Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Zawl (talk | contribs)
38,802 edits
Zawl (talk | contribs)
38,802 edits
Line 535: Line 535:
:::That is ''not'' a valid rationale. Quality of the other article have no relevance here. Wikipedia page views is also not a valid point to decide which article should be primary topic. I will comment more when I get home but based on your response here alone, I '''endorse''' the rights removal. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::That is ''not'' a valid rationale. Quality of the other article have no relevance here. Wikipedia page views is also not a valid point to decide which article should be primary topic. I will comment more when I get home but based on your response here alone, I '''endorse''' the rights removal. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Endorse removal''' it’s an example of you making a controversial move to establish a primary topic on your own without an RM. That is disruptive and shows a lack of understanding of how the article title and page moving policy and procedures work. The fact that Zawl continues to defend the move on the merits without realizing the issues doing it himself rather than asking for consensus via an RM show that the disruption is likely to continue. I generally don’t follow the “easy come, easy go” approach to page mover because of how difficult it is to actually remove due to the inevitable appeal by a vested contributor, but if there ever was a case for the “easy go” part after giving someone a chance with the flag, this is it. Good removal. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Endorse removal''' it’s an example of you making a controversial move to establish a primary topic on your own without an RM. That is disruptive and shows a lack of understanding of how the article title and page moving policy and procedures work. The fact that Zawl continues to defend the move on the merits without realizing the issues doing it himself rather than asking for consensus via an RM show that the disruption is likely to continue. I generally don’t follow the “easy come, easy go” approach to page mover because of how difficult it is to actually remove due to the inevitable appeal by a vested contributor, but if there ever was a case for the “easy go” part after giving someone a chance with the flag, this is it. Good removal. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Is performing one controversial move the equivalent of demonstrating '''a pattern''' of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus, as stated in the criteria for revoking page mover rights? I've done this once, maybe I thought it was uncontroversial but here I've learnt my lesson and I certainly didn't expect a TNT after my first mistake. — <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 10px;">[[User:Zawl|<span style="color:white;font-variant:Small-caps;">'''Za'''</span>]][[User talk:Zawl|<span style="color:white;font-variant:Small-caps;">'''wl'''</span>]]</span> 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::Is performing one controversial move the equivalent of demonstrating '''a pattern''' of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus, as stated in the criteria for revoking page mover rights? I've done this once, maybe I thought it was uncontroversial but here I've learnt my lesson and I certainly didn't expect a TNT after my first mistake. — <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 10px;">[[User:Zawl|<span style="color:white;font-variant:Small-caps;">'''Za'''</span>]][[User talk:Zawl|<span style="color:white;font-variant:Small-caps;">'''wl'''</span>]]</span> 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:07, 19 February 2018

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 93 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

      (Initiated 74 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 5 August 2024) - Discussion is a month old and appears to have run its course. A consensus may have emerged but not a snow close so needs a kind uninvoled editor please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 10 0 10
      TfD 0 1 10 0 11
      MfD 0 0 6 0 6
      FfD 0 0 3 0 3
      RfD 0 0 64 0 64
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Raymoo

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Template:Empty-warn

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Template:Latvia-edu-stub

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 319 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 121 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Cartoon_image_near_lead

      (Initiated 120 days ago on 7 May 2024) 34 comments, 17 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down. Not the most monumental of issues, but closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Erledigt @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 99 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 97 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 88 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Southeastern_(train_operating_company,_2006–2021)#Requested_move_16_August_2024

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 16 August 2024) I planned to move this to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company). However, that's been reverted as "an undiscussed move" and discussion has died down and I have withdrawn the plan to move it to that name. I am also requesting for it to be moved back to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company) because it was moved to Southeastern_(train_operating_company,_2006–2021) in Feb 2024 for no apparent reason and given the number of moves, its safe to say it needs to be moved back to the stable title per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SVTRT. Same applies to Thameslink_(train_operating_company,_1997–2006) JuniperChill (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Erledigt by FOARP. SilverLocust 💬 05:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks#Merge Proposal

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 18 July 2024)I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

      Bericht
      Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 8345 total) (Purge)
      Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin
      Partition of India 2024-09-04 21:00 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: this discussion Academic Challenger
      Darryl Cooper 2024-09-04 19:56 2025-09-04 19:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
      Tiwana 2024-09-04 19:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Karabakh movement 2024-09-04 19:06 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
      White genocide (Armenians) 2024-09-04 19:05 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
      Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept) 2024-09-04 19:03 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
      Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 2024-09-04 19:02 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
      Rana Sanga 2024-09-04 15:57 2026-09-04 15:57 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
      AH Milad 2024-09-04 14:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback
      Red Sea crisis 2024-09-04 01:53 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Ymblanter: Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Daniel Quinlan
      Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-09-04 01:51 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Isabelle Belato: Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-09-04 00:24 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Red-tailed hawk: Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Protection Helper Bot
      Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-04 00:14 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Malinaccier: Per WP:A/I/PIA Protection Helper Bot
      Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-09-04 00:04 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Prolog: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Protection Helper Bot
      September 2024 Israel ceasefire protests 2024-09-03 21:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      September 2024 Poltava strike 2024-09-03 20:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter
      Template:Election box turnout no change 2024-09-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2516 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Rauso 2024-09-03 16:46 2025-03-03 16:46 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
      Bhar 2024-09-03 03:40 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
      List of massacres in Jerusalem 2024-09-03 03:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      2024 Tarqumiyah shooting 2024-09-03 03:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Abu Shujaa 2024-09-03 03:13 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      List of Alien vs. Predator characters 2024-09-03 03:04 2025-09-03 03:04 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      List of Rick and Morty characters 2024-09-03 02:44 2024-12-03 02:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      Al Madeena Cherpulassery 2024-09-02 20:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate
      Khalil al-Hayya 2024-09-02 18:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction EdJohnston
      Draft:Ahsan Ali Web Designer 2024-09-02 16:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Valereee
      Draft:Sudarshan Khatiwada 2024-09-02 13:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
      The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack 2024-09-02 02:36 2024-10-02 02:36 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      Raised by Bats 2024-09-02 02:28 2024-10-02 02:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      The Devil's Bris 2024-09-02 02:28 2024-10-02 02:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      Ooky Spooky 2024-09-02 02:26 2024-10-02 02:26 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
      Lehi Street bombing 2024-09-01 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      User talk:Magnolia677 2024-08-31 22:32 2024-09-10 22:32 edit,move Acroterion
      Draft:Terminator (fanfic) 2024-08-31 21:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Just Step Sideways

      "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts."

      Should this warning ever be given, without specifying who the sockmaster is?

      What's the point? The socks already know who they are. There's no gain from keeping this secret.

      Why is the rest of the editing community excluded here? Socks are a persistent problem, and it's through having lots of editors watching out that we catch them, and catch them early. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      That is the standard message when you use Twinkle to indef block an obvious sock. It serves two purposes: to alert the community should they want to talk to the person who made an edit, and to alert the user when it's a false positive. Do you have examples where it's a problem? Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well if you mean, "Would you like to replace the general point you've obviously made deliberately as such, with a specific case so that it can turn into another one-issue pissing match", then no. Do you not think I'd have done that, if I wasn't deliberately avoiding doing so? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm blocking for this (and it's not an IP) I usually put the sockmaster's name in the block log, unless it's blatantly obvious. Either that or use the blockedsock template on the sock's userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd hope any admin could justify any such block to any relevant person if asked. But there's a few reasons a generic message like this is used: 1) in the vast majority of cases the reasons are blindingly obvious from the edits. 2) It's not always clear who the actual sockmaster is even though the socking is obvious. 3) Revealing accounts and linking IP addresses in some cases such as CU blocks might be potentially privacy-violating for the user involved, so shouldn't necessarily always be made very public. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      ...and 4) When the sock is an LTA, sockmaster or meatpuppet group looking to gain recognition and we are wanting to DENY them.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      In many cases they are obvious at the time. But there's also a historical aspect to it. Sometimes sock hunting means going back over an old trail a year or so later, long after memory has become unreliable. Also in many cases it's not obvious. Nor will some admins even respond to such enquiries, at least not from the plebs. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have examples or is there a particular case in mind where we might be able to assist you?
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      There is also an important WP:DENY factor. Some people have a hobby of disruptively socking and are encouraged when they get particular attention. A generic message is much better than splashing the name of an LTA around the project. If evidence of blocks being inappropriately applied is found, the admin has their tools removed after an Arbcom case. That is very rare, although obviously there will be occasional false positives. What is the actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Andy has a point, here, though it might be better to discuss it at a page more tightly focused on that message and the twinkle implementation of it. I've seen this before with editors who were being problematic before their block, and not knowing anything about who was behind the socking left me with the nagging doubt that I might not immediately recognize the next sock. And: No, I can't give specific examples, either. It's been at least a few weeks since I saw something like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Tangential discussion

