abuse on the new account. The reasons for my not immediately revoking autopatrol were that it seemed like it would be cleaner to just implement whatever decision was made at the end of this discussion, with the knowledge that any attempt to use the permission disruptively in the meantime would be quickly caught and make our decision much more straightforward.

  Right now, I'm wondering if the best way to handle this would be to allow them to continue editing, but to indefinitely ban them from requesting additional permissions such as NPP or autopatrol. This would allow them to continue editing productively, while also keeping them away from giving them tools that are reserved for trusted editors. These bans could be reviewed down the road in a few years if there's strong evidence of committed good faith editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's all very weird, especially how the COI concerns play in with NPP. I think the ban on permissions other than autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a good idea. To the extent that they may have a COI or are an UPE, obviously we want to limit the damage, and I think the ban would do that effectively without losing potential positive contributions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'll add a {{checkuser needed}} here, as checkuser evidence was used for declining at least one appeal. The user is practically evading a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is  Inconclusive without knowing what I'm looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• We really aren't sure what to do with these as a Community - I've seen longer cases basically just be ignored, while shorter cases are obviously rejected. I don't have a clearcut answer myself - we are currently squashed between "in no way preventative" and "sets a terrible example" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Right then, a clear-cut answer. He did wrong, but he long absented himself (we think), and if he did then in effect he pretty much served his time. He volunteered that he had done the dark deed. He's penitent. Blocking his current ID would not prevent anything that should be prevented. He seems a worthwhile editor; more than that, he seems to be a scrupulous, level-headed editor who understands Indian matters and who can read Hindi; and en:Wikipedia strikes me as terribly short of such people, much needed in the face of energetic and tiresome boosterism. So let his current ID be. No extra permissions for one year, but if he applies any time after that, view the application on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, what? A COI editor who has evaded his block on multiple occasions (no-one seems to have mentioned Gopalagarwal11 here, but that was him too) and we're willing to give him a free pass on that because he can speak Hindi and might contribute to Indian topics? This guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution; I recommend we deal with him the way we always deal with such editors: indef block, standard offer. If this discussion wasn't already underway, I would be implementing that block right now. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've slept over the issue and agree with Yunshui. Eight failed unblock requests, two of which have been made in April 2020 with the intentional omission of the active sockpuppet. In July 2018, the user lied "I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine."; in October 2019, they created their newest sockpuppet; in March 2020, they requested and received a trust-based autopatrol permission; in April 2020, the user requested an unblock twice at User talk:Kumargargavinash, both times including the reason "I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy", as if they had learned from the mistake, not speaking a word about having knowingly repeated it since. Only when two appeals had been declined, the user decided to write Special:Diff/954673728 with their sockpuppet GargAvinash, yet required a very friendly inquiry by Rosguill before actually admitting which accounts this is about. A chronic case of dishonesty, this is. As the user is still blocked, and there is clearly no consensus for an unblock here, WP:CBAN applies. Someone uninvolved should close this after at least 24 hours, per "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'", implementing a site-wide ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I guess this is a bit late now, I wrote it before anyone had replied but because I also wrote a bunch of other stuff and I wasn't sure if I wanted to say it all, I didn't post it. But "If I were Kumargargavinash, I would not wait for a decision or to be blocked on the GargAvinah account. I'd stop using it straight away and wait (at least) 6 months and ask to be unblocked on the Kumargargavinash account." Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I also wrote: This sort of seems to be a case where maybe if Kumargargavinash had tried to get unblocked in January with full honesty, they would have a fair chance of getting unblocked. But even taking WP:CLEANSTART into consideration I don't think we can accept the socking while blocked, especially given the historic problems were both socking and paid editing concerns. No matter that they seem to have been confessed without prompting. Adding now that I've read the other responses, I think it's preventative since it's difficult to trust an editor in these circumstances. While no one has identified any clear problems with their recent editing, it's difficult to be confident they won't re-occur with an editor who feels it's okay to pick and choose what parts of policy they want to obey in a manner way beyond that allowed by IAR i.e. completely ignoring a block. And as others have pointed with the benefit of hindsight, we also see they were misleading us very recently with the April 2020 unblock. They said they understood they weren't allow to sock, but didn't mention they were still socking until confessing to Rosguill later. (I also feel that if we just allow this to pass, this means they and others are more likely to just do the same thing but appreciate some may feel that's not a valid block reason.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm with Yunshui, ToBeFree, and Nil Einne: we shouldn't even give the perception that we will tolerate block evasion. I also vote for GargAvinash to be community banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion; failing that, a indefinite ban of this newest account, and maybe the standard offer. If the editor stays away for at least six months. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• The editor has demonstrated a long-term trend of dishonesty that continued up to this past month. A block is just as preventative here as the policies for WP:SOCK intend. If someone cannot be trusted by the community due to a history of dishonesty and sock puppetry, then they aren’t given editing privileges until they are believed to be trustworthy again as a preventive measure against future dishonest editing.
  In this case, their honesty started yesterday. Whether they weren’t dishonest from July 2018 – January 2020 is irrelevant if they were dishonest from January 2020 to yesterday. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ignore it - I don't see any benefit to blocking him now. Redirect the old accounts to the new account for transparency, but, other than that, this violation of WP:SOCK isn't particularly significant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Allowing a user a free pass encourages them and others to evade blocks/bans. --MrClog (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Regretfully, I think I'm now in the block camp. I'm swayed by comments made here, but the clincher is a comment made by GargAvinash. Following comments from ToBeFree that included rhetorical questions and a specific request that GargAvinash not respond to them [6], GargAvinash responded anyway and among other things, claimed that their block evasion with the current account was due to ignorance [7]. This really stretches the limits of my ability to assume good faith, given that the second account, ADPS, was explicitly blocked due to socking. While I can believe that someone may have simply walked away after getting blocked a second time without reading the relevant policies, coming back with a new account a year and a half later is at best negligence, and less charitably could be seen as contempt. I find it difficult to take someone seriously when in the same comment they say that they didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock [while requesting an unblock for Kumargargavinash] because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry and that they nonetheless never intended to...mislead, deceive...or circumvent a block ban or sanction. I'd be willing to entertain a standard offer further down the line, but at this time even that strikes me as being lenient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK.

