Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.

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

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal[edit]

(Initiated 84 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal? The closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism[edit]

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: ADL criticism[edit]

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: ADL criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: ADL criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series[edit]

(Initiated 61 days ago on 20 December 2018) This RfC and the one immediately below are part of an ongoing dispute regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht as a military honor. See related discussions at MILHIST project: [1][2]dlthewave 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945[edit]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 21 December 2018) See above for details. –dlthewave 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tamika Mallory#RfC on anti-semitism in lede[edit]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 28 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamika Mallory#RfC on anti-semitism in lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I would close this one... if I could understand which sentence the editors wanted to include. Things weren't properly factored out for sure. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 06:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:New Year's Day#New Year's - bad punctuation?[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 1 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Day#New Year's - bad punctuation?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 3 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Was archived to Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 47#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime without closure --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Commas in DYK[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 January 2019) Hi. Would an experienced editor please close this RfC? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC about double parenthetical disambiguation[edit]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC about double parenthetical disambiguation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#rfc on Jesus' ancestry[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#rfc on Jesus' ancestry? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

CFDs (general)[edit]

(Initiated 97 days ago on 15 November 2018) General comment about CFD closures (not sure if this is the right place to post but please move it to the correct place if you know a better place): there has been hardly any administrators' closures at WP:CFD for multiple weeks on a row now. Consequently, the backlog is growing rapidly. Would a few administrators tackle the pile together please? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#People of African descent[edit]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota[edit]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Supercentenarian CFDs[edit]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 December 2018) At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:African-American supercentenarians
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Singaporean supercentenarians
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Spanish supercentenarians
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Nigerian supercentenarians
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Hungarian supercentenarians
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:German supercentenarians
  7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Turkish supercentenarians
  8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians
  9. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians
  10. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Norwegian supercentenarians
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cfr of Category:Real Madrid presidents[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 13 January 2019) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 13#Category:Real Madrid presidents Two admins made "speedy renaming" vote and one more user support the move as well as me as nominator. Matthew hk (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (11 out of 1639 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Manny Machado 2019-02-19 18:16 2019-02-22 16:35 edit Muboshgu
Carlos Marighella 2019-02-19 14:37 2019-02-21 14:37 edit,move Ivanvector
Invasions of the British Isles 2019-02-19 08:09 2019-02-22 08:09 edit,move Lectonar
Ahsan Rahim 2019-02-18 12:33 2019-08-18 12:33 create Lectonar
Antares 2019-02-18 06:25 2019-04-18 06:25 edit,move Anna Frodesiak
Kartikeya gummakonda 2019-02-17 18:31 indefinite create Caknuck
Signature Bank 2019-02-17 15:39 2019-03-17 15:39 edit,move Jpgordon
1947 Poonch rebellion 2019-02-17 08:58 2020-02-17 08:58 edit,move Berean Hunter
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 2019-02-17 08:57 2020-02-17 08:57 edit,move Berean Hunter
Alastair Lamb 2019-02-17 08:40 2020-02-17 08:40 edit,move Berean Hunter
Olwen Kelly 2019-02-16 03:42 indefinite create Ad Orientem

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict[edit]

In a discussion above a number of editors have begun discussing restricting edits to pages related to conflicts between India and Pakistan to users with extended confirmed rights. It's buried in an unblock request from another editor which isn't really related and wouldn't be affected by that restriction, so I'm formalizing the proposal and breaking it out for discussion. I will post notes in relevant places after I post this.

As many of you know, this topic is plagued by sockpuppetry (including ban evasion and likely good-hand-bad-hand abuse) and it's strongly suspected by many editors that groups on both sides of the conflict are recruiting new editors to falsely influence consensus through civil (and sometimes not-so-civil) POV pushing, and the use of brigading tactics. The topic is already under a broader set of Arbitration discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA) which largely fail to address this "bigger picture" problem, except when incidents have already occurred. The conditions here are similar to the editing issues facing gamergate and the Israel-Palestine conflict before similar restrictions were put in place for those topics (see discussions here and here). In those cases the restrictions applied to the arbitration cases but in this instance the proposed restriction would cover a much narrower subset of topics, so I am proposing it as a community general sanction.

Proposed (parts copied from the relevant Israel-Palestine restriction): All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. Editors who do not meet the extended confirmed threshold may request edits on an article's talk page, subject to discussion and consensus. On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion.