      I realize this is off-topic but I wonder if an admin could look into this. I recently noticed something that I find surprising. This User was blocked as being a sock puppet. This looks like a productive editor to me. This User initiated many articles on individual works of art, including the now popular Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary, the artist's birthday having just passed. Could the blocking of that User have been a mistake? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Not a mistake. This was a sock of User:Slowking4 who was a productive editor but was indefblocked for (a) persistent copyright problems and (b) persistent abuse of anyone who cautioned them about their copyright problems. You can't see their deleted contributions, but it consists of hundreds upon hundreds of deleted images that were uploaded as fair use - but weren't. His user page still has a "Say Yes to Fair Use" banner - scroll to the bottom. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Black Kite, thank you. I just thought I would point out that the charges are disputed. I am unfamiliar with the case. I think I just know good work when I see it. Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't dispute the fact that most of his work here was good, unfortunately however when you're unable to adhere to a core policy the inevitable result is being blocked. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Black Kite and Bus stop, I'm the one who levied Slowking's indefinite block, but I don't remember the incident, so please take this as a general statement. When your problem is serial copyright infringement (whether abuse of fair use, or outright false claims of authorship), we have to clamp down hard (and be unforgiving on sockpuppetry), even harder than with community-damaging activities such as persistent abuse of people who caution you about your problems. Usenet didn't get in trouble with outsiders for its flame wars, and we won't get in trouble with outsiders if we permit personal attacks, but copyright ignoring will definitely be a problem. I'm inclined to be lenient toward a productive account that turns out to be a sockpuppet, and if you get blocked for vandalism and register a sockpuppet that creates a good article, I won't G5 delete it (if the article's good, why trash it), but if you get blocked for copyright-related reasons, hardblocking and deletion (unless the status can be verified, like this one as a translation of a WP article) are the only safe course for the project. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Nyttend—veteran editors in the visual arts have opposed what amounts to unfair treatment of the visual arts (my words, not theirs) concerning notability requirements for such entities as works of art and art galleries and, getting to the point in this discussion, the justification for inclusion of images of works of art. A problem is that "Fair use" should be loosened for works of art. They are essentially visual. Art education calls for seeing works of art. Any commentary is almost of secondary importance. Blocking an editor that abuses the current guidelines on inclusion of images should be tempered by an understanding of their underlying motives. In short, perhaps they should be given a second chance, if they explain that they understand the serious risk to the project that may be posed by the unthinking inclusion of too many such images. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to have to wait for a proper response, since I don't remember anything of this block's circumstances, but I'm looking into it now. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I've spotchecked a bunch of images, and all of them were photographs; maybe you'd find a little art in there if you checked everything, but if there's any there, it's not much. File:Delia Akeley.jpg was particularly egregious: it was deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because the nominator found a free image (okay, we all can overlook a free image), but then it was again deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 8#File:Delia Akeley.jpg because Slowking uploaded another nonfree image (rationale: no demonstration that a free photo exists; rather your flights of fancy doubt that one doesn't. prove a free photo exists by uploading one. as we can see in this photo, family photos can exist that remain in copyright; prove that the existing photos in books are free and not under copyright.) instead of uploading the free image. When you're having a large number of images deleted for improper fair-use claims, the only appropriate responses are "I'll be much more careful" (and complying) or "I'll stop uploading nonfree images". But when you make this kind of argument, and you keep going and uploading more such images despite warnings and a block, there's no reason to believe that you'll stop unless you are stopped. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't doubt your justification for blocking. I'm trying to explain factors that have not been addressed yet, factors particular to the place of visual images in visual arts, and and that particular editor's attempt to build good quality articles in that area. It takes a degree of good sense to initiate on the English Wikipedia an article on Paula Modersohn-Becker especially the painting called Selfportrait at 6th wedding anniversary. (To be clear, the article "Paula Modersohn-Becker" was not initiated by the editor we are discussing.) When I saw that article I looked to see who initiated it. When I saw that the editor was a blocked editor I was quite surprised, and even further surprised when I looked at their editing contributions. The sensibility there impressed me. I personally have a liking for articles on individual works of art. Check out Portrait of the Artist's Father. I'm sure many don't share my interest. But that is a worthy article that we probably wouldn't have if not for that editor's contributions. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry: I thought you were politely uestioning whether this user's block were perhps becuse the fir use policy ws being pplied too strictly to rtworks, such s pintings. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand guilty of being too polite. I will try harder not to let politeness get in the way of arguing a larger point. I apologize and I promise never to do it again. Please accept my contrition as sincerely bleating out of the heart. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No need to apologise :-) Sorry for the partial legibility of the previous note; my new computer's "a" and "q" keys are malfunctioning (intermittently...ugg) so I have to copy/paste the letter "a" if I want to type it, and I forgot. I'll be glad when the warranty shipping box arrives in the mail. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe the malfunction wouldn't occur in a word processor such as TextEdit and then that text could be pasted here. (Just an unhinged thought.) Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No, unfortunately it's a hardware issue. It's even acting up at startup; I went to our IT helpdesk (they service computers owned by employees), and they tried to get into the BIOS setup before loading Windows, but it wouldn't work because the ESC key is having the same problem. [Glad that my previous computer is still working for many purposes; I'm using it now.] Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, editors are entitled to disagree with our policies including our copyright policies. They're entitled to advocate for change in a resonable and non disruptive manner. What they cannot do is ignore our policies and continue with disruptive behaviour whether it's because of disagreement with our policies or whatever. And as said, our copyright policies are extremely core policies. Note that although our NFCC is more stringent than that allowed by US fair use law, for various reasons we don't make much of a distinction between likely copyvios, are maybe not copyvios but are violations of NFCC. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure who you are responding to or if you are just weighing into the discussion. And I am keenly aware that I am off-topic. You are certainly on-topic when you mention WP:NFCC. The problem is that there is a need for images in art-education. This is a funny point and it is a point of contention. The counterargument, which is occasionally raised, is that excessive use of images merely "decorate" an article on a work of art or an art movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is actually the image that is most educational. The verbal content is merely supportive of the image. The cart is before the horse. Policy is telling us that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But it is often the other way around when concerning the visual arts. A lecturer in an art history class will display an image of a work of art and will provide spoken commentary on the artwork. A book will only omit images if it is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the images being referenced. It is OK to minimize the use of images in our articles. But they have to be available somewhere thus the use of internal linkage is essential. In short, the need for images in visual art is different than the need elsewhere. I don't know anything about the whole sock puppetry thing so I am only referencing the account of User:Sudowoodoo. This editor was doing great work. Many of the articles they created are translations from other language Wikipedias. Check out articles such as The Sunflower (Țuculescu) or The Apotheosis of Athanasios Diakos or Willows at Chiajna or The Queuing Continues or Apollo (System Copernicus). These are generally good quality articles on works of art. In every case there is a preexisting separate article on the artist, therefore linkage from the article on the artist to the article on the artwork helps to round out our coverage of a notable area of art history, and the linkage between articles minimizes the use of the image as it need not be shown in the article on the artist. (Unfortunately in some cases the image is duplicated in both articles.) Why not reach out to Sudowoodoo, acknowledge their contribution, and invite them to continue their good work? Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Bus stop: I am one of the admins that most vehemently opposes their sockpuppetry, which goes way back, way before their block for being persistent abuse and copyright violations (the first sock-case was intentionally logging out to prove a point). They continue to insist in that, there are still images being deleted that were not falling under fair-use, they still verbally abuse editors who oppose their ways. I have, regularly and also fairly recently, reached out and suggested that they get their main account unblocked. They do not want to believe that that is a way forward, and continue to create sockpuppets. As these sockpuppets are being used to gather trophies (the forelast 2 sockpuppets were created to participate in a en.wikipedia article creation/improvement contest, one earlier in a global article creation/improvement contest), I go the harsh way and wipe everything from the face of Wikipedia, however good or appropriate the contributions themselves are (and I do not feel like looking whether some of the material is copyright violation or not, I just wipe).