  I didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry

  Q: why did you continue to edit with the sockpuppet until yesterday?
  A: I admit my stupidity but please watch my edit history. I haven't done anything that violates COI for which I was blocked.

  — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  (I assume that they started writing their answer before I added the note about the questions being rhetorical, so I wouldn't hold the answering itself against them. It's just the content of the answer that is concerning, as Rosguill and MarkH21 describe in detail. I recommend Kumargargavinash to have a look at this discussion and the whole situation in a few months again.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I still think the ban on advanced permissions is better, on balance, but I will agree that since my last comment here Garg has not been helping their own case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Factman67

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

---

User:Factman67 (talk) is an account primarily used for disruption/vandalism and refuses to engage in any sort of civil discourse. I'll leave what (if any) actions should be taken to address this to the reviewing administrators, but I wanted to at least get his editing tendencies on record.

Vandalism and disruptive editing examples

• [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (these last two examples clearly go against the consensus on the article's talk page)

Name calling, violations of CIVIL, etc. examples

• [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

... Actually, upon reviewing his editing history, 100% of his edits (literally) at the time of my post have been unconstructive, vandalism, and/or derogatory. I don't see any value in allowing him to continue, but again that's not for me to decide. Administrators, please review this user. I'll alert him to this noticeboard post per guidelines. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, although this qualifies as an "incident" which should be at WP:ANI next time. I blocked Factman67 (talk · contribs) indefinitely, particularly for diff but also I checked a couple of their minor edits and they were blatantly wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, next time I will use ANI, got it Thank you for reviewing and taking action! SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring POV on EverQuote article

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits[22][23] are likely from the same shifting-IP person [24] reported by @Ponyo: in the past.

If you semi-protect the article for a few weeks, the edit-warring on the article can be replaced by discussion on the talk page. I will notify the talk pages of those two IPs though I doubt the person in question will see my messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is back today inserting the same material with edit summary "WP:BRD is a guideline while WP:OWN is policy. Then on talk page argues that it doesn't matter what RS say because Online marketplace says something different. I don't want to revert his change a third time, but can somebody here take a look please? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I reverted and chimed in on the talkpage; the edits are obviously in violation of what the sources clearly and explicitly state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For any admins that want to look at this, disruptive editing by various Virginia-based IPs, likely the same person, focused on the removal of the term "marketplace" goes back to November 2018. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Grandpallama for taking a look at this IP, who is probably also this IP and this IP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

((restart indent)) the comedy continues at the EverQuote article as IP makes same edit for 4th time. I am trying to figure out how to move this to ANI. I had thought I was posting at at ANI in the first place but I made a mistake. Apologies! HouseOfChange (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange and Grandpallama: You may want to let Kuru know that the same editor has returned and is again edit warring as they were the blocking admin in the 3RN report linked to in your first post above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Closures need review

I noticed that a relatively inexperienced user Kraose (talk · contribs) returned from over a year-long hiatus and has over the past three days closed about a dozen move requests and RFCs. While their activity seems to be in good-faith, I found some of their closure to be problematic, especially since their closures often lacked the explanation of how they reached the conclusion they did. For example,

• Move request of a BLP from Mustafa Muhummed Omer → Mustafa Cagjar based upon a Google News hit-count even though all the cited sources in the article use the 'Omer/Omar' name, and most of the Google News hits for 'Cagjar' are not in English
• RFC at Adolf Hitler would have IMO benefited from some closing statement more detailed than "There is no consensus as of now to remove or modify the existing text.", especially since removal of number of Jews killed was not even suggested as an option by anyone.
• RFC at Indigenous Aryans Ditto for this discussion.

I will be offline for about the next 12 hours, so can some admin (or experienced NACer), review these and other closure by Kraose to see if my concern is merited/overblown. I have asked the editor to pause such activity for now. Abecedare (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not that urgent to come here since you could discuss on my talk page beforehand per the guideline.

Talk:Mustafa Cagjar#Requested move 22 April 2020: Sources are inconsistent not only between "Omer" and "Omar", but also "Muhummed" and "Mohoumed". "Mustafa Cagjar" seems to be more consistent and it is also supported by third party sources.[25][26][27] If a better alternative circulates around then the renomination would be welcome.

RFC at Adolf Hitler and RFC at Indigenous Aryans were listed on WP:RFCL for weeks and both discussions saw split between users who were supporting modification and those who preferred leaving the text as is. I could expand the explanation but the range of argument was limited and the closure has to be concise. Kraose (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a particular problem with any of those closures, including some of the unlinked ones (which were mostly uncontroversial moves). Mustafa Cagjar was clearly at least fairly uncontroversial given the complete lack of any opposition, and while Google news hits is far from the best indicator in the world it's not like someone else came along with a better indicator. If there's significant issues with this in terms of how he's referred to in reliable sources, then that's a fair objection to the proposal, but ultimately that was a move that any confirmed editor could potentially have made. A requested move that sees no objection may as well be performed unless the closer sees a tangible issue with it.

