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
c
Line 254: Line 254:


== Standard Offer for [[User:B dash]] ==
== Standard Offer for [[User:B dash]] ==
{{archivetop|Unblocked. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)}}

* {{userlinks|B dash}}
* {{userlinks|B dash}}


Line 282: Line 282:
* 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.
* 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. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
* 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. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== Possible compromised account ==
== Possible compromised account ==

Revision as of 22:17, 20 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.

    information 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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx 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

      WP:ANI#Newsjunkie Part 4

      (Initiated 12 days ago on 22 May 2025) 4th ANI discussion on Newsjunkie. No substantive comments for 4 days, no further evidence forthcoming. Closure would clarify whether report was warranted or spurious, and prevent further disruption if warranted or timesink if spurious. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm literally begging an admin to close this. wound theology◈ 18:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, I would like it closed too regardless of the outcome. While I hope claims and counterclaims are investigated, mostly I'm just really confused at this point about what I or anybody is allowed to do anymore and could use some guidance. newsjunkie (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN

      (Initiated 130 days ago on 24 January 2025) Last comment made in February 2025 & it was moved to the archive by a bot on 14 March 2025. Article has been subject to a lot of edit warring & is back under a full lock. I think it would be helpful to have this formally closed (& temporarily restored to the talk page) as there is a discussion about if a RfC is needed for other aspects of the article including the lead. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Autism#RFC:_Focus_of_Autism_Article

      (Initiated 97 days ago on 25 February 2025) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Autism#RFC:_Lede_Section_of_Autism

      (Initiated 97 days ago on 25 February 2025) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 16 March 2025) Since the RFC tag has expired and there's no discussion within the past two months, can an experienced uninvolved editor close this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

      (Initiated 75 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Note for closer: Several accounts in this discussion were affected by recent ArbCom actions (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine–Israel_topic_area_II) and not all comments by blocked editors have been marked as such. I strongly recommend installing a script to mark blocked users before diving into this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed with @Toadspike Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This was now archived and de-archived, and is still in need of closure. There might be a reasonable argument for waiting for the outcome of the current motion as well, but I’m not sure what the best course of action is. FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to note the motion was closed without being adopted, and has been archived -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which motion? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ActivelyDisinterested is just pointing out that a motion which would've (topic-)banned some editors who contributed to the RfC was closed without banning the aforementioned editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived again, please restore to the noticeboard if you close the discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't seen a close take this long in a while. Anything we can do? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 22 March 2025) RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 4 April 2025) Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvolved editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Copts#RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Iqrit#RfC

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Reform UK#RFC: right-wing to far right

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 10 April 2025) - RfC expired. This RfC was a bit of a mess, but was a pretty simple question so hopefully a straightforward close. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 15 April 2025) No new comments for a week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Last comment on 5 May 2025 (12 days ago) & RfC tag expired; also a related & broader non-RfC discussion was just started (15 May) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Superscript and subscript typography guideline

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 20 April 2025) – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ramon_Casas#Request_for_Comment:_Subject_lead_label_Catalan_or_Spanish?

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 25 April 2025) - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Template_talk:Current#RfC:_Condense_Template:Current

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Screen Rant

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 25 April 2025) No new comments in the last two weeks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Debrief

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 3 May 2025) - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 0 59 0 59
      TfD 0 1 7 0 8
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 0 4 0 4
      RfD 0 0 31 0 31
      AfD 0 0 1 0 1

      Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Rugby union squad navigation templates

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 13 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_25#Template:CompUnits

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 15 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_18#Flabbiness

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_May_3#File:Star Distribution logo.svg

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 3 May 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

       Done BD2412 T 22:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Merge proposals

      Talk:The Daily Wire#Proposed merge of Mr. Birchum into The Daily Wire

      (Initiated 232 days ago on 14 October 2024) The Daily Wire and associated pages are part of a contentious topic area, but this has been discussed for half a year now and the debate should be closed. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Antisemitism in Australia#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 126 days ago on 27 January 2025) Discussion has been open since the end of January and has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

      (Initiated 116 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      It has now been eleven weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archives/ 1#Proposed merge of Operation Bunyanun Marsoos into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requested moves

      Talk:Doctor_Who_series_15#Requested_move_17_March_2025

      (Initiated 77 days ago on 17 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Acton_GO_Station#Requested_move_27_March_2025

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 27 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Disney+_Hotstar#Requested_move_29_March_2025