      I do note, that such images can be supplied by anyone, there is no absolute need to have a certain editor doing that.

      So to answer your last question, Why not reach out to Sudowoodoo ..?, I would suggest to try again to Why not reach out to Slowking4? .. I have no objections to the main account getting a standard offer - and put an end to the unconstructive sockpuppetry (and no, these accounts are not a 'clean start' account as User:Slowking4 is alleging here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks, Beetstra. I posted this here. My hope is that it is a step in the right direction. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The reply is here, similar to earlier replies to the same suggestion. Not that I have faith in an unblock, I will still support it. I guess it is now a de facto community ban. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz

      BANNED
      ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban no sooner than 6 months from now, or 6 months from their last edit, whichever is later.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 18:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) on 2017-04-12, later revoking talk page access on 2017-07-25. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz/Archive. I count 52 accounts and a few IP addresses. The user is well aware their behaviour is inappropriate and has been repeatedly told about WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, and WP:SO, requiring them to cease editing. There are a number of UTRS appeals, too; see User talk:ZestyLemonz but note there have been UTRS appeals under sockpuppet accounts, I just can't immediately locate them because there are so many accounts. Just recently, see discussions at User talk:90.204.47.61. The user is generally abusive, no matter which account or IP address they are editing from. For example, at the aforementioned User talk:90.204.47.61, you can see they immediately received warnings about vandalising articles, adding unconfirmed information to articles, and engaging in edit wars. That was before anyone realised this was ZestyLemonz. In addition to those inappropriate edits, we've caught this user introducing incorrect (not just speculative information, but incorrect information) into articles before. It's not immediately clear if this was deliberate or a WP:CIR issue. Aldergate20 (talk · contribs) is the most recent sockpuppet account I am aware of. This account was editing yesterday. Given the number of sockpuppet accounts and the history of abuse, no admin would be willing to unblock the user at this time. I consider a ban to be a formality, but it might help ZestyLemonz understand the seriousness of the abusive behaviour.

      I therefore move for a formal community ban against ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs), applied to the entire en.wikipedia, of indefinite duration and in any case no shorter than six months from the last edit they make with any account or via any IP address.

      • Insertcleverphrasehere, it already is tedious, since it happens too much. My only reason for participating is the user's active use of UTRS, which isn't typically an issue when someone's been "nominated" for a full community ban: your typical sockmaster brought here for a community ban is socking away without even pretending to use the unban process, while ZestyLemonz is simultaneously socking and pretending to use the unban process. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's useful for cases where xwiki abuse is involved, and for cases where the sockmaster claims supporters on-wiki or is attempting to proxy edit and/or WikiLawyer. I brought one last week for all of these reasons, but I generally agree we should avoid it. I just think that in this case and the case I brought, there were/are valid reasons to do the formal process. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Ehhh... I totally understand what you mean in principle, but that's not something we could realistically apply and with the confidence that it will have a 100% accuracy (in that it bans only the users we feel completely deserve it, and does not ban usernames that we don't). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oshwah: I made a slightly different suggestion in Newyorkbrad's discussion below. Blackmane (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Broader suggestion

      Please see my comment in the similar "MyRoyalYoung" thread below. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      (Non-administrator Post-closure comment) @Yamla: @Cyberpower678: are you sure that ZestyLemonz is the original master account? That account’s first block was as a sockpuppet by Bbb23, so what account was that account a sock of? And what was whatever account ZL is a sock of originally blocked for? 75.144.172.217 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no idea if that's the original account, I got involved quite a bit later. It looks like the original block on ZL was because ZL set up other accounts while not blocked, but in violation of WP:SOCK. That's only based on the SPI, though. --Yamla (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, not at all. I'm just a 3rd party enforcer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      InterCity(IC)

      TOPIC BAN ENACTED
      InterCity(IC) (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from mainspace edits attributing or categorising inventions, technical developments or similar, by nationality. InterCity(IC) is permitted to propose such changes on Talk pages or initiate an article RfC, but is cautioned to respect consensus should it go against him. This is not indefinite license to argue. Repeat proposals or RfCs for the same topic may be expected to lead to a broadening of the restriction. InterCity(IC) is cautioned against removing, refactoring or editing the comments of others. This is disruptive and may be expected to lead to blocks.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I was advised to come here by Drmies.[1]

      InterCity(IC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently disruptive. He clearly is not here to make the articles follow the sources, but rather is here for the sole purpose of attributing as many things as possible to Hungarian inventors no matter what the sources say. Examples:

      • The transformer was a Hungarian invention[2].
      • Nuclear weapons are a Hungarian invention, not an American invention[3]
      • The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer in 1903 even though it had already been invented in 1887[4]

      Plus, he edit wars, deletes other user's comments[5] and ignores/deletes any warning on his talk page, calling them spam or vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I would like to suggest a community ban. Also, could someone look at his global contribs?[6] I suspect the same bad sourcing I am seeing here, but I can't be sure because of the language. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • A community ban on what? Why this editor in particular?
      It is not InterCity who is particularly the problem here, but this whole tree of nationalist invention categories. They have been a problem for years, they are a magnet for POV socks (Europefan is just one of an infamous bunch), there is no interest in developing any clear guidelines as to how inclusion should be defined (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology/Archive_2#National_invention_categories). InterCity's behaviour hasn't done themselves any favours here, but in what ways are they wrong? What are they doing that's against the guidelines defining when something is credited to a particular country? (none, because there aren't any.) I don't see any of their editing here that's in any way worse than what other editors (including a couple of les unblockables) do all the time.
      Why is a transformer not a Hungarian invention? Why are nuclear weapons not a Hungarian invention? Or do you mean a British invention, because the Hungarian in question was lying in a British bathtub at the time? What is a "turbo generator" anyway?
      All of these are vague questions, with unclear answers. None of InterCity's claims here have been definitively wrong, such that we should be talking about topic bans. They haven't even been against guidelines for flagwaving POV edits in nationalistic categorisation, because we don't have any. We can't take punitive action without at least first defining that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The transformer was invented by Michael Faraday, and his invention was published in 1834. See Experimental Researches on Electricity, 7th Series. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 124: 77–122. doi:10.1098/rstl.1834.0008. The first transformer to see wide use was invented by Nicholas Callan in 1836. It wasn't until 15 years later that the Hungarians at the Ganz factory started working on transformers. There is nothing unclear about this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      So you agree that the first practical use of AC transformers as part of power distribution was Hungarian, great. So why doesn't that give them an invention credit for the transformers article? (it's a pretty blunt scope). Also Callan didn't work with what we'd describe as a "transformer" today, but rather an induction coil - a self-oscillating transformer, supplied by DC. That's much further from Faraday than Ganz' work was. So why include Callan (for whom there's also a separate article), but exclude Hungary?
      I'm not claiming that Hungary should (or should not) be included here - but the issue is complex, unanswerable for as long as we refuse to express any real conditions for listing here, and certainly not material for topic bans. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I respectfully disagree, as does Drmies. AN is not here to rule on content disputes, but rather to deal with user behavior, and InterCity(IC)'s behavior has been disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Then present a case as to why their editing is incorrigibly disruptive.
      What you actually did was to go to WP:AN and post a list of content "errors", as if they were unarguable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The edit history speaks for itself. If you think that claiming that something can be invented in 1903 even though it had already been invented in 1887 is "arguable" I have nothing more to discuss with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this editor is problematic. Note that he even blanked this discussion about himself on Drmies talk page, replacing the thread with a comment in which he claims to be leaving the English Wikipedia. That being said, he made a similar comment 11 days ago and then continued editing disruptively. This user, by his own admission, lacks the language skills to be editing here. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I don't know that their English is that bad; I think the comment (about leaving en-wiki) is best explained by them feeling trapped, which is understandable. I do think that their edits were disruptive and I think it would be a good idea for them not to make such category edits and the related claims, and of course to refrain from the personal attacks. But I always hope that they come to understand the problem and find a way to contribute. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Hmm, thank you @Andy Dingley for the consensus, that someone categorizes something and forbids it, I do not think it's my shame. I will not argue when it is not possible to argue if it is inappropriate for the discussion partners as in the present situation. They are still right even when credible sources say that they are wrong. @Lepricavark Since these inventions were also of Hungarian relevance, I was categorizing it as a Hungarian invention, but it was failed. The resources have been, but in vain. Its English wikipedia, all the English invention, even if the source is not even. irony. Thank you. @Drmies PS: "feeling trapped" how should I interpret it, would you please tell me? --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Disruptive example what? , personal attacks example this so if If any of the editors say this is not a kind of attack? as it is said, is a personal attack, what I said was equal to this.. --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Interesting that you feel that you are allowed to call someone an idiot[7] but consider "Now you are just being silly"[8] to be a personal attack. You deleted the comment you just linked to, calling it "spam".[9] Do you now understand why you cannot use Wikipedia as a source? If not, are you willing to discuss the issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Also completely agree with Guy Macon. This user behavior has been consistently disruptive. Going against consensus and discussion and constantly deleting talk page threads and notices for no reason, even in other user talk pages. This is the kind of person that only make Wikipedia worse. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal

      InterCity(IC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from mainspace edits attributing or categorising inventions, technical developments or similar, by nationality. InterCity(IC) is permitted to propose such changes on Talk pages or initiate an article RfC, but is cautioned to respect consensus should it go against him. This is not indefinite license to argue. Repeat proposals or RfCs for the same topic may be expected to lead to a broadening of the restriction. InterCity(IC) is cautioned against removing, refactoring or editing the comments of others. This is disruptive and may be expected to lead to blocks.

      Returning to the deletion, you said that: Per WP:TPOC Wtshymanski is allowed to delete anything he chooses from his own talk page, and is not required to respond to you in any way. You are required to follow our policy at WP:EW. so this You deleted the comment you just linked to, calling it "spam". That's why I deleted it as an unjustified accusation. <Hungarian text removed> --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note. According to Google Translate, InterCity states in the Hungarian text that was part of the above that "I will not speak English anymore because it is unnecessary." OK, if the courtesy of using English on the English Wikipedia is unnecessary, thus forcing everybody who wants to see what you say to use a web translator, then your text is also unnecessary here. I have removed the Hungarian bit. If anybody wants to read it, click here. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      I believe his hovercraft is full of eels. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      InterCity(IC)'s logorrhea about Wtshymanski involved this sequence of edits:[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

      What struck me about the above is that InterCity(IC) refuses to even acknowledge that Wikipedia has rules, much less try to understand and obey those rules. Whether it is our rule against edit warring, our rule against citing Wikipedia, or our rule that disputed claims need to be backed up by citations to reliable sources, he obviously thinks that the rules don't apply to him. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Given his unwillingness to follow the rules, the probability is high that he will violate his topic ban and get indeffed. I am a big fan of giving someone enough WP:ROPE before blocking, because I remember the first few months I edited Wikipedia as an IP and remember how disruptive I was. All it took was a good explanation that this was not like those other social networking websites to get me to read and understand the rules, and I have edited for 12 years since then without a single block. People can change and become productive editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but there is a cost in giving additional chances to disruptive editors in that non-disruptive editors then have to deal with them, and those are the people we most value. If this editor did show any signs of accepting the kind of lesson you learned then my opinion would be different. Hut 8.5 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Call for Snow Close

      More time spent racking up support !votes would be a waste of time. Time for an admin to pull the trigger on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      WP:CBAN for My Royal Young

      My Royal Young (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) on 24 April 2017. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young/Archive. Since then, a lot of sock accounts and numerous IP addresses have been used for almost ten months replacing content on certain articles with 'patient nonsense' and spamming certain user's talk pages (one being my own). The user sometimes creates nonsense arctiles/drafts, their behaviour is definately inappropriate and has been repeatedly told about WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, requiring them to cease editing. In addition to those inappropriate edits, many users have caught this user vandalising articles as soon as it happens. MRYWikiWarriorOps2017 (talk · contribs) is the most recent sockpuppet account I have found which has been registered on this wiki. Given the large number of sockpuppet accounts and the history of the long term abuse, I am considering a ban to be a formality.

      I therefore move for a formal community ban against My Royal Young (talk · contribs), to be applied to the entire en.wikipedia, of indefinite duration.

      Newyorkbrad - I'm sorry. You're absolutely right - I didn't mean for that to come out the way that it did, and the bold lettering didn't really help either :-). It was a bad attempt on my part to TL;DR my justification for supporting this ban in that doing so would formally allow the community to report and block any account of this user and as soon as it's identified as one. I've modified my statement above, and I thank you for the response you made. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Broader suggestion

      To avoid the need for these sorts of recurring discussions, should we consider instituting a policy that any sockpuppeteer with more than [some number, e.g. 20] confirmed socks will be considered as the equivalent of community-banned? I can see pros and cons to this approach, so let's discuss, whether here or on a policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have mixed thoughts on this. I thought of proposing it myself after the above thread. My concern here is that it would prevent needed bans of sockmasters with less than X socks. I think a better approach would be that in addition to the current restrictions, CU confirmed sockmasters can only be unblocked after community discussion or by an ArbCom appeal (with an obvious exception for the blocking admin to lift if there has been a technical error.). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think people can make mistakes and learn from them. One round of CU-confirmed socks? Meh, I don't think that's enough to warrant a ban. But personally, I wouldn't unblock after multiple rounds (where the subsequent socks are created after the original CU check) without making the user go through WP:SO and even then, I'd be hesitant. I'd support changing policy to consider such cases to be WP:CBAN'ed. --Yamla (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • My concern is that it would prevent the banning of users who because of other reasons need a CBAN from getting one. A user who uses socks to evade a community imposed indefinite block being an example of a scenario where I think community consultation should occur before unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Another way to address my concerns would simply be to eliminate the mostly theoretical distinction between community indefs and CBANs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The issue here though is an administrator-imposed indefinite block versus a community ban. (On a side note, last year some other editors and I argued that there is no such thing as a community-imposed indefinite block: it is only the tool used to enforce a ban. However the edit that resulted from the discussion (which started at the Village Pump and continued on the banning policy talk page) altered the description of an "editing restriction" to include an indefinite block, thereby introducing a potential ambiguity that there is some theoretical difference.) isaacl (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than setting some sort of threshold, just give CheckUser admins the discretion to commute a regular indef block in to a CheckUser block with the caveat that a commuted block requires community discussion for an unblock. There will usually be a SPI for most sockpuppeteers anyway so a note on the SPI for the master account should suffice not to mention it can also be noted in the block log. There is already an established practice that CU blocked accounts should be referred back to the CU anyway so this wouldn't really change much. Blackmane (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something like this is what I was talking about. Normally CU blocks involve other disruption beyond having multiple accounts, so requiring community review is in my view a positive. It would also address the CBAN question, as declined unblocks after discussion are considered CBANs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sort of support a move like this, though only so long as there is a rational reason for going the extra step of formal bans. My take based on the discussion above is that there is an issue as respects cross-wiki disruption and getting global locks. I am not sure about that explanation as yet; I think that there is an aspect of seeking to influence administrative decisions on other wikis that may be beyond our station. I am not sure if this is an improper reason. I am also hoping that we might be able to take this problem as an incentive towards discussing comprehensive banning policy reform. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once someone has around 20 confirmed socks in a few cases, they are already considered de facto banned now. This is particularly true since they are almost always CU blocked. No admin CAN unblock them unilaterally. This wasn't so much the case 5 years ago, but we have gotten more aggressive with CU blocks, which is probably a good thing. I don't think we need policy as much as a community understanding that once someone has a large rap sheet at SPI, you can treat them as banned. When someone reverts someone as a sock, it really doesn't matter if they are banned de facto oder de jure, they are still responsible for being right about the connection, and the distinction is meaningless. Formal bans are simply not very useful in these sock situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I generally agree, except that I believe we should enshrine the current treatment of CU blocks in our policy. Part of the problem is that the practices surrounding CU actions are generally not ones where the unwashed masses' opinions are factored in outside of a formal RfC or similar. Whether our policies are positive policies or are simply codification of existing practices, we should have broader community discussion of these things. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support this broader suggestion (not sure if 20 is the right number, but I'm willing to accept it), provided that there are at least 3 rounds of blocks - that is, a set of new or never-used accounts is established after the initial block, and a third set of new or never-used accounts is established after the second set. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Per Od Mishehu, I don't know if 20 is the right number, or even a necessary number - I would go with 3-4 rounds of socks being blocked and that is it. How do we administrate this, do these editors need to be listed? (and additionally, when do we consider to give these editors a LTA-page, which in some cases may be needed - though be avoided in others). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beetstra: The LTA page is already existed, the "page creator" which was created by a good hand sock of himself. One of our global steward Ajraddatz has also warned him that not to engage a "good hand, bad hand" vandalism socking behavior at here in previously, while he still continued his disruptive behavior for personal amusement in anyway. No any local admins and global stewards are going to unblock and unlock him, using the vast number of dynamic IPs for vandalizing the projects was available on the records. MRY is a active cross-wiki abuse vandal from Philippines, instead of appeal him the community local ban on the discussions, requisition him the global ban at Meta-Wiki site would be preferable. In this case, we just give him the WP:RBI treatment and that it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @SA 13 Bro: I was more talking in general, if we just define that people who sock so long / so often are by default community banned, do we then also have to by default record them those 'auto-community-banned' users somewhere, is it reasonable, where applicable, to create an LTA for these users, etc. (I am thinking about another user who would fall in this category, vide supra). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it need to be specific? Can it be something like, 'Socking is against community norms, disruptive socking may result in indefinate community ban imposed at administrator discretion or by proposal at AN.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd prefer that it would default into that, User:Alanscottwalker. Socks tend to personalize against the admin that (last) sanctioned them, if I after n socks and m blocks have to formally instate a CBAN at my own discretion that effect may be stronger, and similar when initiating a ban discussion here. If it just defaults, then anyone can just tag the main account as community banned, and list them (and where appropriate, make an LTA for them). Any complaints are then 'it is not my decision/suggestion, it is a community decision'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obvious outcome is obvious. What Newyorkbrad said. Any uninvolved admin (and policing the abuse does not make you involved here) can add such a user to the banned list, and just drop a note at ANI to say it's been done. I think we're probably all happy with this going by default unless there are objections. Pace Alanscottwalker and Dirk, it's also absolutely fine to come here and ask some other admin to do the needful, but we don't need a debate or a vote in these cases, precedent is clear on this. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support: Indefinitely block and global lock is already banned to him, my standpoint is consistency as the SPI clerk Sro23 that has mentioned at above, it doesn't need to give this vandal troll the attention they want. SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Vorpzn and big undiscussed merges / renames