Please discuss below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • My gut reaction is that we already have the authority under the existing DS to apply ECP as needed and that it should be used liberally in this area. I'd be hesitant to bring about a new area that is 100% under ECP because of how difficult the conflict is to define. We could get a situation where all of South Asia is more or less blue locked, which is what we had for a while with the Middle East. It seems easier just to apply ECP on the first instance of disruptive socking/meat/whatever, and log it as an AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • TonyBallioni is right. All it needs is admins prepared to do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • How will that solve this newest drama-fest that popped up an hour ago, over ANI? WBGconverse 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The problem with this is that it can act as a reverse honeypot trap - the conflict branches out onto less and less related topics, and thus so do the editing restrictions - topics to do with the individual countries, at a minimum, would see a spike. It's not that I don't see the issue, it's just that I'd rather the splash damage. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cautious support - I admit that 30/500 is no panacea, but it will help. The problem is "brigading" as Ivanvector has pointed out. Each country's editors want the viewpoints favourable to their country to be represented and those favourable to the other country to be eliminated. The former is apparently ok by our WP:NPOV policy (even though there are struggles to get the WP:WEIGHTs up) but the latter can only be achieved by demonising all the editors that stand in the way and the sources and scholars that stand in the way. For that, brigading is needed. If you can gather big enough a brigade you can shout down the other brigade. Brigades are cheap these days. You just go to your favourite internet forum and shout, saying "our country's honour is at stake". People will line up. They may not know X from Y. But that doesn't matter. All they need to know is cut-and-paste. Any mobile phone will do. That is the environment we are in at the moment. A 30/500 protection will at least dampen this. The new recruits will need to stick around for 30 days, which might try their patience a little. But determined nationalists will stick around, and pass the goal posts. Plus we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is itself an internet forum. There are plenty of potential recruits available right here. Those people might have already passed the 30/500 goal post. So the problems won't go away. They might just become a little bit easier. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support as one major and important step in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This thing already exists. A number of articles about other subjects like castes, geography, and more other subjects under ARBIPA are already ECP for various reasons. GenuineArt (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Ivanvector is proposing a blanket use of it for the Indo-Pakistani conflict stuff, which certainly is not how it is done for caste or geography articles. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't we need an explicit ArbCom decision to authorize preventive ec protection, similarly to ARBPIA?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cautious support. I agree with a lot of what TonyBallioni has said above about the need for caution and the dangers of defining the conflict too broadly. That said; we already have used this particular scope for topic-bans, including last year's mass t-ban, because it is a fairly narrow locus (relative to all of ARBIPA) that still contains a lot of disruption. The issue with the current regime isn't that admins aren't using our discretion to protect pages when necessary; it's that pages that need protection often do not come to our attention. As a result of off-wiki canvassing, a ridiculous number of distinct sockmasters with varied agendas, and increasing awareness of how CUs may be circumvented, it is often not worth an experienced editor's time to investigate a new account and file an SPI. Some of socks are caught anyway (Bbb23 really needs to get a medal for everything that they do) but a lot of others are not, and especially if they are throwaway accounts created for the sake of a single conflict or discussion, may never be. Also, protecting a single page often has the result of driving the nationalist conflict to different pages. The net result is that we have sustained disruption on a number of pages that is too large to be effectively patrolled by experienced editors who have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. In that respect, preventative protection would help considerably. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging @GoldenRing, NeilN, JzG, Bishonen, Sandstein, Abecedare, BU Rob13, and Doug Weller: As all of you have sanctioned editors under ARBIPA in the last year, I think your opinions here would be valuable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Make it so. This will result in less drama and fewer sanctions of inexperienced editors unfamiliar with our ways. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes yes yes. This topic is a mess of editors broadly suspected to be socks or meats but without any firm evidence of the same. This would significantly raise the effort required to make a sock ready to do battle. To answer a couple of objections above:
  • @Ymblanter: The community can impose whatever restrictions it likes, given a strong enough consensus.
  • @TonyBallioni: While it's true that we can apply ECP to individual pages, this particular topic is disruptive enough that I think it's worth having a preemptive rule. At present, it needs an administrator to come along and apply ECP, while this would allow any EC editor to revert changes by non-EC editors on any article falling under the restriction.
  • @Ivanvector: I'd prefer to see language that more closely mirrors the committee's ARBPIA restriction; in particular, I think the committee's "reasonably construed" language is important to avoid some of the problems others have alluded to above; this is narrower than the usual "broadly construed" language. I think the language about preferring enforcement through ECP would also be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact at first I copied the Israel-Palestine General Prohibition verbatim, only replacing "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" with "related to any conflict between India and Pakistan". But that prohibition was originally drafted before extended confirmed protection was a thing (I was involved in its drafting), you can see the original version in the "superseded versions" collapse here. Basically it read as it does now, but the second sentence read "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, ...." without the bit about EC. Some time after EC became available to admins the phrase about preferring the use of EC was shoehorned in, in typical Arbcom bureaucratic fashion, without fixing the rest of the sentence. In fact there's no reason to enforce that prohibition by any means other than EC protection, but all the old methods are still mentioned. Subsequent revisions also added the instructions for editors not meeting the criteria in bullet form, which I tried to fit into the restriction itself. Then it was too long so I started editing, and by the time I got through that I had basically rewritten the whole thing. But I agree that something like "reasonably construed" could be added back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) already apply to the India-Pakistan topic area, so admins can already use this to apply ECP to individual pages. Whether a broader community sanction is needed I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the particular dynamics in this topic area. Sandstein 09:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not only do discretionary sanctions already apply, any page experiencing issues of this nature can be just sent to RFPP where it will get ECP'd if necessary, a sanction is not required to allow ECP to be applied if there's already disruption occurring from new/autoconfirmed editors. Fish+Karate 10:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    My understanding is that we are discussing a preemptive protection. Requests for preemptive protection are routinely declined at RFPP, withe the exception of the ARBPIA articles which can be extended-confirmed protection any time, even if there is no ongoing or past disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    While I am someone who doesn't place much stock in preemptive protection, and that includes the ARBPIA articles, I would pay you the princely sum of $1 if you can show me an article pertaining to the India-Pakistan conflict that has never been subject to any disruptive or nationalistic editing. Preemptive is not something that applies here. Fish+Karate 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Bhaskar Sadashiv Soman was the Chief of the Naval Staff (India) during the 1965 war. After looking at every edit in its history, I don't believe that it's ever had any nationalistic or other disruptive editing, and the closest thing to an editing dispute in its history is [3], where someone declined a db-copyvio because the infringing text could simply be removed. You didn't specify what kind of dollar...I want a Gold dollar in perfect condition, please :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Excellent work! I bet it took some hunting, though. You have won 1 Liberian Dollar; it has a value of around US$0.0062. Let me know where to send it. Fish+Karate 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Actually not. I figured that a comparatively minor military figure would be less likely to get disruption (if the other side's never heard of him, they won't know to mangle his article), so I looked up the 1965 war and clicked the names of the various commanders in the infobox until I found one without a significant revision history. (Less revisions = less chance of disruption, since lots of reversions expands the history.) Then, all I had to do was page through the revisions. As for the money, send it to my former employer. Their resources helped