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 29 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Natg 19:  Closed Legend of 14 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship#Requested move 31 March 2025

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 31 March 2025) Can you help to close the most recent discussion in Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship#Requested move 31 March 2025 ? I think the discussion has finished and the page now can change its name. Thank you! I am not able to close by myself because i was the creator of it and someone else needs to close it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey1996ss (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Nathan Newman (writer)#Requested move 2 April 2025

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 2 April 2025) Last comment 15 days ago. The requested move discussion has been inactive for over two weeks and appears to be stale. Requesting a neutral closer to assess and formally close the discussion. 149.40.127.191 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Binary_Alignment_Map#Requested_move_9_April_2025

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 8 April 2025) Last !comment 35 days ago. Requesting closure by a neutral party of a contested technical move that currently has three comments and last comment was over a month ago. Thanks! WeWake (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Wharekahika#Requested move 22 April 2025

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 22 April 2025) It could be relisted with a notice at WPNZ if consensus is unclear but it should either be relisted or closed with a consensus. I am not sure if I am able to relist given I started the RM. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth#Requested move 18 May 2025

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 18 May 2025) Further discussion is unlikely to change the outcome.Legend of 14 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

      (Initiated 82 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

      (Initiated 79 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Logo change

      (Initiated 6 days ago on 28 May 2025) Requesting formal closure since the milestone may get stale soon. Feel free to move to another section if this is not the right one. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

      Report
      Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 11848 total) (Purge)
      Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
      User talk:Welsh000 2025-06-03 07:26 indefinite move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked DoubleGrazing
      Goat 2025-06-03 00:28 2025-06-17 00:28 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG
      Al-Najjar family massacre 2025-06-02 21:31 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1293634937#Al-Najjar family massacre Newslinger
      Global March to Gaza 2025-06-02 21:31 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1293634773#Global March to Gaza Newslinger
      Musa family airstrike 2025-06-02 21:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1293634485#Musa family airstrike Newslinger
      List of attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats 2025-06-02 19:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Chetsford
      1969 Israeli embassies and El Al attacks 2025-06-02 19:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Chetsford
      2025 Boulder fire attack 2025-06-02 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:AELOG/2025/A-I Chetsford
      Template:Row hover highlight/styles.css 2025-06-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Row hover highlight 2025-06-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 June 2025 – present) 2025-06-02 12:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Lectonar
      Draft:Atikur Rahman MaHi 2025-06-02 08:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, mirroring Draft:Atikur Rahman Mahi DoubleGrazing
      User talk:202.176.128.34 2025-06-02 08:29 2025-06-12 08:29 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
      Operation Spider's Web 2025-06-01 21:46 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      Tupolev Tu-95 2025-06-01 21:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter
      June 2025 Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases 2025-06-01 20:44 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      Template:User iso15924 2025-06-01 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Contentious topics/talk notice/ECR warning 2025-06-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4288 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes 2025-06-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine 2025-06-01 16:31 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree
      Timeline of the Gaza war (16 May 2025 – present) 2025-06-01 13:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1293365730#Timeline of the Gaza war (16 May 2025 – present) Newslinger
      Talk:War 2 (2025) 2025-06-01 08:04 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
      Traditional songs of Kathmandu 2025-05-31 22:00 2025-06-14 22:00 move Shorten protection time Liz
      User talk:Premeditated Chaos 2025-05-31 20:56 indefinite move Page-move vandalism Guerillero
      Template:Flag medalist/core 2025-05-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Flag medalist 2025-05-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Allegations of West Bank genocide 2025-05-31 16:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CTOP/AI Significa liberdade
      Louise Gullifer 2025-05-31 16:40 2025-06-07 16:40 edit Persistent sock puppetry Asilvering
      War 2 (2025) 2025-05-30 23:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Explicit
      Nilesh Patel 2025-05-30 19:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
      Mahmood Abu Watfa 2025-05-30 15:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement logged [1] Chetsford

      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.[2]

      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[3].
      • Nuclear weapons are a Hungarian invention, not an American invention[4]
      • The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer in 1903 even though it had already been invented in 1887[5]

      Plus, he edit wars, deletes other user's comments[6] 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?[7] 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[8] but consider "Now you are just being silly"[9] to be a personal attack. You deleted the comment you just linked to, calling it "spam".[10] 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:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

      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 or 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: [19] 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