      Recent editor (<300 edits) and already they're piling into seriously big merges and renames without any sort of prior discussion. See vorpzn (talk · contribs) for the best list, but today we have Solid rocket booster -> Solid-propellant rocket, Liquid rocket booster -> Liquid-propellant rocket , Booster (rocketry) -> Multistage rocket.

      This has been raised before in September User_talk:Vorpzn#Do not redirect long-established articles without discussion and consensus, I raised it with them again a week ago and had a pretty dismissive reply User_talk:Andy Dingley#Natural gas and History of gaseous fuel. Raised again today at User_talk:Vorpzn#Undiscussed merges (again)

      Sometimes our hunt for consensus means we're paralysed by inaction when it comes to taking big bold steps, but this is not the way.

      Oh, and I've just noticed a WP:AIV posting Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      And now User_talk:Andy Dingley#WARNING Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      And now Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Reverts_all_my_edits Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I've already declined the AIV report and the Arbitration request is being discussed. There does seem to be a case of If I don't acknowledge you it never happened going on though. Amortias (T)(C) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      They're still going about raising incorrect warning templates and undoing other editors work as vandalism. I'd block myself for disruptive editing but they may have a case for me being involved with having declined their WIV report and removing their Arbitration request. Amortias (T)(C) 13:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Blocked, 31 hours, for DE. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That wouldn't even be a particularly useful block. They'd get blocked for a day, others would be warned for being mean to new editors, and a couple of days later they'd be back at doing these terrible merges.
      This isn't about userpage tagging or bogus AIVs, it's about merges and renames without any prior discussion. There should be a topic ban on that. That's heavyweight for such a new editor, but the disruption since and the refusal to discuss it here means I'm not in a mood to faff about with feeble warnings. Please look at the full contribs history here and say what you reckon to the merges. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      [edit conflict] and the expected block. Oh great. Now they have an excuse for not responding here, so the whole posting was wasted. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      They continued their editing nonsense for two hours after you had notified them of this discussion. Clearly they were not overly concerned with holding productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Now busily blanking their talk: page, so maybe time to lose talk: page access. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Would anyone be opposed to turning this into an indef for WP:NOTHERE? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems drastic, but they are doing everything they can for it, as either NOTHERE or CIR.
      I'd remind them that they still have talk page access, wherein they can still make a case for all of the merges they've been advocating, or even a reasonable pitch for an unblock request. I wouldn't oppose an immediate unblock, if it looked as if they really meant it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      They got TPA revoked. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      re: [18] I'd support an indef. Too much of a timesink. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeffed, and i've directed them to go to WP:UTRS if they wish to be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Endorse indef, based entirely on sockpuppetry and logging on to simplewiki to post harassment. I hadn't even looked at this thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Problem with vandalistic and possibly WP:COI edits on "Polish death camp" controversy

      I keep adding well sourced information to this article as well as making numerous syntax and wording improvments.

      • Added information on the Polish propaganda effort, well sourced. [19]
      • Added information on opinions of Israeli ministers, well sourced. [20]
      • Tried to remove a weasel word.[21]
      • Tried to clarify an unsourced sentence.[22]

      Each attempt on my behalf to improve the article has been reverted.

      I'm sensing a strong WP:COI from the editors, apart from the blatant misleading edits and vandalism. All the content I added was NPOV and well sourced documentatation of curent events. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This editor fails to discuss the issues with his edit in article talk page, instead of accusing editors in vandalism, and now jumping to heavy guns. I strongly suggest that edit disagreements must be resolved in article talk pages. Especiall on hotly politicized subjects like this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you reverted my removal of "falsely" you gave the explanation that "dont change the law." when the word falsely is inserted in that sentence it implies a truth, that is not objective. It is not neutral.
       "It criminalizes public statements that falsely ascribe, to the Polish nation, collective complicity in Holocaust-related or other war crimes or which "grossly reduce the responsibility of the actual [German] perpetrators"

      That's not neutral and "falsely" should be removed. It should be changed to "that the law purports to be false" or remove the word completely. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Ultimately it's not likely to be helpful, and AN is definitely not the right place to discuss when people should initiate discussion. But one thing that is clear is that if you do try to add info and it's disputed then someone needs to initiate discussion and it's pointless to get into an argument over who should be first. So someone needs to initiate discussion and this WP:Content dispute should be resolved via discussion as they always are. Now if you've tried to discuss but another editor has refused to participate but keeps reverting, then there may be something for AN to deal with, but I see no evidence of that here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      thanks for you help Nil Einne (talk · contribs) -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      One note though, I would be somewhat wary about using Haaretz as a source for such events as the Holocaust, largely because they are an Israeli source. One might consider them, or at least assess them, along the lines of Russia Times and Xinhua when it comes to Russian and Chinese, respectively, political news. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you're tarring Ha'aretz unnecessarily with that comment. It is, as far as I understand it, a responsible and objective newspaper. Not using it as a source for information on the dispute between Israel and Poland over the "Polish death camp law" controversy would be tantamount to suggesting that The New York Times oder The Washington Post are not reliable sources for information about disputes between the US and Russia. Nor does Ha'aretz exist in a country that exerts official controls and restrictions on its media, as in Russia and China. I suggest that you withdraw your remark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Haaretz is a far-left extremist source. Reliable and objective sources such as Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.178.255 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That's utterly and totally ridiculous, Ha'aretz is no more a "far-left extremist source" than are the Times and the Post. They can all well be considered to be "liberal" (barely), but that's very, very different, and has to do with their editorial policy, and not the objectivity of its news coverage. Just because the new deliberately right-wing media outlets such as Fox News and the Washington Times cannot, and do not want to, separate their editorial policies from their news coverage doesn't mean that others aren't able to do so. The right is so mesemerized by its claims of "liberal mainstream media bias" that it's no longer able to objectively evaluate news coverage: anything which doesn't hew to the right's talking points is automatically a "far-left extremist source". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW, why are you editing while logged out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark, his death