me expand related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support as someone who frequently edits in the topic area. A step in the right direction. The topic area is infested with sock-puppets, and this is certainly going to help. --DBigXray 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with TonyBallioni - admins already have the authority to incrementally apply indefinite ECP to the articles that need it. I don't think they should be preemptively protected, but the threshold for protection should be very low (e.g. any reasonable request, even in response to a small number of disruptive edits). If you want preemptive protection, an amendment request should be put forward to Arbcom. MER-C 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    @MER-C: (and @Ymblanter:, since they raised this concern above) We do not need an amendment from ARBCOM, because Ivanvector is proposing community-authorized sanctions that happen to overlap with ARBIPA discretionary sanction. Procedurally, broad community consensus is quite sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    We've just got two complaints today, on this very board, within the scope of the Arbcom case, one of which is about this conflict. That and the considering the general lack of clue in this part of the world tips me over to cautiously support. MER-C 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Central Discussion - I suggest that this be added to the Cent discussion list - going off others on the list, it's a broad enough issue (with major potential ramifications) that it warrants it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done and thanks for the suggestion. Someone may want to tweak my description of the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Support Tony is right. We already have the authority to do this. Unfortunately, for the most part we haven't done it. I think there is a certain reluctance on the part of many admins (myself included) to push the ACDS button in all but the most egregious situations. And I also think that reluctance is generally good and healthy. I'm also not a big fan of one size fits all solutions to problems. That said, this really has become an area of pervasive and sometimes organized disruptive editing. IMO it is at least as bad as that which in the past afflicted the more highly trafficked Arab Israeli related articles. So yeah, this probably is something that needs to be done though I regret that necessity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cautious support I get the "reverse honey trap" argument and think there is a strong possibility that it will balloon to cover all South Asia (e.g., Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan) but allowing sock-puppetry and brigading to rule the day is a worse outcome I feel. One merely means an overly-high level of protection, the other means Wiki relaying POV and potential false information. PS - but also, let's have a time limit at which we review whether this restriction is actually working. There's too many bans/restrictions that just get put in place and left there without anyone checking to see if they're still needed (e.g., is the Arbcom restriction on The Troubles still justified this far out from the Good Friday Agreement?). FOARP (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as it is applied relatively narrowly. GABgab 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The point of extended confirmed protection is to direct new users to discuss the issue on the talk page. This issue is probably among the top 5 most contentious in Wikipedia, with a 1.5 billion / 150 crore people being upset. People supporting Pakistan claim that Wikipedia is biased for India, and people in India claim that Wikipedia is biased for Pakistan, and I expect we have 100,000 / ek lakh complaints. Directing people to discuss this is our best response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: for mercy on my watchlist. The revert wars and POV-pushing are getting just as toxic on these as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions could be applied as TonyBallioni said, but there's no harm in generating a nice discussion here so admins protecting such pages can link to it. SITH (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The most complicated areas require the most experienced editors. This will free up admin time by reducing the number of PP requests and ANI threads, and it will encourage newer editors to go to the talk page first. Article stability will increase. There will be peace for a time. Levivich 07:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Extended confirmed is reasonable and appropriate here. Benjamin (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose/caution
    • Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. This part I completely concur with and I hope the above discussion will encourage uninvolved admins to use the tools they have already been granted by WP:ARBIPA (and which seems to have wide community support).
    • On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion. This is the part I am wary of since I forsee that this will result in edit wars, 3RR violations and meta-arguments on whether a page falls within the "India-Pakistan conflict" area or not (for example, does the whole or part of the Navjot Singh Sidhu article fall into that category due to this recent controversy?) Instead of extended-confirmed editors being free to flout 3RR if they have a "good-faith reason" to believe the article/topic/edit falls into the India-Pakistan conflict area, they should request EC protection and admins should respond more promptly and boldly.
And while I have your ears: the "India Pakistan conflict" has been and will probably remain a long-term problem area but over the next few months I expect that articles related to 2019 Indian general election will present an even larger number of, and more urgent, problems requiring admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Abecedare: That's an excellent point. I'm not even sure why that language was placed in the ARBPIA restriction, since surely the best way to deal with such a situation is to request EC protection citing the relevant sanction, thereby avoiding an edit-war. Ivanvector I'm wondering if you could strike that portion, even now, since most people supporting this have commented generally on the need for preemptive protection, and less on the specifics of the wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a misreading of my intent. What I mean is that if a non-EC editor makes an edit it may be reverted under this restriction, but equally it may be restored by any EC editor in good faith iff they take responsibility for the edit (the "editors may restore" directions at WP:EVADE though that's a bad place for it). At that point it is subject to 3RR or any more limiting revert restriction. If extended-confirmed editors start edit-warring over nitpicked interpretations of this restriction, then proceed with whatever your usual approach is to disruptive reversion. Just generally speaking, if you get two editors arguing over who it is that first crossed the bright line, a good approach is to block them both while directing them to WP:NOTTHEM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not like a discriminatory policy like this. As long as there is no EC protection on a page, all editors should have the same privilege to edit. It would not be fair to non-EC editors otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm not sure doing this preemptively is the best of ideas. As TonyBalloni, Abecedare and others point out, it is not always easy to figure out whether an article comes under the conflict and we could easily see this being applied too broadly. For example, if the conflict with Pakistan becomes one of the talking points in the upcoming Indian elections, we could easily end up with a large number of election related articles under ECP and would lose an important opportunity for adding new editors from India. Applying restrictions rather than ECP on individual articles, or on flash point areas like the Kashmir conflict, gives us some level of control while keeping more articles open to new editors. What we really need is a full time ombudsperson to monitor and manage these articles and, since that is hard, this is just a weak oppose. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to get accused of assuming bad faith here, but in my experience this is what actually happens. Yes, hot news topics and especially elections bring new editors to Wikipedia, and that's a good thing most of the time. New editors of course don't have a good idea of how things work here, and make entirely good-faith common mistakes like not providing a reference, editing based on "things they know", innocently edit warring, gentle POV skewing, and you know, stuff we've all seen and probably have had to gently coach a newbie on. The problem when it's a topic like this is that those new editors immediately get bitten by the established editors on one or the other sides of the conflict: their edit is reverted more or less immediately and they get a couple of big scary notices on their talk page about the discretionary sanctions and the potential punishments for not being perfect right out of the gate, or if they do have a good grasp of things they're immediately accused of being someone's sockpuppet. You can't really blame a new editor interested in Wikipedia from giving up on the project in short order when they encounter such behaviour. And yes, that aggressive behaviour is a problem and when we see it we should knock heads, but this is kind of a way to address it broadly. Not a fantastic solution, I know, but it's something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support There are many socks and meatpuppets. This will save the time of good faith editors. However those 500 edits should be on mainspace, not on talk pages or userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.216.115 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Pages related to the conflict have been under constant attack for a while to the point where ACP isn't enough. GN-z11 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with a clear definition of what a page must have in order to fall under the protection. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:NBA Referees[edit]