The two RfCs were clear no-consensus closures, to me. I personally prefer to try and detail what, if anything has been agreed when closing spicy discussions as no consensus, and maybe Kraose could have elaborated a little more - but in principle, these are perfectly reasonable closures of fairly stale discussions that didn't seem to be achieving anything. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: Are you sure that the Indigenous Aryans RfC was no-consensus? Because the last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what matters it not the number of !votes, but the quality of discussion therein. Have you actually read through the discussion, and can you really say that the oppose group actually made a cogent case, enough to say that there was no consensus? As user Joshua Jonathan pointed out, there was a repeated pattern from the oppose group of unsubstantiated claims and failure to provide any evidence when requested. Additionally, I must point out that several of the oppose responses either have been rescinded, or they have been posted by users who have been blocked indefinitely.

I also agree with @Abecedare: that the cookie-cutter response was inappropriate and does not accurately assess the Indigenous Aryans RfC at all. BirdValiant (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't carry on your misleading bludgeoning+canvassing episode here and don't allege an uninvolved admin of having comprehension problems. You need to really find something else to edit. Yoonadue (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoonadue: please respond in a polite manner. I agree with BirdVaillant|BirdVaillant that the arguments provided should be weighted; none of the opposers has provided relevant WP:RS which establish that the Indigeous Aryans-theory is part of the mainstream scholarly discourse, wheres sufficient sources have been provided which state that the IA-theory has no support whatsoever in mainstream scholarship, e.g. is fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that "Have you actually read through the discussion" is polite, especially when you are trying to distract the discussion on RfC by bringing up your unrelated disputes with other editors.[28] None of the supporters were able to verify their arguments per WP:VERIFY for their proposed changes. Whole story ends right there. To say one should ignore a core Wikipedia principle only for a petty tagging makes zero sense. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoonadue: If my question "have you actually read through the discussion" to Mazca came across as rude, that certainly wasn't my intent. It was a serious question. Given the cookie-cutter response that Kraose put on the RfCs, I have serious doubts that the closure was done with the care and scruple which is needed for closures in contentious cases like this. Therefore, if someone thinks that the closure was appropriate, then I think that deserves some explanation. When considered in its totality, and in consideration of WP:NOTDEM, what about the RfC actually looks like no-consensus? I think it's a legitimate question. BirdValiant (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry BirdValiant, I did not take it as rude. My participation here was primarily in the function of checking if there was anything egregiously wrong with the closes Kraose performed. Certainly the Indigenous Aryans one mentioned here is the most potentially problematic one because of the clear amount of effort that went into the discussion compared to the cursory nature of the closing statement, but please appreciate the context of my participation here.

It's a discussion I'd have personally felt very uncomfortable about closing as a consensus: On the 10-15 minutes of skimming I actually gave it in reviewing the close, I'd already come to something of a personal conclusion as to what the right answer was (and in general I agree with the proposed text), but I felt that there wasn't necessarily a super solid consensus in the discussion to support that, and it ultimately came across, both in formatting and in content, as two entrenched sides. Obviously other admins that also like closing difficult things may have reached a different conclusion, but I'd consider (a) the length of time the discussion had been sitting there, trickling along, without anyone actually closing it and (b) the sheer scale, measured in years, of previous discussion on the talk page dedicated to slight variants of the same rough argument. This is a contentious article, and in my initial gauging of Kraose's closure, I think it was reasonable. There is a fairly uncomfortable bar for converting the lead of a contentious article from "this is a debated area" to "this is a fringe theory"; I'm not saying Kraose was dead-on right in closing it so briefly, but I was initially here to defend in general that most of the closes they'd done were sensible enough. I think a request for review of that particular closure might be perfectly reasonable, but I was less in agreement with the initial complaint here, which is that Kraose's closures were more broadly problematic. ~ mazca ^talk 18:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine; then let's keep it this way, and unlock the page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and dropped the article protection back to semi, if there's other productive editing to be done. ~ mazca ^talk 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review of the closures Mazca. I am satisfied that there is no general problem with Kraose's closures and they can resume work in that area if they wish, although I'd recommend them to provide more explanation on how they reach their conclusions for non-clear cut RFC closures. As for the Indigenous Aryans' RFC. any objections to that particular closure can be handled in the normal manner by asking Kraose (on their talkpage) to offer further explanation or to overturn their close. This AN report can be marked as resolved. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  No problem, I agree that it's completely reasonable to follow up on that particular close. ~ mazca ^talk 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

novopagea

novopangea has disappeared and I think think the continent template has been vandilised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:46a7:6a00:3944:26bc:d5e5:b806 (talk)

Novopangaea still seems to be there and unvandalised, and Template:Continents of the world also seems to be intact. If some vandalism's occurred somewhere else, please give more details. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 12:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6

Seems to be a fault with text sizing in todays list, can't see how to fix it know. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a missing ‹/small› tag closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1200 Micrograms which was continuing to make all the following AfDs small on the main page, I've fixed it. ~ mazca ^talk 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought as much, but couldn't see where, Cheers, Govvy (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing by Jeh

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

---

This message is regarding the user Jeh, who died in 2019.