      It has just been officially reported that Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark have died. See [30] The article probably needs some protection, Huldra (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The article needs a recent death tag. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like there's a hoaxer on a dynamic IP active there. The latest IP address got blocked pretty quickly. If he shows up again, I can semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      it says my title is blacklisted

      Hi, I was trying to create a page on a bangla novel, name HIDOL CHORA. But it doesnot let me publish, saying the title is black listed. This is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia. I am lost and don't know what to do. Please suggest. Thanking you Ferdous Sultana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdous00 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This page isn't explicitly blacklisted. Try using normal title case. MER-C 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you are getting the message urging you to create the article via WP:AfC as new users lack the capacity to create articles directly. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ferdous00: if it is not that, can you detail the steps you are following that result in the error message? — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Start by clicking here Draft:Hidol Chora. New users should really start by improving existing pages. Article creation is an advanced activity that is much easier after some experiance with wikipedia editing. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Standard Offer for User:B dash

      Editor is requesting a standard unblock with the rationale:

      I have followed the SO, waiting 6 months without socking and block evasion. I am here to request an admin to take my unblock request to WP:AN. I promise not to use alternative accounts for inappropriate reason. I know that socking is a serious problem in Wikipedia, so I won't let it happen again. If I really need an alternative accounts, I will state them clearly in the user page and follow WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly. B dash (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

      Related UTRS SQLQuery me! 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      What was the initial block for, besides the multiple accounts? He must have been doing something that caught attention. --Jayron32 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly the editor's several odd page moves to hurricane/tropical storm-related articles; their sockpuppet appears to have been supporting the changes. I would oppose an unblock at this time because, just by looking back at their talk page, B dash may not actually understand the issue of abusing multiple accounts. Hard to rationalize how they are a net-positive to the encyclopedia when you also include their problematic GA nominations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      As an absolute condition, I would say any unblock would be on condition of editing only using the one account - no use of LEGIT, no public declarations, only one account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, no more GA nominations. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I don't see their name in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive, so maybe this is mistaken. I do see that they were unblocked after being initially blocked in relation to that case, although they were then re-blocked by a checkuser. I'm going to assume since talk page access was restored with a checkuser's permission that this account is not related, because UnderArmourKid has been socking as recently as last month. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock with conditions on that note, the condition being that the user be restricted to one account unless they seek permission (let's say here, or via Checkusers/Arbcom if privacy is a concern) prior to creating a WP:VALIDALT if they need to for some reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I see nothing describing what they actually plan on doing on Wikipedia if they are unblocked, either in the most recent UTRS appeal, their talk page, or here. That is a minimum condition for an unblock for an indef, even for cases that are not being reviewed by the community. Cases that have community review should have a higher standard of demonstrating how the unblock will be positive to the encyclopedia. We've gone this long without their disruption: why should we let them back in, what benefit will it bring that outweighs the potential disruption that we know they have caused in the past? None of these questions have been answered here, and since they have not been answered, this appeal should be declined. The standard offer is not automatic, and given how shoddy this appeal is, I don't think it should be granted in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume he will edit articles about typhoon. He is capable of making constructive edits.[31][32] D4iNa4 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Switching to Neutral now that we have some idea what they wish to edit. I'm not fully supporting because there appear to be communication issues through this entire process that make me think we'll likely be back at a noticeboard at some point, but not enough to the point where I will oppose if a CU has no objections to it. Thanks to JameesBWatson for clairfying. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this is a CU block, we need to ping the CU who put it in place, Bbb23. There may be more info than meets the eye, and this is normal operating procedure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dennis is of course right, for a CheckUser block we need to have an assessment by a CheckUser before making any decision, and also for almost any block it is normally accepted that one should ask the blocking administrator for an opinion before considering unblocking. For both those reasons any input from Bbb23, who placed the block, would be welcome.
      • Here are my thoughts on the matter apart from the above, and they should of course be taken as provisional, subject to no opposition from Bbb23 or any other CheckUser. After sixteen months I am willing to give this editor another chance. I understand TonyBallioni's concerns, but the editor has now given an indication of what editing he or she expects to do, and we should also bear in mind that it will be perfectly easy to reimpose the block if it turns out that the editor continues to edit in unacceptable ways. If it weren't for Tony's comment I would have simply said that there was consensus here for an unblock with conditions, and that subject to CU opinion the account should be unblocked. However, in view of Tony's comment I would like to know whether, apart from the CU issue, anyone has anything more to say about the proposal to unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral for now, waiting for input from Bbb23 also. For what it's worth, this editor has abused multiple accounts in a similar fashion at Chinese Wikipedia back in 2016 ([33]), but has since returned to somewhat productive editing. I am also convinced to give this editor another chance, once the CheckUser results are made available. Alex Shih (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Checkuser note: I see no evidence of socking in the last three months. I am neutral on whether the user should be unblocked. If the consensus here is to unblock, any administrator may do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support based on Alex Shih's input and Bbb23's findings, but only with a single account restriction. After 6 months, we can look at lifting that restriction if no issues have transpired. This means no use of any alternate account for any reason until this restriction is lifted, no exceptions. This is consistent with my opinions on SO for former sockmasters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that there is a general consensus that there be an unblock subject to conditions. The main condition, which several people have mentioned, is that B dash use only one account. There have also been a couple of editors saying that another condition should be no GA nominations. I shall therefore unblock subject to those conditions.
      • Two editors have mentioned the issue of circumstances under which those conditions might be lifted, but there has been no follow up to either of the comments, so it is impossible to say that there is a consensus. Dennis Brown suggests that the matter can be reconsidered after 6 months, but in view of th editor's history, and the doubts expressed above about the editor, I would prefer a longer wait, at least a year, and really I would prefer more than that. Since, as I have said, the limited amount of comment on this can't be viewed as producing a consensus on that matter, any further comments on this would be welcome. For the present I shall say a year in the unblock conditions, but that can be changed if further discussion here indicates consensus for a change. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Possible compromised account

      NO PROBLEM
      Misfire, no further issues should arise. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      The above account dates back 14 years, and has been essentially dormant for most of that time showed up out of the blue to instantly revert back to a bit of polemic which had been added to an article only minutes before. Seems very suspicious. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Like, I wouldn't say it's blockworthy yet, because the user's lack of experience (regardless of how long ago they registered) effectively leaves them a new user. If they come here swinging, or think that their "truth" is more important our neutrality policies, then yeah, that's gonna be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I apologize for the noise. Yeah, I’m a newbie, and my account info is really out of date. I was trying to revert the previous edit before mine (by 64.203.215.118), and screwed up. Sorry! I didn’t realize that my revert was committed without even hitting Publish Changes. Dave Rahardja 04:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahardja (talk • contribs)
        That seems reasonable. I'm satisfied. Anyone care to close this down? --Jayron32 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Global blacklist discussion about .club, .space, .website

      Seeking the community's opinion on the usefulness and ready availability to utilise links to the top level domains

      • .club
      • .space
      • .website

      Due to the amount of spam activity featuring these websites (spambot and some user), there is a general conversation about the usefulness of these three top level domains for the Wikimedia sites. Discussion at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Thoughts_about_blacklisting_.club/_.space/_and_.website/

      If there is useful feedback for the global community, please add it to that discussion. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Can I create Portal for a football club?