User has continued to edit List of National Basketball Association referees, ignoring 2 WP:PAID user warnings. Links are: List of National Basketball Association referees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NBA Referees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I notified them of this discussion on their talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is in fact a paid editor? I find it very unlikely that the NBA would be so dumb as to pay someone to push a POV under such a blatant username. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on the username, I believe it is reasonable to conclude they are likely a referee, who as an employee would be covered by WP:PAID even if the NBA had not explicitly assigned them to update the page. Regardless, failure to respond to the WP:PAID notices (even with an "I'm not paid" response) is a violation of the policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As the username suggests it is a group, I have blocked the username; given the UPE possibility, I hardblocked. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that they are likely to be a referee; the name sounds a lot more like someone interested in referees than, say, the National Basketball Referees Association. Editors are not required to respond to personal inquiries; the paid-contribution policy requires disclosure, but no one is required to declare that they are not a paid editor. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It is true no one is required to respond to any request or declare that they are not a paid editor- but the username policy is clear that usernames cannot be that of a group and "NBA Referees" at least suggests that the user represents a group. They need to clear that up- which may clear up the paid editing issue. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the name any more suggestive of a group account than the user name "F1fans". The name is a bit more generic than a group would ordinarily pick. The user's edits are not promotional—in fact, the most recent one removed needless praise. So while I wouldn't be shocked if the account were operated by a paid editor, for the moment I don't feel there is a strong argument to conclude this. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
UnitedStatesian, let me be very clear: no more personal attacks. WP:WIAPA demands serious evidence for serious accusations. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that a fan is the same thing as a referee, especially not an elite level referee. Anyone can be a fan. By comparison there are only 71 current NBA referees according to our article. There would be maybe a few hundred more former referees. You can't be an NBA referee unless you're appointed by the NBA. Maybe more to the point, if you call yourself "NBA Referees", it's fairly unclear if you're saying you represent or are associated with them in some way, or are just a fan of them. I mean if this editor was mostly editing random other pages, I'd have no concern, but given their edits have all been to the list page; at a minimum, I think there is easily possible confusion and uncertainty about who they are and whether they represent a group. BTW I'm not sure the fact that they have a blatant username says anything about them being paid. Many organisations (or more accurately the people at whatever level in whatever organisation involved in making the decision, in this case I assume there may be multiple) still have little idea how to engage with wikipedia. Not everyone is trying to sneak stuff in the back door, there are still many which are trying to be semi open and transparent, but hopeless failing to do what we expected. To be fair, in most cases these will confirm when challenged although of course, our talk pages probably still mystify a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that a fan is the same thing as a referee; I only meant to say that neither name seems like a name that an organization setting up a shared account would use. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Question re WP:NOSHARING[edit]