      (non-admin closure) OP has a tendency to blow up content disputes inappropriately and bring them to the noticeboards. Two similar complaints on AN/I were closed by Swarm with a warning to the OP not to continue that behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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. [20]
      • Added information on opinions of Israeli ministers, well sourced. [21]
      • Tried to remove a weasel word.[22]
      • Tried to clarify an unsourced sentence.[23]

      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 or 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]

      Restrictions Proposed

      User:R9tgokunks appears to have the habit of yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute. The vandalism policy defines vandalism clearly, and states that the unwarranted allegation of vandalism is a personal attack. I propose that User:R9tgokunks be restricted from all posts to noticeboards except WP:AIV for six months so as to stop the waste of time of false claims of vandalism. Real vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV, where administrators will quickly sort out and dismiss false reports, and possibly block the reporters. Otherwise, this editor is a vexatious litigant and needs to be restricted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This was 5 days ago, and I've moved on from the articles in question it per Nil Einne (talk · contribs). R9tgokunks ✡ 00:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      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

      Unblocked. GABgab 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      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 or 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]
      @GreenMeansGo: TheOldJacobite has remove the most of the cast listed in the infobox as seen on this diff, which those names were on the billing board of that theatrical poster. He's becoming a problem editor and his behavior is getting way out of hand. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I have restored the previous version, since, among other things, the reverts reintroduced obvious typographical errors, and have left them a warning, since apparently they can't be bothered to respond here or on the talk page. If the edit warring continues, the appropriate course of action would probably be to file a report at WP:ANEW. GMGtalk 16:24, 19 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]
      OK, seems reasonable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong way around. Policy dictates that we should not delete when alternatives exist and nuking a number of pages just because some are bad violates both the editing and the deletion policy and I will personally WP:TROUT any admin who uses Nuke to deal with those articles without a very clear consensus (which does and should not exist here). A random quick look of the articles created finds Ke Apon Ke Por (TV series) and The Rain (film), both clearly notable subjects that should not be deleted. AFD and PROD can easily handle the rest, especially since similar kinds of articles can be grouped in a single AFD. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 20 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.

      Follow-up note for future reference, e.g. in a case seeking individual punitive action: cunt is generally regarded as a "top-ten" terrible word in American English, but this is not true across English dialects; in British English (where it's more often applied to men), it's a fairly mild expletive, with a different implication. Beware NPA/CIVIL claims that are not cross-culturally valid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      While in Australia, it is a common joke that you call your best friends "cunts", or other expletives, with an affectionate tone of course, because we can also insult with it as well. We're a contradictory bunch. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      SMcCandlish, it's one of the worst words you can use in the UK. BBC editorial guidelines regard it as worse than the n-word: "The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as [c**t], motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and [n-word] are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences." SarahSV (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      BBC has a global audience including millions of Americans. I'm hardly making up what I'm saying. Just Google it [34]; the matter has been discussed to death for years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no horse in this race one way or another, but my understanding regarding cultural awareness regarding civility is that we should avoid using certain words that might be construed as lacking civility in other cultures. That made sense to me. Even if one were not the direct recipient of a C-bomb, it would still potentially present a hostile working environment to that person. But now, are you saying that we should not be saying people are being incivil when they're using words such as "cunt" to address other editors? You can't have it both ways.--WaltCip (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      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]
      So, instead of waiting around all day for a response; Pretend for a minute that TenPoundHammer wasn't your buddy. And you saw him "section blanking" sourced content using a one-word edit summary, "no". What would you have done? Then he does it again and again. What would you have done to someone who was not your buddy? 
      And then you also see him section blanking sourced content but used a longer edit summary, "clearly unreliable sources, presence of "richard madenfort" indicates that at least some of this was faked", but how does one fake that content from that source? And, as previously asked, why would that source get it wrong? Clearly someone has a personal bias against this person, but the entire personnel list on these articles are being removed. I mean, how many personnel sections cite no source at all, but here you have them being removed for being sourced? 
      And then, when this inappropriate removal of content was reverted: I have been called a sock for adding content (I view adding content and reverting content as separate issues). How would you react if I called him underwear for removing the content in the first place? And I was given a "final warning" with the threat of losing the ability to edit. How does any of this make sense? I am in trouble for reverting someone's inappropriate section blanking. And, again, as previously mentioned, a copy of the liner notes and a site responsible for paying workers is considered unreliable? 207.148.4.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 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]
      I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon#Challenge to your closure of discussion on religious pre- and post-nominals:

      I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 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