I have recently been in an email conversation with a user who is "familiar in the IT industry" (which, juding by his compitence I have no reason to doubt). He informed me of Jeh's death, along with info about his "paid editing" for both Intel and Microsoft. These also are not my allegations, I am simply relaying the allegations of another user.

Here are some key points from our email conversation:

• Jamie is listed as an author for a Microsoft Press book "Windows Internals" (ASIN: B01B98M8W4) (Amazon listing)
• He "has been paid editor since 2009."
• Jeh "worked for both Intel and MS"

These points are essentially the same as 2 previous COI investigations (both from IPs in New Zealand). I suspect the user making this report now is also the same one who made them as the IP is both in the same range and the email is from an NZ based business.

You can review the conclusion of these threads here and here. It could be likely that the user simply may not like Jeh, but why bring this up again nearly three years since the last COI report? Is there something more to this?

I am leaving this here as, clearly, this is an interesting one and needs discussion. Thank you all for your time, and don't forget to ping me if you need more info. Ed6767 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Since this presumably contains a boatload of private / CU-only info (real-life identities, NZ-based companies (!), etc.), then the arbcom are probably the best recipients of the info. Since this also seems to involve undoing—even if unintentionally—the reputation of an editor who has been dead over a year, I'm not quite sure what profit there is in it. At all.

And I don't like paid editing. SERIAL^# 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• As someone who is very, very aware of our UPE problem and very active in fighting it, I'm not sure what possible value this discussion could have. It's not like there is possibility of continued disruption and it just seems tasteless to drag a dead editor through the mud well after their death. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

DRV: Request for closure

Request admin to close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 30#Rupert Dover. The article, which has undergone significant changes since last AfD discussion, has been put up for deletion, rendering the DRV moot. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The DRV has only been open for 6 days. Let it run its course. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see a point in this case since as mentioned a new version had been created which is now at AFD. With the new version there is no reason to restore the original deleted version and since it appears to be different enough from the original deleted version a consensus not to restore that version wouldn’t affect the one that is currently at AFD. In other words keeping the current DRV open appears to be a waste of time.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the DRV in light of the current AFD, where all discussion regarding the article should go. bibliomaniac15 20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requests for summary judgment, with admonishments

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

---

The most basic role, or one of the most basic roles, for administrators is to fight bullying and maintain some semblance of fairness. Wikipedia should not, cannot continue to be tolerant of intolerance/bullying. Probably the worst action a bully can take is to bring a victim to ANI, with weak or nonexistent arguments, but putting the victim up for attack, and achieving some chance of getting the victim blocked or banned. At ANI it seems nothing is out of bounds, that supposed policy on personal attacks is ignored, that any accusation or assertion of fact, no matter how wrong or unfair, is tolerated, without moderation. I don't know how Wikipedia can clean up what goes on at ANI more generally, but I think the starting point is to allow a separate process that can cut off clearly invalid proceedings.

Specifically I see a need for occasional civil side discussions of wp:ANI incidents in progress, where the bringing of the ANI itself can be regarded as inappropriate. Meaning for this to be akin to entertaining requests for summary judgment in a U.S. courtroom setting, where judges can and do take rulings instead of allowing jury deliberations to go on, e.g. when the prosecution has clearly not made a coherent case or is just clearly wrong. (IANAL, i hope real lawyers could comment on the analogy.) I would hope the polite tone and relatively restricted participation of wp:DRV discussions could be maintained. wp:AN appears to me to be the correct place for such discussions, in the absence of any other. This role seems compatible but different from the requests for closure that are handled in a subpage of wp:AN, because, like at DRV, some discussion of the facts/evidence/behavior would be needed.

To be more tangible, I see two wp:ANI discussions right now (one involving me) where I think (what should be) basic requirements to have an ANI proceeding are simply not met, and where IMHO the proceeding should have been closed early on. And where the party bringing the ANI should be admonished. Everyone must recognize that, in the free-for-all of an ANI proceeding, it is simply not possible for a person targeted by an ANI to achieve any decent discussion of whether the ANI proceeding itself is valid. Where they simply need help, and asking in the ANI itself will just be interpreted and denounced as wiki-lawyering, and used against them. I request that administrators participating at wp:AN take on this role, of considering, like a judge, the fundamentals of a case. Please advise me if I misunderstand existing processes, but I think this would have administrators taking on a new role, in a new but constructive and time-saving way, partly addressing the big problem of bullying. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This appears to me to be an end-around by Doncram to avoid the ANI discussion, which involves the same kind of behavior that previously got him sanctioned in an arbitration case, only in a slightly different subject area. (The arbitrationwas about NRHP articles, and the current complaint is about Historic Hotels of America articles, but the underlyiing behvaior is essentially the same.) Such forum shopping in search of quashing an ANI complaint should not be rewarded. This report should be quickly closed, and Doncram warned not to engage in this sort of tactic again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not so. I have replied fully at the ANI proceeding opened against me this morning, and then I see Beyond My Ken asserting there, and here, that I have done something wrong by basically asking a process question here. Goes towards proving the need for a separate process like I suggest. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Complete and errant nonsense, Doncram. You posted the above [29] at 18:07, and didn't reply to the ANI thread until this edit at 21:52, almost 4 hours later. Further a "request for summary judgment" is a request for an outside entity -- like a judge -- to throw out a complaint instead of having it decided at a lower level, so, yes, this was an attempt to get around the ANI report by asking admins at AN to shut it down. I can't imagine how you thought that would work, consider that the people who hang around AN are pretty much a subset of those who hang out at ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see: you're asking for the person starting an ANI discussion about you (that would be me) to be admonished, but you don't even follow AN rule #1, i.e. let the person involved know that you started this discussion? For someone complaining about bullying and fair process, that's pretty rich. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Adam Riess