I recently came across a beautifully worded talk post from an editor who I have worked alongside for a long time.[4] It struck me as very strange, because throughout the time I have previously known him, his English has been very different [5][6][7][8]. It is the difference between a native and non-native speaker, a gap that cannot be bridged in a short period of time. Examples in the first link which I have not seen before from this user include colorful adverbs (e.g. aptly), particular latinate word choices (e.g. subsequently vs. “then/after/next”) and unblemished use of tense.

Is there any way to assess this further with respect to WP:NOSHARING, akin to an WP:SPI?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Please make sure that you notify the editor in question of this thread, as is required by the red box at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done this for you. SQLQuery me! 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[9][10]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Do with these what you will. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Shrike for a long time. Onceinawhile is correct that it is quite impossible for Shrike to have written the indicated text without help. Nobody can advance from C-grade English to A-grade overnight. Nableezy raised the same question on Shrike's talk page, which Shrike (whose English level had somehow returned to C-grade) refused to answer: I will not gonna answer You baseless WP:ASPERATIONS is another example of you WP:BATTLE mode.But I will say this I certainly didn't broke any rules. I'm not alleging that Shrike violated a policy, but I do believe an explanation is in order. Zerotalk 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Related, go to this version (earlier this year) of Shrike's talk, scroll down to the bottom, and un-hide the collapsed text; you'll see people asking the same question. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to Onceinawhile: The post you cite and link to in your OP was not on a talkpage, it was on this noticeboard (AN) [11]. It seems clear to me that Shrike had someone else word the post -- someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia's ins and outs and jargon. It was a very long and detailed, six-paragraph OP about TheGracefulSlick's transgressions. Shrike's subsequent posts in that same thread reverted to his inadequate English. So something is going on. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging Icewhiz as he may have some idea about this. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This appears quite speculative to me, and why has this become a problem a month after the fact. Might it be a timely response to this? Also within days of all of this happening – also involving Shrike. For all intents and purposes, the only thing that may be demonstrated is that Shrike had some help writing the post. Proxying? potentially, but Shrike and TGS have overlap in the IP editing area, and for whom would they be proxying? Their personally filing the case is entirely unsurprising, given that they also started the Your unblock conditions thread on TGS' talk page. Proxying, thus, appears unlikely. GizzyCatBella proposes a more likely explanation that [p]ossibly the editor received some assistance in drafting the note in perfect English [...]. Not unusual, or prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Shrike and I recently collaborated on a DYK. I noticed the line through TGS’s name on a talk page yesterday so traced back to find out why. I hope that is a clear explanation. It is the type of explanation I would like to hear from Shrike. His collaboration with the mystery second editor could be innocuous or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was about to AGF, but then you rounded it out with: or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Get evidence for the latter, or go do something else. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(EC) I don't quite understand why proxying is unlikely because Shrike was someone who we would have expected to file a case/has legitimate interest. If I were a banned (whether topic or site) or blocked editor or simply someone without active sanction who wanted to evade scrutiny, looking for someone to proxy for me I'd look for several things. One is someone who could be reasonably expected to file a case. I definitely would avoid choosing someone who had never ever been involved in the area ever before since frankly it would raise too many questions. Now I'd also choose someone who I'd believe would be compliant, preferably someone I was friends with to increase the chance of compliance, and someone who could reasonably have written the message I wrote for them. The first two could obviously apply if proxying were involved, there's no way for me to know. The last one clearly didn't happen. But it doesn't seem sufficient evidence in itself since frankly making sure that the person's English level and commenting style is similar enough to yours is probably one of the easiest things to miss. Remember that proxying is frowned upon, even if you had legitimate interest in what is being proxied and may have eventually written your own version of what's being proxied because banned means banned. At a minimum, it's reasonable that editors should disclose if what they're posting was actually written by a banned or blocked editor or even an editor in good standing who doesn't want to be associated with the complaint and they're posting because they agree it's a legitimate complaint. Note that I'm not saying this happened, but rather I see no reason to say it's unlikely from the limited evidence at hand. Personally, if Shrike at simply clarified when queried about it way back that they had help but the person who helped them wasn't blocked or banned, I would AGF on that. The fact they've been so evasive is what causes concern and makes me feel it would be best if they disclose to arbcom or whatever who helped them. (I'm not saying I would support any sanction if they don't but being part of a community means sometimes it's good if you deal with concerns even without any threat of sanction for not doing so.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne - I had forgotten that I had posted here and hadn't bothered to check whether someone had responded to me. In short, per WP:PROXYING, Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Shrike can do both. The discussion resulted in the community ban being reimposed (thus productive), and Shrike had reason to initiate the discussion (thus independent). If you have any evidence that Shrike was proxying for CrazyAces, even if it doesn't fall under proxying for the preceding reason, then post it. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done here. I'm not going to shove an editor under the proverbial bus without evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, by way of explanation: Some folks here do not seem to understand that it appears that Shrike may have been proxying for a banned editor. For those who don't know the whole long story, TheGracefulSlick was endlessly hounded and harassed by CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) and later by CrazyAces' numerous sockpuppets. If Shrike took the wording of that long involved AN filing from CrazyAces489 or his socks, that would be a breach. As it is, the only other person whom I can think would have the motive, knowledge, English skills, and wherewithal to write such a lengthy and detailed and nuanced and perfect-English filing of TheGracefulSlick's missteps would be Icewhiz, who had also apparently been observing his edits -- but there's no reason that Icewhiz would not have filed his own AN post rather than merely providing text to Shrike (who clearly does not have the ability to write what he posted in that AN filing). Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware that the TGS was hounded. In that case, I think it's more imperative that Shrike explain either privately or publicly who helped them with that post. Failing that, I'd be willing to support some sanction. Perhaps a topic ban on bringing on participating in complaints about other editors to AN//I or AE. They may still participate in any discussions about them of course. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging Nableezy, who brought the issue up on Shrike's talkpage last month. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • SHRIKE, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Y'all have too much free time. You're trying to rule on something you have no information on whatsoever, in order to enforce rules that are essentially unenforceable and fundamentally wrong. Hey, Shrike! Can I have the password to your email account? I wanna see who you've been chatting with. Oh, and please hand over your phone. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing to see here Even if Shrike is copying, verbatim, a banned editor, that's not prohibited under PROXYING. What Shrike is doing (assuming of course that they didn't just ask somebody for English help/spending some time drafting) is taking responsibility for the contents of the post, and they must demonstrate that the changes are productive. Given that the discussion in question lead to the reimposing of an indef on TGS, I think that is prima facie evidence that the post was productive. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Actually I'll put it more simply. If it is true that Shrike is proxying for a socking hounder, and Shrike wants to take responsibility for that edit, then they are taking responsibility for hounding another editor. We are also free to sanction them for engaging in hounding. There should never be any reason why hounding is acceptable, even if the editor being hounded deserves sanction by independent action unrelated to the hounding. This is not simply a matter of semantics since it's completely understandable an editor may feel angry by the fact that they were sanctioned from a discussion started effectively by a hounder, even if were they to look at it fairly, they would recognise the sanction itself was entirely justified. There is absolutely zero reason the discussion which lead to the sanction had to be so tainted. This isn't a case where the hounder managed to evade scrutiny and post before we caught them but one where if it is true, they were enabled by an editor here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One final comment on the issue for clarity, since I believe the AE case which was mentioned above has some similarities. If a sock initiates a case and it's closed as coming from a sock, I'm not saying the text has to be thrown out. Actually it may be okay to re-use the case verbatim. In such examples, at least it's disclosed and it's questionable if it's worth re-writing anything if it isn't needed. I consider this fairly different from an example where, unsolicited, an editor who has been hounding another editor to the extent of using socks, sends a case privately or semi-privately to an editor in good standing, and said editor in good standing posts it without disclosing this happened. IMO it should just be completely thrown out, i.e. I'm not even going to bother to read by any editor receiving it. But still, I could accept it if it was disclosed that it came or they believe it came from such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [12] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of WP:BATTLE behavior because I didn't allow his WP:POV a DYK nomination to be presented as he wanted--Shrike (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Shrike: ok, let us accept your word, that you didn't get help of the banned CrazyAces489 or his socks, but you did indeed get help of someone, let us call them X, with your English. Fair enough. My problem is that with, say the sentence that Nableezy quotes below: that sentence reveal an intimate knowledge of not only English, but with Wikipedia matter. My non−Wikipedian native−English speaking friends would simply not have managed to produce such a sentence. My question is then, is the person(s) who helped you with your English a present or former Wikipedian? If so, who? You don't have to tell me, but I really think you should disclose it to some "higher authority" here. Huldra (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote this also wrote this. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state also wrote "a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated WP:BAN. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim?, please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an SPI-equivalent process for NOSHARING?[edit]