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
      Closing in light of Zawl retiring from WP, as a probable fallout of the way, this thread has progressed.For the record, on the basis of a multitude of factors, there's an unanimous consensus that the revocation of the right was appropriate.~ Winged BladesGodric 07:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      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]
      Per my experience at move discussions, usually a primary topic is determined if it is the more likely term and page views can be an indicator of that. — Zawl 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, technically page views can be considered one aspect of figuring out a primary topic. But that said, it was still a terrible decision you made overall here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 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]
      Were you just hoping certain people wouldn't happen to see this or something? Because I can definitely attest to some very questionable page moves of yours within the last year. You must be aware of those arguments that happened months back that I tried to mediate with you and another editor. You both were making weird page moves for the sole reason of getting "redirect" creation credit, which is ridiculous on multiple levels. I can't believe you didn't lose any special rights then. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The dispute between me and Ss112 on your talk page happened before I was granted the page mover right and I've not performed any controversial moves without consensus since then until this one. — Zawl 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, then you probably should not have ever had it to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Primefac and Sagecross in that I would not have initially granted the right given concerns with how you view the page move process, and while we typically don't remove for diagreement on granting criteria, if the same concerns are manifest after the flag has been granted, and demonstrated poor judgement hasn't changed some months later, then yes, I think removal is justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm on the fence on this; on the one hand it was just one bad page move. On the other hand, it was an eggregiously bad pagemove; in this case the use of an advanced permission in order to "win" a conflict with another user. That's basically one of the biggest no-nos towards having advanced permissions. I'll not endorse nor object to the removal of the right, except to note that. --Jayron32 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal - based on my past experience with the editor, it never should have been given in the first place. He already had a history of disruptive page moves before this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      ​What other page moves has the user made that could be considered disruptive? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Insertcleverphrasehere - This discussion last August 2017 details some of the issues he was having with editor Ss112, though I believe there was more, because I thought it ended with me giving them both a final warning to stop bickering over stupid stuff like who gets credit for creating redirects, and that's not really documented here. We can ask Ss112 for more examples - he's been mentioned enough here that he should probably be notified of this discussion anyways - but I was hoping it wouldn't come to that, as the discussions will almost certainly devolve into a mess with the two of them interacting. (Though I suppose it doesn't matter much, it seeming pretty unlikely that there will be consensus to overturn this action anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      ​Huh... that is... certainly illuminating. I agree that the tools should not have been granted in the first place based on this interaction alone. thanks for providing a link to the discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sergecross73: I don't have much to say here, except to say I noticed You Owe Me being turned into the Chainsmokers page when Zawl began linking to that page on Chainsmokers articles I have watchlisted. I was confused, because I had seen another editor already create disambiguated redirects for the song because You Owe Me already existed as an article about the Nas song. Zawl's history of having made underhanded page moves is already being considered by most editors commenting here it appears, so I don't think I need to go into that. You've also already linked to my raising it on your talk page previously above, as those were times when Zawl's actions concerned a page or redirect I had created. Ss112 22:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal for the use of a more advanced permission to "win" a conflict with another user. I would also caution Alex Shih to be far more careful when granting the more advanced permissions. I'd say, to both parties, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, slow down and do things in a more considerate and careful manner. Nick (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal - If you think an article is PRIMARYTOPIC and all that then you fire up an RM .... You don't start moving articles based on your own assumption ...... If there is conflict between Zawl and Ss112 then that's a whole new reason why you don't move articles, Support removal. –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal - Sorry Zawl but comments like: "My title selection is based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as this song will eventually become the primary topic. It's just a matter of time." (from the discussion page) are the worst kind of primary topic arguments. Furthermore, when another user requested that your creation be moved back to You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) you should have immediately done so and then used a formal RM to request your preferred title if you still thought it was appropriate. The other user cannot revert your bold move without the page mover tools and they should only be used uncontroversially, so any use that turns out to be controversial should be self-reverted on request. You don't buckle down and start arguing that yours is the primary topic based on a two day old song. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Maybe I don't understand something, but I have the Page Mover privilege, and it was my understanding that I had been granted it to use in cases that were not judgment calls. It appears that User:Zahl, I mean User:Zawl, used the Page Mover right to change which of various topics for which there is a disambiguation is the primary. That is a judgment call, and it sounds as though they have a different concept of Page Mover than I do. If they used it for a judgment call without letting the community decide, and the privilege is supposed to be used in unambiguous cases, then I support the removal. Maybe I don't understand the privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Other than that, it appears that User:Zahl's defense is Too Long, Difficult to Read, and when someone posts an overly long defense, it makes me think that they are angry rather than being reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal - You used your right to win an argument. Enough said. Nihlus 23:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal, per WP:PMRR #1 and #4 (possibly also #2), and I have to agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's and Sergecross73's view of the multiple kinds of lack of judgement and understanding displayed. Most of what the appellant, Zawl, is providing is vociferous argument of righteousness, that Zawl's interpretation of and predictions about WP:AT and WP:DAB and related naming conventions are necessarily correct, when an RM-experienced admin is saying otherwise, there's no evidence for consensus in favor Zawl's assessment (it's an RM conversation Zawl avoided having), and they took action to get their "right version" immediately after someone requested the "wrong" one at WP:RM/TR. PMRR doesn't require that a pattern of problematic RM activity become established after granting the bit, only that it exist at all; this editor's history prior to receiving the bit, combined with more recent action afterward, would appear to establish such a pattern. The bit arguably should not have been granted in the first place, but it happened before more scrutiny, similar to that for template-editor, was applied to page-mover requests.