Administrators- Urgent help is needed please. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Adam_Riess - Thank you Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 02:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that administrative action is necessary. I do think that this is a matter for some combination of the COI and BLP noticeboards. IMHO, a legitimate case can be made for removing the controversy section from the article, though I'm not opining on whether it should stay or go. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi c.fred - I only listed it here because no one has touched it on the COI board and he left a message on my talk page (of which @The4lines: has since removed). I just needed someone to act on it for me so I can stay neutral. Thanks Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 02:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the IP is starting to get into some territory where it may become necessary and prudent to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeh

Per section above and WP:DWG, please remove his all user rights and protect his user page.--GZWDer (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GZWDer, is there confirmation? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: See Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2019#Jamie_Edward_Hanrahan_(Jeh). Reported by @Ed6767:.--GZWDer (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed 2020. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: His reviewer right should be removed too.--GZWDer (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User :أمين moved a page after someone else moved a page after a two year hiatus of another page move

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

---

At, now, Wadi Qana, أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the page on October 22, 2018 calling it the "official" name (which is disputed, considering the river flows through a couple of territories), JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the page on May 5th, 2020 claiming the prior move was made without discussion and no "official" name. أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then moved the page back less than 12 hours later with no edit summary.

I believe the last move was in violation of Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page, specifically the part of

"If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves"

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It was obscure page so no one looked it received few edits before moving back to original title --Shrike (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It needs to go to a requested move, rather than just moving it back and forth. The sources in the article call it Nahal, but they're almost all Israeli sources. Meanwhile there are more Google News hits for Wadi - even excluding those like Electronic Intifada - including sources like [https://www.jewishpress.com/multimedia/photos/bennett-establishes-7-nature-preserves-in-judea-samaria/2020/01/15/ where even the Israeli Defense Minister apparently calls it "Wadi" (though I am aware that my Google News settings aren't picking up Hebrew-only sources). I found two Haaretz sources, where one article calls it Nahal, and the other Wadi. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see the move to Wadi Qana was made as long ago as October 2018, and nobody appears to have disputed that until now. It does appear to be a reasonably obscure article with not many participants, but I think that name should be seen as the status quo ante now. I think the correct thing to do now for anyone who thinks the name should be different is indeed to request a move and seek consensus, and in the short term it doesn't really matter what name it is at. I don't think there's any admin action needed unless there's any further move warring over it (which there won't be now that both movers have been notified, right?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, OK, that's why I brought it here. I'm a Page Mover so I just wanted clarity over this since a move after a move is usually not allowed, especially when it can be seen as controversial, and I don't think anyone would think a 2 year lull as the same thing. I just wanted to get more eyes on this for more input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto to Boing - I don't think there is much admin action required. An WP:RM finding consensus for a particular term is what's required. If things escalate, then things may need to be looked at Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• And this utter bullshit filing is why Sir Joseph needs to be banned from anything related to Israel/Palestine. This was an uncontested move nearly 2 years ago. Uncontested. No one raised an objection. Now two years later its an issue? When Sir Joseph has never made an edit to the article or the talk page? And yet feels the need to threaten to report Nableezy for correctly pointing out that you cant contest a move 2 years down the line? Its more ideological battlegrounding from Sir Joseph in his ongoing pro-Israel POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, I didn't threaten to report Nableezy. There's no need to get all excited. All I did was point out a move less than 12 hours after another move that can be seen as controversial. An almost 2 year space isn't the same thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Dont talk crap. Thats an overt threat. And no, a move less than 12 hours after another move is not "controversial", THATS CONTESTING THE MOVE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, 1. Maybe learn how page move policy works. 2. I suggest you strike your personal attack. 3. Learn how to read, I never threatened to report Nableezy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would suggest you go read WP:RM again but I doubt it will enlighten you. I see you were merely threatening to report someone else in discussion with Nableezy. Fair enough. Since you like to use threats of noticeboards to get your way in discussions, next time I will not be engaging with you directly, I will be going straight to AE looking for a complete ban on all editing in the IP area or a community discussion to ban you from editing any topic even remotely associated with Israel, Palestine or anything related to Jews. I will present evidence of your extended battleground behaviour (which can be easily provided with a bit of tedious edit-history and noticeboard archive searches) in the area, your extensive block log for similar issues, and you are more than aware of the discretionary sanctions that are in place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, 1. You still didn't strike the personal attack. 2. What part of this don't you understand?

  ""If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves"" If you continue to attack me, as you've done here and at prior AN threads, I will seek an IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, regarding this edit. You can not express yourself the way you did, especially not regarding other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply. Please do not repeat such behavior and please strike the offending parts of that post. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. Personal attacks, threats to go to AD, etc., are not helpful. Please stop. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason for admin intervention here. I do have an opinion, based on the fact that 6 out of the 7 sources call it by one of the names, but that is for the talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ideally this is solved by somebody reminding Shrike that pretending something is uncontroversial when they know it isnt shouldnt be done, and hopefully by somebody dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. An RM has been created out of that bogus "uncontroversial request" and I dont think anything else is needed now. nableezy - 17:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

revdel request

Please RD3 [30], [31], [32], [33], [34][35][36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and this edit summary. There's a person vandalizing TFAs and every time finds a way to avoid the filters. Now it's "recycling"[67][68] non-deleted edits. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 00:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Think I got them all. Let me know if there's anything outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Improper closure at NPOVN

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

---

Regarding an NPOVN thread regarding content as Democratic Socialists of America. A user alleged that inclusion of certain material was an "NPOV violation." I believe this user's justifications, which have in large part offered political or personal/subjective reasons rather than ones based on policy, are in fact not in compliance with NPOV, and the material is well-sourced. I brought this to NPOVN for resolution, but I believe the discussion was improperly closed, as it doesn't bring resolution to the issue. I am opening this thread to request the close be re-opened.