The original question was whether there is an SPI-equivalent process that could be used to get to the bottom of this. I am assuming from the above that the answer is no, but can anyone confirm? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The process should be expected in the space above. Technically, 'administrator' (or perhaps checkuser) is the process if any action is expected, but here's a fairly good place to find them loitering. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what NOSHARING is meant to be, but if you mean the misuse of an account by multiple people, WP:ROLE I believe is the correct guideline, and if not SPI then right here is the venue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOSHARING is part of the username policy but also contains a prohibition on shared accounts. I would agree that SPI is the best place to deal with shared account issues. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

For his reports of other editors, Shrike has "gotten help with his English" from some undisclosed person who is obviously intimately well−versed in Wikipedia affairs. I think this other person should do his/her own reporting.

I therefor suggest the following motion: Shrike will in the future not be allowed to report any other editor to WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:AN/I.

  • Support, as nominator, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this ridiculous I am well versed with Wikipedia affairs so I don't need anyone help with this and as per Mr rnddude I did nothing wrong as I didn't break any policy.I think its time for WP:BOOMERANG as Huldra came here just because of our interaction in WP:ARBPIA to continue wage her WP:BATTLE here and make frivolous proposals. --Shrike (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As explained in the examples above, Shrike is obviously being fed text from someone familiar with WP:ARBPIA—text that the author is unable to post themselves. ARBPIA is possibly the most contentious topic at Wikipdia and Shrike's doubling-down with a denial of reality shows this remedy is the minimum requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I dont know why Shrike cant just tell us the truth. Who wrote the report? No, it was not "getting help with his English", that is absurd. The entirety of that report was written by somebody else. User:Shrike, who wrote it? If you cant, or wont, answer that Id support the proposal. nableezy - 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

New OTRS queues[edit]

In an early 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusive paid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related to privacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.

This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.

Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such as WP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.

The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues

Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018[edit]

In August of 2018, I was put under a topic ban. See Incident no. 989 topic ban. I have been active in geographical / historical related articles, as well as in the Arab-Israeli conflict area since joining Wikipedia and have tried to bring balance to articles touching upon this important topic. I wish to reaffirm my commitment to assume good faith and to treat all fellow editors with due respect, and whenever differences surface, I will do my utmost best to approach our differences with civility, looking for consensus to resolve any differences that might arise. No man can claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, as I have consistently tried to improve Wikipedia. In the field of ARBPI I have especially tried to bring balance and neutrality to the way Wikipedia reports on this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have gone through David's edits (which took ages, he's remained quite active) and do not see any instances of his breaching the topic ban since this back at the end of August, which was only debatably a breach, and resulted in a reasonable discussion on his talk page clarifying the scope of the topic ban. I do not see any editing that could be construed as nonconstructive or disruptive. I am happy to support removing this topic ban, with the usual caveat I'm sure David will be aware of - that resumption of any problematic behaviour would likely lead to a block, not just a topic ban. Fish+Karate 13:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Support I agree with Fish and karate I think David contributions are constructive moreover In my opinion he overcame the problems that led him to the topic ban. --Shrike (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Davidbena should show some understanding of what the problem was that led to the topic ban in order to give some assurance that they will be able to avoid similar problems. The fact that someone can edit non-contentious topics does not mean they are ready to return to the most contentious topic at Wikipedia (WP:ARBPIA). Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I supported a 6 month topic ban back on 3 August last year...and since that is over 6 months ago, I support the lifting of the topic ban now....with some trepidation, I confess. (I do hope he will refrain from speculations about who I am married to, my ethnicity, my education level, etc, etc, in the future.) To Davidbena's "plus−side" is definitely that he is studying, and looking up sources like few others in the I/P area. I just hope he will be quicker bringing any questionable sources to the RS boards in the future, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally I support the appeal, David is generally a very fine editor. I just hope the issues with OR do not reappear when he returns, but I personally see no reason to not allow his return. If there are future problems there can be a future ban. nableezy - 01:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the unban. If there does not appear to be a likelihood of continuing disruption, there is no need for the topic ban to continue. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

PC question[edit]

I have an IP who is desperate to insert some content on Conversion therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have been trying to talk them through the sourcing that would be needed for this to meet NPOV, but I suddenly thought: is rejecting a pending change counted as a revert? I assumed not, from the definition of PC, but actually thinking about it there is no real technical difference at the back end, it's only a procedural thing, and it turns out I have no idea one way or the other. Thoughts, please? Have I got this horribly wrong? Guy (Help!) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • To me; it's a revert and pretty obviously.WBGconverse 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I think not, but specific to this situation, and a good idea to ask the question in any case. The protection log for this page reads "non-autoconfirmed edits need review, as a minimum" beside the pending changes activation. You've given a valid reason to not accept the edit. The IP is edit-warring to re-add the same material without addressing the valid concern, they're just insisting that they're right. One or the other of you should have gone to the talk page by now, but WP:ONUS suggests that's on them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Following up: not to suggest wrongdoing by either party, I have protected the page for 2 days. If that is not enough time to resolve the issue please let me know; I have the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that it counts as a revert minus the standard exceptions. WP:RPC refers to the options the reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not. Someone adds content, and you reject it. If the individual kept adding it and kept adding it, and you kept rejecting it and kept rejecting it, the two of you could be sanctioned for edit-warring unless it were a case of 3RRNO. Better to protect the page; thank you Ivanvector. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Qatar issues Admin needed[edit]