      Hi, Can I create Portal for a football club? Like Portal:FC Barcelona or Portal:FC Porto ? For example we have: Portal:Association football Clutching (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Hey there. This isn't really an administrator issue; perhaps Wikipedia:Help desk oder Wikipedia:Teahouse would be a better place to ask? --Jayron32 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't. Most Portals are morbid and should be deleted. Editors don't maintain them and readsrs ignore them. Portals are so 10 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you mean "moribund" (near the point of death) rather than "morbid" (gruesome or ghoulish), but perhaps not... --Jayron32 04:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Candidates for euthanasia... Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Trudat. I haven't seen a useful or active portal in a good many years; the best part of portals has really been subsumed by Wikipedia:Featured topics anyways; if someone started a discussion to close down the portals function, I'd be there to support that in an instant; you're entirely right. --Jayron32 05:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If someone were to start a discussion at VP suggesting that Portals be deleted or made historical via an RFC, it might get more traction nowadays than you'd expect. Food for thought. Rgrds. --64.85.216.167 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      User:SmokeyJoe has an excellent plan for Portals. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Pls block Thai editer Btsmrt12 the new spam account of Golf-ben10

      Pls block Thai editer Btsmrt12 he is newest account of Golf-ben10 who got blocked for edit on Wikipedia because he likes to spam. And now he is back to spam on The Face Thailand, The Thailand season 4 and other pages again as Btsmrt12. pls block him, thank you.Dopexdope (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I assume you mean Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs). I don't see any problems with his editing after clicking a few random diffs. Can you clarify by including diffs of specific problems you see? Also, you are required to notify any user you report here. I will do so for you this time, in the future, please take care to let them know so they can come to present their side of the issue. --Jayron32 19:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dopexdope: Thank you for creating an account and welcome to Wikipedia! I will notify Btsmrt12 (talk · contribs) if you have not done so. Also, Dif's? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there an echo in here --Jayron32 19:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Help the Anti--Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build

      Hello everybody! Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @SPoore (WMF): I had trouble getting admins on Commons to block an editor that called someone a "disgusting jew". And then I had trouble getting admins here to block the same user when he continued his activities here. How will these tools help if many admins are unwilling to act when presented with obvious harassment of other users? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't follow. You posted a link to a discussion that led to the person you reported being blocked, for exactly the reason you stated they should be blocked. Maybe you meant to link to a block that didn't actually happen? --Jayron32 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      In both cases the user was eventually blocked (and thanks to the admins who did so). I said I "had trouble" getting them blocked. By that I mean that although they should have been blocked at the first sign of overt racist or antisemitic comments, they weren't. I had to start a discussion on an admin noticeboard, where even then admins argued against blocking. When someone uses the phrase "disgusting jew" or "brown dog", there's no need for discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Drop the drama, please. No one argued against blocking. We were looking for a block reason that would "stick", in light there were no diffs provided of the same behavior happening on en-wiki after the final warning. If Editor A complained that Editor B called them a Nazi over on the Hebrew Wikipedia that probably wouldn't result in a block here. --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's agree to disagree on this one, but I won't press the issue. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Josephp123

      Closed as in fact I am the creator of Wikipedia. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      user:Josephp123 said on his user page that he is the creator of Wikipedia. I am not sure what should be done about that. CLCStudent (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Nothing ... GMGtalk 16:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This guy claims the same thing, but GMG is correct that "nothing" is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88

      The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

      The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

      Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88

      Armageddon

      Nothing major and I didn't know where to post this exactly, but there's a bit of issue with the cast section of Armageddon. It seems apparent that TheOldJacobite has been removing added cast members in that article's cast section done by other editors, which is too short and he has been continuously doing that. 1 2, 3. I was not involved in this, but I have to tell you. Armageddon needs somewhat of a bigger cast section since they are notable actors on it and that TheOldJacobite has been removing the added notable actors & characters on it whom he deemed minor & it's getting too far. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I will say that this isn't the first time TheOldJacobite has been popping up on radars, and they need to be careful that this is starting to look more like a behavioral problem rather than a series of content disputes. If they can't manage to find where a talk page is and how to use it, they're probably going to have a bad time. GMGtalk 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi

      I would like to initiate a discussion actions on the articles created by the user Makhamakhi. The user was recently blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing as he was creating articles of no encyclopedic value and not properly referenced. The log of the block can be viewed here. The user has created around 500 (482 to be exact) trivial articles and a lot of them had been deleted whenever it was in AfD. I had quickly reviewed the articles which still exist and in my view all of them are candidates for deletion as they are mostly original research, unsourced or primary sources. But flagging them en mass may not be a good or particularly efficient option. So I wanted to bring this up here so that the administrators can take appropriate action or either deleting them all under speedy or some other action. I recommend a speedy on all of these articles. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 07:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The closest criterion that comes to mind is WP:G5, which allows for deletion of pages created by a banned user if they created the pages while they were banned (i.e. socking). That doesn't apply here. The community has very rarely made special-case exceptions, but for cases on a much larger scale than this (i.e. the number of pages thought to have been affected by WP:X1 was nearly 100,000). It seems to me that regular deletion process is the way to go here. I picked one of the pages from the list at random, Azim family, which could easily be a surname anthroponymy page if the targets listed are notable. This needs discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      For some time many of his article creations were unattributed copies and splits from existing articles (despite a number of warnings). Some of these were dealt with, but there may be others of that type still remaining. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It is worrying that it took so long for him to be blocked. The problem was reported about 6 weeks ago at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Bangladeshi editor. The delay has obviously allowed time for a lot more mess to be created. I understand the principle of AGF, but it was very soon obvious that this editor was a liability rather than an asset. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I took a gander, and don't see any reason not to just mass delete them. I'd happily take care of it myself, I wouldn't mind dusting off the nuke button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Blade of the Northern Lights:--Some are notable enough.I will try to save a few pending which nuking would be a good-option.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      James Perowne

      Kingsqueens blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      An editor keeps changing the school that James Perowne went to from Sherborne School to Canford School. He has done the same with Nick Parker and several others. The information that these people went to Sherborne is properly sourced. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This is not done with malicious intent, as Dormskirk seems to convey. This is based on genuine sourcing, as well as contact with the school to confirm that these individuals are indeed alumni. I consider it to be a callous act of vandalism to simply revert back, rather than recognise that school alumni lists (which are rarely sourced) are done on the basis of goodwill and existing knowledge. If one were to limit school alumni lists to purely sourced material, the vast majority would be removed.

      The reason why Sherborne School, in particular, has been addressed is because previous editors have assumed public school in Dorset has solely referred to Sherborne. This is not the case, as you will recognise.

      In order to reconcile this conflict, I would propose both schools be included, and a further citation needed tag in place. This will remain until Canford School can provide written clarification, as I recognise a single source (a book) may not be adequate enough evidence. Nevertheless, I would welcome clarification from Dormskirk, rather than hostile aggression.

      I am more than willing to work with editors to find more information.

      Kingsqueens (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I am not suggesting that it was done maliciously. But these articles included sourced information that these people went to Sherborne and you have removed that information. e.g. the article on James Perowne. Also despite numerous attempts by various editors you did not engage on your talk page. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I have attempted to resolve this conflict, substantiated by my inclusion of both schools and both sources. I would welcome your cooperation, so that we can improve the Wikipedia entry, rather than callously reverting. I look forward to working with you. Kingsqueens (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Happy to do that. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, I will update you as soon as I get reply in writing from both schools. I believe it is half-term so there will be some delay. Kingsqueens (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      An admin to hide ~1000 revisions

      Closed - No one is going to spend days or months going through more than 1,700 userpages....., I would suggest you go and find more productive things to do as right now this is anything but productive. –Davey2010Talk 14:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Searching for the word "cunt" in the user page namespace, I found more than 1,700 uses of the word. At about half pof the them are used as insults and direct attacks. Examples: ". This cunt just wants to edit, please don't be a cunt about it", "You sir are a cunt. Just kidding, but you are a cunt.", "june 2nd stop being cunts", "Sebastiaan Gray-Block, is a cunt" and many other, Can an admin go and hide all the revisions that contain this word as insult? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The acceptable criteria for revision deletion explicitely excludes "ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". I don't think there is justification in policy for what you are asking. Also, I think it would be a tough sell getting an admin to take the time to revdel thousands of edits like that even if it were permitted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Ed using the female reproductive organ to describe someone is incivility. Femnist organisation describe this as a serious demonstration of sexism. We can at least try and reduce the problem -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree it is incivility, but there is consensus that revdel is not the way to deal with it. There are recommendations at Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_personal_attacks on how best to deal with incivility. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      In fact all username that contain the word should also be renamed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Please be careful not to run into the Scunthorpe problem. I agree with Ed that ordinary incivility should not be revdeled. Neither "Kusma is a wanker", "Kusma is a nazi", "Kusma is gay" or "Kusma is a cunt" are a problem in my user page history, and the fact that they are not revdeled is good for transparency reasons: now everyone can see why the vandals who wrote that were blocked. —Kusma (t·c) 13:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Research:Communicating on Wikipedia while female reveals the bad situation that has been formulated on English Wikipedia and there is action needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Hide revision with insulting words