Calton read the last sentence of the discussion where I mentioned "content issue," disregarded the entire rest of the discussion, and performed a non-admin closure, saying that "content disagreements are for talk pages." This is obviously ridiculous, because every matter at NPOV is at heart a content dispute. However, this specific disagreement centers on NPOV based on assertions by both sides, which is why I opened the discussion. This was an improper close and should be overturned, as it was unproductive and brings no resolution to the matter. The only two issues this user should've addressed were whether 1) the content was compliant with NPOV and 2) whether the reasoning offered by either side was compliant or non-compliant with NPOV. Instead, this user took personalized accusations made by another editor (which I refused to engage with) at face value and closed the discussion. I request this discussion be re-opened to bring closure to the underlying disagreement, regardless of whether it's the outcome I would've preferred or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Why isn't this on AN/I?
2. As "this user" is me, why wasn't I notified?
3. If you are going to bring attention to your self on an admin noticeboard, perhaps you should strike the WP:PA you made six minutes before posting this.[69]

O3000 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You weren't the one who closed the thread. This is about a thread closure. The closing user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The closer is correct here when they say "the editor perhaps least helpful in resolving anything was you [Wikieditor19920]". Multiple editors in that thread complained about wikieditor19920 repeatedly mischaracterizing their arguments, and the thread quickly devolved into a filibuster which was rightly closed. Based on the thread, the best way to resolve this issue is to remove Wikieditor19920 from the article to prevent bludgeoning, strawmanning, and forum shopping. I'd recommend a temporary ban (~1 month?) from the DSA article or a one-way interaction ban unless the editor agrees to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you not taking bad-faith accusations like "mischaracterizations of arguments" at face value and I reject that I, at least intentionally, mischaracterized anyone's arguments. One user, O3000, repeatedly denied making statements that diffs and quotes prove they made. I have not engaged in any form of "strawmanning" and I resent the accusation. Perhaps I should have disputed these accusations more strongly, but I chose to ignore them and stick to content. It's obvious that I responded directly to users and identified flaws in their arguments based on policy and the sources available, and the responses were typically "Oh, that's not my argument." Why would I participate in a discussion only to misrepresent their arguments? If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. These accusations, and the behavior by these editors, was ridiculous. I'll note that Toa Nidhki observed exactly what I was talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate if the admin above would address the issue at hand: improper closure of the discussion. There were two NPOV issues here: the comments by an editor and 2) the content itself. The closure addressed neither. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that the above admin just accused me of forum-shopping, for seeking input on a single forum, NPOVN, over an NPOV issue. The only other forum I have raised it on is here, to challenge an improper closure that singled me out for criticism with an out-of-context quote and did nothing to address the substantive NPOV dispute. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: Law of holes. No, I'm not being snide. I'm being serious. You were offered an out and doubled with yet another WP:PA. If you continue along this vein, eventually someone will bring up WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the "friendly advice," it'd be better if you would behave with a baseline level of civility, and not make repeat false accusations of personal attacks paired with combative, personalized criticisms (See Golden Rule) in about every one of your posts, including this one above. WP:CIR is basically a roundabout way of name-calling in this context. This is exactly the kind of filibustering that O3000 engaged in at NPOVN—trying throw out bait with combative/insulting posts and taking the conversation hopelessly off-track. If I wanted to deal with that directly, I would've raised a thread at ANI, which I may do at a later time, but I think it's proper to ask for review of this closure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban Appeal

This is an appeal of the topic ban on Japan-related articles I received in July of 2016: [70] In the topic ban proposal, my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban: [71]​

In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make, and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit.

I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support User has been active since 2016 and hasn't had any other issues. No concerns.--v/r - TP 00:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support no current issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing any issues. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, shows awareness of the issue and commitment to fix it; clean block log and steady activity also indicate the capacity for productive collaboration. Guy (help!) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Molokele

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

---

Daniel Molokele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I put this user at the COIN Noticeboard but as no one as answering and it seems like he is editing it more I thought I should bring it here. Please see the COIN post I made for more info. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 04:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet investigations needs help

Calling all admins: WP:SPI needs some assistance to work through the backlog which is growing quite quickly. Most of the cases with "open" status are pretty obvious and simple to deal with. Clearing out these SPIs quickly has some of the biggest impact as generally this is the type of socking that is making consensus building hard. Dealing with these simpler cases also allows admins who are more familiar to deal with the difficult ones. There are comprehensive instructions available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions but that level of response probably isn't needed. Just block the accounts appropriately if there's abusive socking occurring, make a note of what you've done and change {{SPI case status|}} to {{SPI case status|clerk}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The “green cases” where CU has also returned a result and it needs someone to decide how to handle is also chronically backlogged. Also, if someone’s not socking but they’re being disruptive in another way that would lead to a block, block them for the other thing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We need a double link to Commons?