Talk:Qatar Charity has several users concerned about whitewashing by single purpose accts, possible socks etc. Can an Admin look into this page. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:MKD[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hello. Please change the Macedonia with North Macedonia to Template:MKD. Do the same to Template:Country data Macedonia. Some changes maybe needed to other template as Template:Flagicon etc. Xaris333 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request edits to protected templates. — JJMC89(T·C) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request from User talk:Rickyc123[edit]

Rickyc123 unblocked with a topic ban on article creation for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rickyc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this discussion at ANI. Although this was a discretionary block by Swarm, there was consensus at the ANI thread to block.


I have copied over their request for unblock and the unblock discussion from their talk.

Unblock request

I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation.

Unblock discussion

Hello. What's different this time from last? What will you do instead?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123
Thanks. Awiting swarm-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: I suppose this would need to go back to ANI as it was imposed at THIS discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If unblocked, I believe there must be a TBAN on article creation for 6 months of active editing without further problems.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Unblock per WP:ROPE etc. I'm fine with a TBAN on article creation if desired. Hopefully lesson was learned. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we have them explain how copying within Wikipedia works? Copyright blocks are CIR blocks, and we shouldn’t be unblocking per SO until they demonstrate they know what the rules are. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the disputants in the days of weekly (if not daily) AN* threads regarding external communities demanding that en.WP be the full repository of KayFayBee, Fight stats, descriptions, etc because Wikipedia shows up so much in google searches over the need of the WP community for adhering to standards, I request from Rickyc123 a plan/explanation of how they intend to reconcile their purported desired editing (I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated.) with applicable standards (such as WP:MMANOT). Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    I have informed them of this question and have asked they respond on their talk page. I will be offline and unable to repost responses here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, based on this diff I must have to ask the question more plainly. What is the appropriate ballance between the needs of enthusiasts to have datum that are better serviced from external websites versus the need to keep wikipedia accurate? For example: Fighter XYZZY is in event YARRA. How soon after the conclusion of the fight would be appropriate for the typical case to update a fighter's stats be, expecially in light of WP:RS? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    In light of second reply. I express Decline. The suggestion that updating stats as soon as the fight is over (especially in light of potential disqualifications) suggests that they don't understand the concepts correctly. Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the repost, but Rickyc123 has asked for this to be retrieved from the archives to find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support conditional unblock Apart from the general dislike for wrestling topics here (due to the volume of drama in editing disputes there), I don't see any reason not to unblock. I agree with the conditional block on page creation, appealable after 6 months, that Dlohcierekim suggested earlier. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock - Seems to understand what they did wrong; if they go back to problematic behaviors, it's easy enough to reblock. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock WP:ROPE springs to mind. Also, as per what NorthBySouthBaranof says, if the same problematic editing returns, we can simply block again.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional unblock Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Closure of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.[edit]

I have queries about the closure of the RfC held here. The closing editor originally closed as "No consensus (whatsoever) emerged in this discussion! And It is closed with prejudice. Even while the participants have, only ever, acted in good faith." (diff) I queried the closing editor at their talk page about their rationale, as did several other editors, which saw the closing editor change their close statement to "...It is closed with aggrieve (The original use of "with prejudice" (as a qualifier) was a poorly thought choice. It was refactored to use "with aggrieve" instead)..." (diff) which sparked further confusion from myself and other editors at the term "with aggrieve". After further discussion with several editors, the closing editor once again changed their closing statement with an overhauled rationale (diff). While I belive no consensus is a reasonable outcome of the RfC, I still believe the line "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA." in the Naming convention in question contradicts MOS:US and a consensus at the Village pump. My questions are:

  • (1) is the closure rationale appropriate in each of the three versions the closing editor has given, particularily given the closing editor's annoyance that a request to close was made in the first place in their first two closing statements and their claim that the RfC was not publicised wide enough for their liking despite the fact it was advertised in the relevant WikiProject and the Village Pump.
  • (2) does the editor's closing mean an RfC on the same topic cannot be initiated again? The terms "closed with prejudice" and "closed with aggrieve" would seem to indicate that I or another editor is prevented from bringing up the issue again, but I (and another editor stated the same in discussion) could find the rationale or further detail for this.

I would appreciate some further guidance and clarity on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?(talk) 05:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I will not clutter this discussion with a response (at this time) as the questions are not directed to me. I am, nevertheless, willing, and standing by in case I am needed for any reason regarding this matter. Thank you. And best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect to John Cline, given the confusion, I think it would be best if this is re-closed by an admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am uncertain if this is a typing error alluding to an unquantified level of respect (I am not trying to imply that I am due any respect at all) or if it's a duly noted request that I voluntarily concur with the suggested corrective measure (seeing that the OP did not formally challenge the closure or ask that it be overturned). Before I respond, I'd like to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his intent. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Typo fixed, sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

IP block exempt request[edit]

Hi guys, sorry to ask here but can I get a quickie IP block exemption for User:Hariata77. Currently working at an Edit-a-thon and running into issues with one of the editors here being unable to edit do to a range block on her IP (I think the university uses a range of IPs distributed at random and some are blocked and others are not; the one she is on is blocked). I tried to go through the steps of requesting an IP block exemption from her account but it seems bugged and I really want to get her editing ASAP. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, now done. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Nyttend, Thanks mate. Issue fixed now. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Very good. Please notify me if you have any other issues. I'll try to be online for a few more hours (it's 7:45PM here in eastern North America) in case IPs get reassigned midway through your event and someone else gets rangeblocked. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Run a deletion script[edit]