        The WP:NOTGETTINGIT tenor of Zawl's objections reminds me strongly of those of the person who had three AEs against them almost concurrently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189 – an attempt to prove an "injustice" by wikilawyering hotly over technicalities, rather than an admission of error in the eyes of the community and its admins. (This is not an incurable problem. Zawl: Learn from the mistakes of others, or be doomed to repeat them. The mistake here is in thinking "I'm sure I'm right" equals "Wikipedia agrees I'm right" – something that requires discussion, not action. I learned that the hard way myself several years ago. The correct WP:POLICY arguments mean nothing if the argument isn't aired.)

        PS: Zawl's idea that a 2-day old song magically becomes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on a spike in search hits is just flat-out wrong. This argument is rejected as silly WP:RECENTISM every time it comes up at RM. The editor lacks sufficient understanding of how RM operates to be a page-mover at this time, even if the bulk of their moves to date have incidentally not been problematic. An untrained, unsafe handler at the gun or archery range may shoot properly downrange 1000 times, but they only have to shoot one person in the foot out of carelessness – much less protest the other person shouldn't have been in the way – to get banned from the range.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Endorse removal Having been involved in the previous silliness at Sergecross's talk page where Zawl used a unicode character to start a new article, then redirected the existing redirect which occupied the correct valid name, it never should have been granted. But its sometimes hard to find those incidents when reviewing someone. This entire idea of moving the Nas song with the rationale of essentially "there are more than one song with the name", then replacing it with another song rather than a disamb, was silly and transparent from the start. Nothing but an attempt to grab "creation" credit, as seen numerous times before. I'm not going to dig for them right now but I think there's been other incidents such as moving things to draftspace, getting the redirect speedied, then recreating it. I'd almost suggest the user be barred from moving songs/albums entirely or changing their redirect targets. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – I don't mean to draw Alex Shih's granting of the permission into question—I've had no contact with them since—but just to clear something up: I did contact them after they granted Zawl the permission (in July 2017), as I thought something like this may happen, and I linked them to Sergecross's talk page. Alex's response read in part: "As I did not see this e-mail in time, I will leave another message to the editor to make it clear that any controversial editing behavior and problematic page moves will result in the user access being revoked, which can be done by any admin at anytime. Whenever that happens, just let me, Sergecross73, or anybody else know." As for my opinion in this matter, I agree with pretty much all of what Ferret said directly above, so naturally, endorse removal. My opinion after bringing this to the attention of Huon and Sergecross (multiple times) hasn't changed. Zawl appears to have "retired" for now but I'm sure all here have seen this happen before during heated times. Ss112 04:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Ss112. For those interested, the message I left for Zawl can be found here. Alex Shih (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse removal, mainly per Ferret and Sergecross. After the discussion that took place on my talk page, I delved a bit deeper and noticed this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. I'm sure Zawl is good in other areas of the encyclopedia, but perhaps they should take a step away from page moving for the time being. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Like a lot have said above, The Chainsmokers song clearly isn't the primary topic and the initial move by Zawl was a horrible decision. On a side note, I was the editor who originally redirected You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) as I saw You Owe Me was already occupied by the Nas song. I'm almost certain that Zawl, given their history, saw that I've already redirected their desired namespace, and went ahead to make such an unwarranted move just so they don't have to write on a redirect somebody else has created. It appears they still haven't let go of the credit thing... Hayman30 (talk) 07:26, 20 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 Krajoyn