As we know since Wikidata exists the link to Commons appears in the left column. However it happens that some users occasionally roll back if I delete the second old link (useless and unsightly), added to the External links. How should I behave in these cases? --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They're right and you're wrong; removing {{Commonscat}} and its variants from the External Links section is straightforward disruptive editing. Not only do the Wikidata categories not necessarily tally one-to-one with the most appropriate Commons category, by removing the links you're disrupting the experience of anyone using the mobile site and any downstream reuser, neither of whom will see the cross-wiki links in the sidebar without considerable effort. ‑ Iridescent 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well in the articles I create I am sure that the Commons link is appropriate. Ok, thanks for the future I will know how to behave, but if what you say is true it would even be more useful to put a second link in the External links, which is rare to see due to the fact that the links to Wikidata were made later. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if I understand your question as "if an appropriate category at a sister project exists, is it correct to add a link in the EL section?", then yes, absolutely; that's literally the point of these templates. The chapter-and-verse is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects with more details at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder, per chance, if Kasper is refering to this edit? The issue here is this user STILL does not understand WP:CATVER, something that has been raised with them recently. They even brought my reverts to AN, which resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG. Maybe there's a bigger WP:CIR issue here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said, but WP:AGF and all that… ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. My Italian is a bit rusty, but I got the gist of "stato bloccato" and "infinito" before hitting translate! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

w:it:Wikipedia:Check_user/Richieste/Archivio/Utenti/Kasper2006 is the equivalent of their SPI archive, which is not the best of signs. However, it's worth noting that that was a long time ago (2009-2012). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block

• 84.13.196.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I blocked this IP for this [72] followed by this [73]. The same approach is visible here [74], repudiating WP:RS, and trolling at talk:Plandemic.

I have no involvement with the Waldman article but an involved at Plandemic, so if anyone wants to modify or undo this, I'm fine with it. A partial block on the Mikovits and Plandemic articles with their talk pages would be OK by me but the Waldman edit indicates a more substantial WP:NOTHERE/trolling issue. Guy (help!) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me and it's also been reviewed by 331dot as part of a declined unblock request. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Squidwerd frequently adding unsourced/poorly sourced content to articles

Squidwerd (talk) has been adding lots of unsourced content to articles such as The Office (American TV series), MrBeast, and others seen in his edit history. When it is sourced, it’s often a bad/primary reference used. They have stated on their talk page "not to send them messages" and he does not respond to or acknowledge any. Thanks SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone mass-rollback Special:Contributions/50.26.172.216 ?

Block evasion of Hmains (talk · contribs) who's just had AWB priviledges revoked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Which likely means that Hmains (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked too. Will notify soon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: as the blocking admin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I just rolled back the latest 500 contribs of that IP based on the (incorrect) assumption that Hmains was blocked. This may not be as straightforward as it looks - are these {{CatAutoTOC}} additions at all useful? – bradv🍁 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's less that having the templates isn't useful than that they're in the wrong place. Pinging User:BrownHairedGirl, who has been cleaning up the mess (and has forgotten more about categories than I will ever know). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -- Actually no, they're in the wrong place, but they're also for very small categories for which they additions are apparently not useful. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Already a tangential discussion here. She says there was probably no need to roll back. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: basically everything in category space can be reverted. If there's a need for this, bots can do it properly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb the IPs' edits are OK. Possibly un-needed, but well-formed.

It's Hmains's malformed edits which should be rolled back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this IP address, do not know how to use an IP address in lieu my WP user name, and would not even consider any such evasion anyway. Please check it out. Thanks Hmains (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose that this is some sort of framing then? Bradv, do you know of any user who can check into this? (Yes, I know that CUs cannot publicly connect accounts with IPs, but it could be worth checking privately anyways). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have not checked. I believed the block reason as well as the statement at the beginning of this thread, both of which are erroneous. Hmains is not blocked, so this cannot be block evasion, whether or not the IP belongs to them. That is my mistake. – bradv🍁 22:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  If they now check and subsequently block Hmains, the connection is obvious as well. Private checks are useful if the issue hasn't been raised at a public noticeboard before. --MrClog (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Mdaniels5757, the TOC should be placed below all category header elements. It works fine if it's immediately above the parent categories, or below them, or (as with some of this IPs' work), in the middle of them.

The IP has been doing this for 3 or 4 weeks (see e.g. this discussion at User talk:50.26.172.216#Template:CatAutoTOC), and mostly seems to be doing it right, adding them at the bottom of the page. That's different to the Hmains style of consistently adding them at the top.

So I am unsure about the accuracy of Headbomb's assertion that the IP is Hmains. When Hmains was using AWB, they set AWB to add CatAutoTOC at the top of he page, but since the default mode of AWB is to append rather than prepend, it would have required a conscious choice to prepend. It would be odd for Hmains to have switched from doing it properly when editing manually as an IP, then screw it up when logged in and using AWB. So unless there is some other info linking the two, my guess is that Hmains is not the IP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going off the block log. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) PS I have been a long-term critic of Hmains's reckless use of AWB, and glad that their AWB access was revoked again (hopefully permanently). But from all my engagement with Hmains over any years, they seem like a thoroughly nice person, and socking just seems out-of-character.

Plus, as I noted above, the nature of the edits has enough subtle differences to make me doubt that it's the same human.