Hi, could someone run a script to delete all 88 pages that are linked from User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/archive box? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, if you have Twinkle, it is the "d-batch" tab. Killiondude (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't run scripts. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Good grief! Your poor fingers! Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin Edit Filter Manager request for User:Suffusion of Yellow[edit]

Hello all, there is currently an open request to grant edit filter manager access to Suffusion of Yellow. To comment on this request please use the primary discussion at: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_filter_manager_right_for_Suffusion_of_Yellow. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes casting a supervote again[edit]

Even the blocking admin has no problem with Lourdes's unblock. In the future, please discuss matters with the specific person you have a question of before bringing them to the noticeboard. --Jayron32 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lourdes (talk · contribs) has cast a supervote in this ANI thread, unblocking Godsy (talk · contribs) after only three days when he was blocked indefinitely by Ivanvector for repeatedly violating an IBan. I did not participate in the ANI thread; however, there was a stronger consensus to retain the block (pending a more convincing appeal by Godsy), than there was to quickly lift it. I count 5 supports for the block staying in place, and 3.5 (GoldenRing was hesitant in his opinion) against. Lourdes stated that there was "broad consensus" for the quick unblock, but that's simply not true; in fact seemingly the reverse. This is not the first time Lourdes has cast a supervote at ANI; she did so in October [13] and was reverted by Bishonen [14]. My sense is that if this is becoming a pattern and Lourdes is casting supervotes and taking administrative actions (or making administrative warnings and/or threats) contrary to consensus, she probably needs to stay away from taking administrative actions at ANI until she learns how to assess, summarize, and abide by WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • If the consensus here is that I have misread the ANI discussions and that Godsy should remain blocked, then any administrator can and should reverse my administrative action. Lourdes 08:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to describe Lourdes' closure as a supervote. There was definitely a consensus that the indefinite block imposed by Ivanvector was too much, Ivan was ok with this being discussed/ameliorated, and within the discussion I see 4 editors arguing for a week or more (SerialNumber54129, power~enwiki, Dlohcierekim, Levivich), and 4 for less than this or no block at all (GoldenRing, Flooded w/them 100s, Atsme, Tavix). There was a very clear and definite consensus to shorten the block, and all that was left was to argue over degrees. When we're at the point of nitpicking over whether a block should be 4 days or 7 days, we could probably find better things to do. Fish+Karate 09:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Check again, please:
  1. Serial Number 54129: Indef, no appeal for at least six months
  2. Nil Eine: "an indef is IMO justified"
  3. Power~enwiki: at least a week
  4. Dlohcierekim: "a week or two .... Their unblock request is most unpromising"
  5. Flooded with them hundreds: "It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week"
  6. Levivich: "good block, .... Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another"; and he gave a very well-reasoned, very extensively researched; very extensively diffed, and multi-point rationale.
As someone who participated in the discussion, I think you are misreading the situation to match your own viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I gave no opinion on the ban, and if I had, it would have been to keep it in place until Godsy made it clear he was aware what he'd been doing (stalking LP's edits) was unacceptable and that he wouldn't do it again, for however long that took. I did miss Nil Einne's statement that an indef was justified, but there's still a consensus to reduce the length of the block, and all that remains is quibbles over a couple of days. As someone who once was accused of making two admins quit because I suggested one made a supervote, I am very clear on what does and does not constitute a supervote and I don't think this is one, really. I understand that your opinion on the matter may differ and am OK with that. Fish+Karate 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Edit: Fixed spelling of Nil Einne, with apologies. Fish+Karate 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I was surprised when I saw Lourdes had unblocked as it wasn't my reading of the ANI thread, and Godsy's appeal didn't really seem to sufficiently reflect an understanding of the problem with their editing. I'd note also that while IvanVector was fine with their block being overturned with consensus, or with a modification, they seemed to believe it was justified. (In other words, they too come into the 'support indef' category IMO.) Recognising indef is not permanent, a suitable appeal would be another avenue, but again this goes to whether the appeal really indicate an understanding of the problem with their editing. That said, I also don't understand why this wasn't raised with Lourdes first. Yes I know Legacypac said something, but Legacypac is not someone who should be quibbling over this. Frankly though my biggest concern is not whether or not there was consensus and for what action, or whether the appeal was sufficient, but whether enough time was allowed for discussion. While the discussion had been opened for a while, Levivich's analysis was fairly new. I get the feeling the discussion had died down and wasn't going to be resurrected, but I can't be sure. So it seems to me it would have been better to leave discussion for a few more days. This would also better fit in with the 'week' which seemed to be the lowest there was consensus for. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. As to what should happen here, I would say nothing. I don't think what happened is ideal, but I don't see sufficient evidence to sanction Lourdes (even if we could) or to overturn the unblock i.e. anything other than "nothing" will just make a bad situation worse. I think at a minimum Godsy is on notice they need to take greater care and if they don't, further sanction is likely to be incoming. The original proposal for a topic ban didn't pass. Maybe it would have passed with more time for discussion, but I'm not sure if it was looking good anyway. (One of the things which hadn't happened in that discussion was looking into Godsy's reply e.g. what happened on previous days with respect to Legacypac and Godsy and moves from user space to draft space.) Technically the discussion could continue, but with all that's happened, it seems unlikely anything productive will be achieved. This strikes me as one of those cases where there's no easy solution and anything that happens is going to leave a bunch of editors feeling a mistake was made. We can only hope it doesn't come to head, but if it does we will need to deal with it then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I support the unblock. Just let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse unblock (blocking admin comment) - I blocked indef expecting that the block would be lifted rather quickly, and there was no support for my proposed action. I don't think there was anyone in the thread saying Godsy should stay blocked forever, a reduced time-limited block would be purely punitive, and arguing over its length is a waste of resources. I don't know anything about a history of bad closes by Lourdes but this was not one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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