      After today's incarnation, Krajoyn (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by Favonian (talk · contribs) on 9 November 2017. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krajoyn/Archive which has 36 separate investigations, all with at least one registered account and some cases have IP addresses. The user ignores the policy of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, leading them to the illegitimate use of multiple accounts. Some of the socks have been used to revert edits by Favonian and others, and engaging in one-way edit wars and some articles are semi-protected due to sock puppetry as Favonian claims that the edits are made by Krajoyn. That was before I realised this was Krajoyn. Loads of sock accounts have been identified today, most of them have edited articles, they are the most recent sockpuppet accounts that some are aware of. Given the number of sockpuppet accounts identified over the months 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 Krajoyn understand the seriousness of the abusive behaviour.

      I am considering a formal community ban against Krajoyn (talk · contribs), applied to en.wikipedia, of a minimum of six months from the last edit they make with any account or via any IP address.

      Guess this is his contribution to the discussion. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      User:ZEdzEd3168

      I'm also concern with the block of ZEdzEd3168 (talk · contribs). This user is come from Chinese Wikipedia. He is definitely not User:Dragoon17cc. He thinks that pretending a LTA can make the community "hate" them more. He is still a new user, and he realises his mistake. He also promises not to abuse multiple accounts. He has already been unblocked in Chinese Wikipedia. I know that different sites have different rules. Usually the indef blocked user have to follow Wikipedia:SO, waiting 6 months without socking. After unblocking in Chinese Wikipedia, he has made a lot of good edits. He should be given another chance.

      Having read through the SPI archive at both English and Chinese Wikipedia, some of the details concerning this user are very confusing. I have also been reading the now removed talk page record ([35]), it appears that many of the context were off-wiki and is not really relevant here anyway. I have left a note for this user in regards on how to move forward with their appeal. As B dash has launched a new SPI, we will probably have to wait for the CU result there. In the meanwhile, ZEdzEd3168 would probably want to write a proper standard offer request so that it can be considered by the community. Alex Shih (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think staying with these accounts as socks of each other and this accounts (including Dragoon17cc) as separate would be fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Request from New Page Patrol

      New Page Patrol could use some experienced help
      • While we have managed to significantly reduce the New Page Patrol backlog during our recent backlog drive we are still a ways away from reducing it below the 90 day google index point. New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with with the influx of new articles and the end of the initial phase of ACTRIAL is just around the corner. It is likely to hit us hard with even more articles to review each day and we need to be in a good position to deal with it if possible.
      • We could use a few extra experienced hands on deck if anyone has time available.
      • If you aren't admin and would like to help, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      User rights removal

      Please remove my NPP permissions as I have lately been inactive on this field. Thanks for your time --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Stop by WP:PERM to request again in the future. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Mediawiki space page creation

      Please have a look at this request. I am developing a tool to help new editors and a page needs to be created in order to have a warning message on the edit of some special pages. Thank you for your assistance.   ManosHacker talk 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @ManosHacker: I don't think that is the right page. It looks like you want an edit notice for when someone edits a specific page. Which page is that (provide the edit url someone will be on when you want them to see the notice). — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi xaosflux thank you for your reply. I need an edit notice for every subpage edit of Template:Article page template, but not the page itself. This page "hosts" all article templates below it, and all these need this special care, not one page.   ManosHacker talk 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @ManosHacker: Do you mean these? — xaosflux Talk 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      And is having the notice on the base actually a problem? If not you can just make this at Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Article page template. — xaosflux Talk 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes xaosflux, it is for these pages and I do not have a problem if the base page gets the notice, too, I can detect the page and avoid the display using code. These pages have to be as clean as possible because they temselves are a base for articles and newbies get confused. If there is a clean way not needing admin rights, then I will gladly follow it. Is there a link on how I can make Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Article page template work?   ManosHacker talk 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      I tried to create the page and it says I have to be a Template Editor. Well I am not, really. If I apply for template editor and get the right, but still cannot edit Mediawiki namespace, then yes, please build the notice you recommended, for now.   ManosHacker talk 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @ManosHacker: I created it for you, try it out. You should be able to edit it as well now. — xaosflux Talk 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters

      There is currently an RfC being held at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters about an update to the banning policy for repeat sockmasters. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=826768081"