      Can an admin please go and hide this revision and search and hide many other that use the word "pussy" as insulting word? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Since when is "Purple Pussy Cats" an insult? Isa (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No revdel needed here and no admin is going to spend days/weeks combing through all of Wikipedia history doing as you ask. --NeilN talk to me 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      WP:DUCK vandalism

      207.148.2.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs), given repeated false addition of the name "Richard Madenfort" to articles. I also suspect some WP:TEND is in effect, given their edit summaries of "Because the music union doesn't know who to pay?". The "Richard Madenfort" vandalism has gone back for several years; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs. There is no concrete proof that Richard Madenfort played on any of these songs. Lee Brice (album) is one of the targeted articles, and according to Allmusic, no one named Richard Madenfort played on the album. Given the evidence here, is there a way that we can add "Richard Madenfort" to the edit filter? Because this has been an ongoing vandalism for so long, and the person's constant use of IP ranges makes blocking ineffectual. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      One of the sources you claim isn't reliable is the music union responsible for paying who played on the album.
      https://www.afmsagaftrafund.org/covered-rec-artist_SR_Master.php?a=MTA2OTg0&b=VEhBVCBET04nVCBTT1VORCBMSUtFIFlPVQ%3D%3D&c=QlJJQ0UgTEVF&s=Rg%3D%3D
      Which is also why guys like Kevin swine Grantt are listed as Mark Grantt. You can't pay fake names, just legal names. 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @207.246.125.88: then why does literally no other source on the entire Internet use the name "Richard Madenfort" or any variant thereof? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Allmusic sucks. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. But you seem to be deflecting the issue - you are removing sourced content because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Why is he being paid royalties for songs he didn't play on?
      Who is more reliabe - a free site that everyone knows is full of errors, or a site that lists actual payroll but doesn't get indexed by google? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, https://lyrics007.com/artist/lee-brice/TlRRd05qRXo= does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results.207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      A music union website is most definitely not a reliable source. You would do well to actually read WP:RS to see how we define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I am not going to bother to read a page that says allmusic is a better source than afm-sag-aftra for determining who worked on an album.
      So you're telling me that he can delete information found on the album booklet on one album, and the actual work logs of a second... while using one word edit summaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=That_Don%27t_Sound_Like_You&diff=next&oldid=800787550 ), and that is acceptable.
      But a payroll site isn't acceptable? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Some guy removes an entire personnel section with one a one word edit summary, "no". Then removes another entire personnel section with a one word edit summary, "no". He removes 3 personnel sections with "no". And then, when someone looks, you see its all sourced. But they aren't just sourced, they are sourced from a non-wiki site - the SAG-AFTRA site.

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

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

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


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


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

      Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

      Moved from WP:ANI
       - per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE Swarm ♠ 10:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      John from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida

      Wrong venue. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I don't know if this is the right place, but I would like to point out that the article Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida is written in very poor English and should be completely revised and rewritten.--Allen Nozick (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      ​It isn't. Might be best to go to WP:GOCE. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      BrowseAloud

      DRV is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      There has been a lot of significant press coverage of BrowseAloud (deleted after this AfD) in the last few days, as evidenced at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws

      Please will someone undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability?

      I have asked the deleting admin, but they are not being cooperative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Appeal to overturn revocation of page mover right

      I would like to appeal the decision by Primefac of revoking my page mover right. I have discussed with the revoking administrator but we came to no agreement despite him offering to reinstate my position as a page mover with some restrictions such as not moving pages related to music, songs and discographies.

      I declined to accept the restrictions because I believe I did nothing wrong in the first place that warranted the revocation. Primefac says "While you have not done anything specifically using the PGM tools you're still carrying out very questionable page moves in order to further your own agenda", I disagree with this because it is not true. Per my understanding, "to further my agenda" refers to some previous disputes I had with another editor before getting the page mover right but since being granted the right by Alex Shih last year, I have not carried out controversial moves without getting consensus unless it was requested as a technical move at WP:RM.

      Primefac cites the reason of removal in the log as "history of questionable moves culminating in Special:PermaLink/826149115". In the discussion at WP:RM, what happened was, the editor whom I've had disputes, requested a non-controversial technical move of a page I created You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) (I created the page at You Owe Me after moving the longstanding title there to You Owe Me (Nas song) [without suppressing redirect]). It was requested to move You Owe Me to You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song), I contested this uncontroversial move request but the discussion there escalated into a reversion of my WP:BOLD move of the longstanding title by a non-admin.

      In my discussion with Primefac on his talk page, he provides three possible ways how I could have handled the move and asserted that after moving the longstanding title (from base to [Nas song]), I should have created a disambiguation page instead of (The Chainsmokers song) at the base title. This is a minor issue that could have been sorted easily and I don't believe it warrants the removal of my right as a page mover. The reason I created (The Chainsmokers song) at the base title instead of a disambiguation page, is because I think the song is primary topic and a dab page is unnecessary. Primefac also stated that "other than this one topic area you haven't abused the tools or even broken guidelines/policies."

      When it was said to me that I should agree to the restrictions before getting back the right, my response was:

      Why should I be subjected to restrictions when I've done nothing wrong in the discussion? This was one move. How can it be a pattern, which in this context means repeated controversial moves (since getting the right), when I haven't done? Ss112 requested a move in the "uncontroversial technical moves" section and not "revert undiscussed moves", and not about the page I moved (Nas song) but the page I created (Chainsmokers song). I contested it but Ammarpad, disregarding formality, was quick to assume it was a request to revert an undiscussed move. If everything was done correctly per procedure, this wouldn't have happened. I followed procedure, they didn't. I don't deserve this, as an editor it is my right to contest a requested move, engage in dispute and not be subjected to the whims of an admin. Following procedure, if someone had requested to revert my move of (Nas song), I wouldn't have objected. But it was about (The Chainsmokers song) and I had a different view in mind that the song was primary topic and felt that objecting to the request was the right thing to do. It escalated into a "reversion of an undiscussed move" which is not even the case and that, by a non-admin who ignored requests to leave the discussion to an admin. There's a guideline somewhere that if someone asks a non-admin to not close a discussion then they shouldn't close it. I don't agree that the revocation of my page mover right is just, and would like to have it back without any restrictions. — Zawl

      Pinging involved admins: @Primefac: @Alex Shih: @Anarchyte:

      As a page mover who has moved over 1,000 pages in accordance to guidelines, I feel that entirely revoking my right over a small misunderstanding is a bit too harsh, especially without a warning. — Zawl 14:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I am on mobile right now and haven't read too much into the context, just one quick query: You mentioned you created the Chainsmoker song at the base title because you think it's the primary topic, based on what? Alex Shih (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that the only other article with the same title (You Owe Me (Nas song)) was poorly sourced and wouldn't survive AfD if nominated and that the new song having 3,000 page views compared to the Nas song (less than 40 views), indicates the song passes the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Readers are more likely to find The Chainsmokers song over the Nas song and that was why I moved the latter page out of the way to create the new article at the base title. — Zawl 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not a valid rationale. Quality of the other article have no relevance here. Wikipedia page views is also not a valid point to decide which article should be primary topic. I will comment more when I get home but based on your response here alone, I endorse the rights removal. Alex Shih (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal it’s an example of you making a controversial move to establish a primary topic on your own without an RM. That is disruptive and shows a lack of understanding of how the article title and page moving policy and procedures work. The fact that Zawl continues to defend the move on the merits without realizing the issues doing it himself rather than asking for consensus via an RM show that the disruption is likely to continue. I generally don’t follow the “easy come, easy go” approach to page mover because of how difficult it is to actually remove due to the inevitable appeal by a vested contributor, but if there ever was a case for the “easy go” part after giving someone a chance with the flag, this is it. Good removal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Is performing one controversial move the equivalent of demonstrating a pattern of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus, as stated in the criteria for revoking page mover rights? I've done this once, maybe I thought it was uncontroversial but here I've learnt my lesson and I certainly didn't expect a TNT after my first mistake. — Zawl 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=826518123"