So I don't think there is socking here, and I also don't think that IP should be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, how is the block log connecting the two? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the IP's block log, and the note by Primefac. I think Primefac was mistaken in linking the two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I just went back and checked the IP's contribs for late April. I chose 26 April, and those contribs[75] show the TOC being correctly added at the bottom the the WikiCode, e.g. [76].
Now look at Hmains contribs in the same period[77], e.g. [78], where {{CatAutoTOC}} is added at the top.
It doesn't seem likely to me that when Hmains had set up an unauthorised bot to this, and taken extra steps to misconfigure the bot, they were all manually editing as IP and doing it correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your in-depth look at the situation. I saw an IP editor making similar edits (en-masse and relatively quickly) that had recently gotten Hmains in trouble, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. My apologies to the IP for the block (which I've now lifted) and to Hmains for the assumption that kicked this whole thing off. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Should I be reversing the rollbacks I did? – bradv🍁 23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the conversation here and elsewhere, I think it's best to just leave things be for now. Pages that need the template will (eventually) get them re-added. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with leaving Bradv's rollbacks in situ. And I think that Primefac was right act quickly when they saw what seemed to be disruption. Best to be precautionary, and check the details later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• and will the IP block log be corrected to remove my name, improperly associating me with this IP address. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Hmains: A log entry was placed, (case of mistaken identity) in log entry 107994469. The prior log can not be "edited". — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks anyway. Hmains (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I agree with leaving the roll-back. Most people seem to think the template should not be applied when all the entries total fewer than 100, and the ip was doing lots like the ridiculous case here, where nearly everything begins with the same letter, and the TOC is useless. Do/should we have any formal policy or consensus on when this template is appropriate? Is it more helpful for mobile viewers than desktop? Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod, I dunno where that "most people seem to think" comes from.
    The whole point of CatAutoTOC is that it will generate a TOC if needed, otherwise do nothing. So it is used on lots of categories which don't yet reach the threshold, but might grow, to save editors from manually adding or removing a TOC as categories grow and shrink. The folly of Hmains and the IP was adding it indiscriminately to whole sets of categories which will almost certainly never reach that threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdel IP request

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

---

Hi, Emailed OS but still no answer 2 hours on, Could someone revdel both of my IP addresses at Mercedes-Benz Vario please?, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 23:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate that Enterprisey, Many thanks for your help :), Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, and now they've been oversighted too. Sorry for the slow response on list - usually it's much quicker than this. – bradv🍁 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Bradv, No worries, Tbh I thought it had actually been declined as it was my own stupid fault anyway, Anyway many thanks for oversighting and replying - Both are much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

TFA vandal

As most probably know, there is a person that is vandalising TFAs. I checked a few of today's IPs and they don't seem to be open proxies yet their geolocations are all over the planet. Do we have any idea as to how this user is operating w.r.t. IP addresses? (Pinging zzuuzz, who might be able to help.) --MrClog (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

These are definitely open proxies, with the possible exception of any IPs geolocating to mid New York State, whence this appears to originate. I've seen a mix of obvious colos and some of what I would carefully describe as publicly accessible VPNs on broadband. Some of these may not be open, in the traditional sense, but might belong to some 'app'. At this time I don't know for sure which network this might be - I have some suspicions though tbh it's not going to be that important. Also, while I'm here I'd just recommend to carry on blocking as you've already been blocking, plus whatever else needs doing, picking out the web servers for possibly a longer block if you can. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Their behaviour does indeed suggest that the IPs are open proxies, but some are owned by ISPs like this one, that doesn't seem to be the kind of ISP you'd expect when looking at VPNs (I couldn't find any indication they even sell internet packages for companies). MrClog (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The distribution of IPs suggests to me some P2P thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Makes sense. Hopefully the IP gets bored soon. It's a bit sad that the TFA has to be protected every day; we want to invite new people to edit it. --MrClog (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tons of userpages in MFD catagory but no MFD relating to them

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion what should be done 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was down to Template:User campus ambassador being nominated for deletion, the MfD notice was displayed on every page which transcluded the template. I've fixed it so these pages should disappear from the category soon. Hut 8.5 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

I would like for an uninvolved admin or two to keep an eye on this article. There are concerted efforts to include part of the victim's supposed run-ins with the law, as if these things are somehow relevant to him getting shot by these two men. Allegedly shot, of course. I find, and I am not the only one, that such inclusions are distasteful, and I'm putting it mildly. They are BLP violations, because recent deaths fall under the BLP and this information is undue and does not pertain. This is not a biography of a person, it's an account of how an unarmed man was shot by two other men. Allegedly, of course. See also Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Arbery_priors. We can NOT have this article with some tendentious material, which IMO borders on racism. We've seen this before, in the article on Trayvon Martin most particularly, and we should not let this happen again. I have no easy solution here, but I think that some active and proactive administrative oversight might help. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS

MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.

There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Per your comments below, I also support unblocking. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking – though what we're really talking about here is removing the CBAN imposed by 3STRIKES. Honestly, I sympathize with this user's predicament. They made a mistake, and they were blocked. All of the issues on their admittedly long rap sheet stem from a desire to edit despite the block. Clearly, English is not their first language, but that doesn't mean they can't make effective contributions to the project. I'm looking at their most recent sock from July of last year GoodLife123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I don't see any serious issues with the contributions. The edits they made on that sock are live on the pages to this day. For this user, I subscribe to the WP:ROPE school of thought. Maybe we unban them, and suddenly all of the ban evasion issues are a moot point and they become a useful contributor? Maybe not, and then we just ban them again. They've been good for almost a year. If they're ever going to get another chance, now is the time. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking per AlexEng. "WP:ROPE school of thought." starship.paint (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)